In the left corner, Peter Beinart, who says only liberals can win the War on Terror.

In the right corner, Jim Geraghty, who says Democrats just don’t get it when it comes to fighting terrorism.

I smell a pay-per-view.

Jim: Wow. I’d love to do it, but Beinart’s doesn’t appear to be a terribly big guy - he’s a heavyweight only in the intellectual sense. There’s got to be somebody at the New Republic who is, as John Madden would describe, “just a big ol’ guy.”

Beinart’s an odd case, a topic I touched on a bit here. I used to really enjoy the New Republic; I’m a subscriber, and it was clearly a unique option in the political magazine world. Socially liberal, unpredictable on economic issues, and consistently hawkish and staunchly pro-Israel. Some of the best post-9/11 commentary appeared there. And the editors supported the Iraq war. Of course, their readership was largely vehemently opposed, and the magazine saw a lot of canceled subscriptions (or so I heard). The editors have become louder critics of the Iraq war, and honestly, lately their opinions on the war on terror are hard to distinguish from the Joe Bidens or John Kerrys of the world. Increasingly, the tone of the magazine feels crankier, frustrated by political realities, and frequently daydreaming of pie-in-the-sky dream scenarios. (Beinart recently wrote a whole love letter to John McCain, urging him to run for president as an independent. Yeah, that’ll happen.)

I realize it’s tough to deviate from a party orthodoxy, or to question the sacred cows of a political ideology. The New Republic found itself under withering and relentless criticism from a large chunk of its readers, and has month by month, year by year been creeping backwards from its hawkish position of 2003. I hope if I find myself in a similar situation in the not-too-distant future and espousing opinions not terribly popular with conservatives I respect (i.e., Dad) I’ll stick to my guns.