Can we please stop referring to the New Republic as a liberal publication?

I've mostly stayed out of the Lieberman/Lamont issue because I don't live in Connecticut (and therefore have zero say in the matter), and because it has already been exhaustively documented by the liberal blogs. But the idea of labeling Lamont a "peace candidate" is beyond ludicrous. I've heard the guy speak, and he sounds pretty moderate to me. Trying to paint him as a wildeyed leftist just is not going to fly, just because Martin Peretz says it is so.

Six years of King George II have enraged most of the thinking people in this country, many moderate republicans included.

Glenn Greenwald:

For Democrats, there is no smarter choice, no more urgent political priority, than to stop listening to the staid, fact-free counsel of the likes of Marty Peretz and Cokie Roberts and, instead, begin listening to what the majority of Americans are saying. They long ago turned against this war and the neoconservative premises used to justify it. The defeat of Joe Lieberman will demonstrate that Democrats are prepared, finally, to take a strong and decisive stand on these issues, one that is shared by most Americans outside of the Beltway.

As for the New Republic, where Peretz remains on the masthead, Peter Beinart defends Lieberman, TNR's favorite democrat (and recipient of the prescient TNR Presidential endorsement in 2004) here, Michael Crowley does the honors here, and Jonathan Chait chimed in a few months ago here. By what standard is this magazine liberal?