Here's the cause of some of the confusion. It seems that The New Republic isn't your father's Oldsmobile. From this source: The New Republic, From Wikipedia:
In 1975, the magazine was bought by Harvard lecturer Martin Peretz, who transformed TNR into its current incarnation. Peretz was a veteran of the New Left who had broken with that movement over its support of various Third World liberationist movements, particularly the Palestine Liberation Organization. Under Peretz TNR has advocated both strong U.S. support for Israel and a muscular U.S. foreign policy. During the 1980s the magazine generally supported President Reagan's anti-Communist foreign policy, including provision of aid to the Contras. It has also supported both Gulf Wars and, reflecting its belief in the moral efficacy of American power, intervention in "humanitarian" crises, such as those in Bosnia and Kosovo during the Yugoslav wars. ... Domestically, TNR supports policies first associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and such "New Democrats" as former-President Bill Clinton. These policies, while seeking to achieve the ends of traditional social welfare programs, often use market solutions as their means, and so are often called "business-friendly".In other words, they're still liberal, but not flaming, kool-aid drinking insane liberal. Kinda like John Kennedy liberals, is how I see it (but they could be worse than that). Anyway, they're capable of publishing an intelligent article from time to time.
Thanks for the update--I've been away longer than I realised. I thought New Republic was way out there, with Ramparts (anyone else remember them? How the mighty are fallen!)
I'm even old enough to remember a far distant time when the GOP didn't embrace the Inquisitors of Faith...but don't get me started on that one!