Beinhart/ "Dem's Need to be more Red State"/ get's book deal..$600,000!

[KoKo]

In December, New Republic editor Peter Beinart responded to John Kerry’s defeat with "A Fighting Faith," a 6,000-word manifesto on the future of the American left. Now Mr. Beinart will be stepping aside to spend the next eight months expanding his theory of New Liberalism into a book for HarperCollins—for an advance in the mid–six figures....snip.....But rival publishing sources said the deal was worth more than $600,000. Doubleday contemplated offering Mr. Beinart more than $650,000 for a two-book deal, according to a Random House source familiar with the bid.

snip...

Strain between Mr. Beinart and minority owner and editor in chief Martin Peretz had been visible during election season, with the hawkish Mr. Peretz less willing than Mr. Beinart to blame the Bush administration for cooking the evidence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But Mr. Beinart said that he plans to return to his post by Labor Day.

Mr. Beinart’s goals for the book, which is due out in 2006, are hardly modest. In his essay, he wrote of the need to wrest liberalism from the soft-on-terror likes of Michael Moore and refocus the Democratic Party on national security.

"The key things I want to try to argue are, first of all, I don’t think George W. Bush and the quote-unquote neocons are true heirs to the Cold War liberal tradition that I believe is the right tradition for Americans to connect with," Mr. Beinart said. "The idea is that through a reorientation of liberalism toward that idea, through this fight against totalitarian Islam, liberalism can achieve its fullest ideals."

To say nothing of achieving a hefty advance!
http://www.observer.com/pages/offtherec.asp

[ZombieNixon]

1. Peter Beinart is a world-class tool!

He's taken the NR away from its roots. Remember, the NR was founded by Henry Agard Wallace, who left the Truman Administration because of his hawkish stance on communism. While I don't agree with him on this matter, I doubt he'd be with Bush today, and I do agree with that. Beinart has drunk the Kool-Aid big time.

[quaoar]

3. Beinart must fancy himself the Irving Kristol of the Left

and must think he will one day be hailed as the father of Neoliberalism.

[marcologico]

2. Sheesh, if Peretz had his way it would be the "New Republican"

Go Dumbya! Give 'em hell in Iraq! Iran, you're next!

[DFLforever]

5. marcologico, you're quite good

when you're not attacking the upcoming chair of the DNC.;)

[marcologico]

6. hey thanks DFL. . .

nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong about Dean.

:toast:

[Eloriel]

9. You're the only one who seems to need proof

The rest of us are pretty much well convinced by now that nearly everything you think and say about Dean is wrong.

So, we'll all be here when you finally wake up. Here's hoping for an early call ('cause you're wearing on some of our nerves)!

[marcologico]

16. The only proof I've seen is that he's good at smearing Democrats.

Frankly I think he's in the wrong party, but like I say, I'd love to be proven wrong.

[FlxCuffs]

4. i loved his book

"Hollywood Interupted." Good read.

[KoKo]

7. I couldn't find the book in a Google Search. Are you talking about

a Larry Beinhart? Maybe it's a family member of his. :shrug:

Peter Beinhart writes for the New Republic and is supposted to be Left of Conservative Right...

[leesa]

8. Two wrongs don't make a right. Hardcore rwingers are greedy, cruel

and ignorant. Why on earth would we want to emulate them or legitamize their base?

[prairierose]

10. No we don't .....need to move right that is...

whu would anyone vote repug lite when they can get the whole greedy hog?
Vichy dems need to stop saying this.

We need to move back to our populist tradition.

[kodi]

11. a multinational media corp pays a liberal $600K to write about liberalism?

lets be sure of what is happening here. its called paying-off critics of the economic power-structure.

i would not be surprised if the dept of education was paying a part of Beinart's salary on this one.

[KoKo]

14. It's Harper-Collins....(part of which I believe is owned by Murdoch) but

that would explain their interest in publishing it given that some of us thought his article was self-serving hogwash. Others did believe it and it makes the conservatives happy to think we might need to copy them to win an election :shrug:

[hector459]

12. I don't buy the "Dems need to be Republicans" hype going around.

Sorry!

[TexasLawyer]

13. Book deals corrupt

Murdoch book deals corrupt absolutely. A lot of politically influential people are just plain being bought out (or rewarded for services previously rendered).

From an old issue of Mother Jones

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/1995/05/murdoch.html


Publisher to the powerful

May/June 1995 Issue


What did Rupert Murdoch want for his $4.5 million investment in Newt Gingrich? The tycoon's past dealings shed some light.


Consistency may be the hobgoblin of small minds--or the result of finding something that works. Take Rupert Murdoch's publishing house, HarperCollins. Not only does the venture make a gratifying amount of money selling books, but evidence suggests that it serves another, less visible function.

For example, HarperCollins sees fit to pay millions of dollars to Jeffrey Archer (former leader of the British conservatives and an influential member of the House of Lords) for novels many critics find of dubious quality. HarperCollins also advanced Margaret Thatcher $5.4 million for her almost unreadable memoirs, and is rumored to have given Deng Xiaoping's daughter, Deng "Maomao" Rong, a cool million for a book the New Yorker described as "a turgid, barely literate piece of propaganda." And finally, HarperCollins ignited a political firestorm when it attempted to give Newt Gingrich $4.5 million for his ruminations on the American political scene.

What do Britain, China, and the United States have in common? In each, Murdoch's enterprises have faced daunting regulatory and political obstacles. In England, Thatcher and her Tories allowed him to buy the London Times without a review from the Monopolies Commission. He also bought a half-interest and control of Britain's only satellite television service, despite the fact that Thatcher's own home secretary found the deal "not technically legal." In China, the politburo recently attempted to ban satellite dishes, which would make Murdoch's STAR TV signal inaccessible to the Chinese; with the ruler's daughter a new member of the HarperCollins' millionaire club, however, things may change. And in the U.S., where Murdoch's Fox TV network is under scrutiny for illegal foreign ownership, the Gingrich connection is of more than passing interest. (Fox's parent company, News Corporation Ltd., is owned by Murdoch's family trust, an Australian entity.)

<more>

[KoKo]

15. Harper-Collins published Naomi Klien's "No Logos" about the

exploitation of workers by Globalized Privatization, though. I guess Murdoch figures, if it will make him money he will do a deal. Klein said she told H-C that she would put in more negative info about Murdoch in her book and they told her it was okay.... who knows...but Murdoch is disgusting to me no matter what he does because of Fox and his business practices in general.

[cestpaspossible]

17. And they really went all out promoting it, didn't they?