A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors
The cover of the November 5 edition of the Weekly Standard:And the November 19 edition:
Grant Gallicho is an associate editor of Commonweal. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
Did the Standard likewise not read the polls? Another reason to question its analysis...
The GOP obsession that the polls were rigged, the unemployment data was rigged, et al, is a sign of extensive paranoia just as the 'birther' outbreak.was the first symptom. paranoia mutates into other obsessions. . We need to be on the watch for new forms.Donald Trump with his money and media access is a potential Typhoid Mary of paranoia.
The difference, Ed, is that Typhoid Mary was a carrier of disease but, unlike DT, did not show symptoms herself.
That hair cut is not the only symptom? (-:
Does Edward Munch collect royalties for his very bad painting, but very useful illustration?
The Democrats get to drive this bus for another four years that much is clear. Congratulations; I am sure the celebrations have only begun.As a Conservative, I do not get worked up about President Obama; he is one man and will do what he think is best. What worries me more are his minions, and todays Democrat party apparatchiks.Socialism itself is amoral of course. Like a hammer, it can be used for good or ill. Socialism with religion confined to the sidelines (aka freedom of worship i.e., only within the bounds of church buildings) is very worrisome. Full-on secular socialism driven by a people without religious notions or without some sort of creed seems certain to result in a guaranteed moral nightmare; like using aborted fetuses for facial/cosmetic creams or something like thatI have said before that I would rather be sick in a socialized medical system controlled my Muslims than one run by the US federal government. The reason is that while I certainly do not agree with all that a Muslim carries in his mind or is otherwise burdened with, I know at least that he does not think he is God Almighty and that as such, his decisions about medical care will be guided by a basic morality. I do not have that sort of confidence about the HHS and other alphabet soup federal agencies of our national government. They actively avoid applying a creed or moral viewpoint to anything. Lincoln famously said something like People who dont believe in something will surely fall for anything and I think that is as true now as it ever was.The good news is that Democrats have not been this happy in decades; they won fair and square and so let the party begin. For now anyway, few seem worried. In any case I must trust the judgment of my neighbors and countrymen.
Sour grapes, unpure and simplistic.
@Ken Whoever. I think Jim McCrea is wrong about just saying sour grapes. I say it's continued vitriol. . "Full-on secular socialism driven by a people without religious notions or without some sort of creed seems certain to result in a guaranteed moral nightmare; like using aborted fetuses for facial/cosmetic creams or something like that'You say 'or something like that' because you thankfully are running out of hate speech. Ken you are denigrating people like Nancy Pelosi an Italian Catholic Grandmother, a past fellow parishioner of mine. and Joe Biden Catholic Family man of of course Pres. Obama who has reached out to people who bite his hand with tirades. Ken...Get a last name and something else to vent about for the next 4 to12 years.
http://www.lifenews.com/2006/08/08/nat-2486/http://www.law.uh.edu/health...(CM)%20Cosmetic.pdf"... Yet, the debate about the moral and ethical aspects of abortion continues to this day. Now, certain anti-aging cosmetic products are the focus of attention in the ongoing abortion controversy. The anti-aging cosmetics at issue are manufactured by Neocutis, S.A. (Neocutis), which is a Swiss bio-pharmaceutical company founded in 2003 that specializes in wound healing, dermatology, and skin care. Neocutis, Inc., is the U.S. subsidiary handling allcommercial activities. Neocutis states on its web site that its anti-aging products contain a proprietary skin careingredient, Processed Skin Cell Proteins (PSP) which is derived from cultured fetalskin cells. Since at least 1992, medical researchers have discovered that fetal skin cellshave a unique ability to heal wounds without scarring. Because aged skin has the sameneeds as wounded skin for repair, Neocutis claims that its proprietary PSP ingredientcan effectively stimulate the wound healing process, and improve skin texture andreduce the appearance of wrinkles in the eye and mouth areas. . ."http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/aborted-human-fetal-ce...
Neocutis is a Swiss company .. what US Politicians have money invested in Switzerland?.
What a sad commentary that, instead of featuring their champion on the eve of his famous victory, the Weekly Standard had to indulge in one last sneerfest at their champion's opponent.But maybe they were prescient. There don't seem to be any Republicans left who will admit to ever having heard the name of Mitt Romney, much less to have voted for him.
Next to the election of Obama and six new Democratic senators, the biggest news of this election has been the self-humiliation of the Republicans. They were so wrong, so patently wrong in their survey of the facts that they can't escape self-recrimination -- all except the "RINOs" like David Frum, who got himself fired earlier from AEI for criticizing the way the Party was headed. But there were too few of those. The Republican hierarchy is like the Catholic one. They do not disagree publicly about anything, and they're paying for it now with a collapse of confidence in their leadership.
OK. Let's agree that Obama won the election fair and square. But every election is followed by postmortems in which all sides get to analyze the results. One could hardly expect the Weekly Standard to not indulge in a cocktail of sour grapes. Wasn't the good stuff generously passed around in the victors' camps? I've seen more than one liberal writer exact the last pound of flesh, or rub salt into fresh wounds. But the victory only determines that there will be no change of occupants in the White House after January 20. The divisions that existed prior to the election continue afterwards. So we've been treated to a number of Republicans who, in their embarrassment, have thrown Romney under the bus as if the outcome represents some kind of slam dunk rejection of his principles and policies. The principal reason Mr. Romney lost is that about three million McCain voters stayed home. Have we forgotten that the Arizona senator was pummeled by a margin of nearly 9 million votes? This year's margin was less than four million--substantial but a huge decline from four years ago. This means that nearly 60 million Americans are unhappy about the re-election of Mr. Obama. Shouldn't their views be reflected in commentary by WS and other journals of opinion? Spare me the wishful thinking of those who are predicting once again the demise of the conservative movement. That prophecy did not bode accurately for the 2010 cycle, did it? The movement by the Obama campaign and their media allies to smear Romney's reputation was successful. That doesn't make them responsible for the loss, but it made a huge contribution. The country would have been as well served by a different outcome. 60 million of us believe that and are owed appropriate respect since as Americans loyal to what's left of the democratic process we will be living with the result along with the victors.
Ann: " ... the biggest news of this election has been the ..." rejection of US bishops' and other conservative religionists' interference in 3 states who were voting on same-sex marriage, and in 1 state that wanted to enshrine "one man, one woman" into its consitution. The 1st 3 wond and the last one lost.Rejection of teapublican nonsense was a distinct probability. The votes on s/s marriage were not!(Who says that there isn't a just God?)"Lets agree that Obama won the election fair and square." Who was claiming otherwise other than the Grumpy Ostracised Party?
John F. ==You seem to think that "the conservative movement" is the same thing as the GOP. I fear that's too simple. As I remember, there was no talk of "the conservative movement" until Russell Kirk appeared in the 1950s. He was followed by Bill Buckley, et al. They post=dated the GOP by many, many generations. It was a group of people with very similar principles (largely derived from an Englishman, Edmund Burke) which they thought should guide actions. The GOP, on the other hand, like all political parties has tended to be coalitions of interest groups with often only analogous interests and beliefs, and as such they are more likely to compromise than members of movements are. The GOP is a not very well unified process, not a movement. If there is a conservative movement these days, who are its spokespersons? Who keeps the flame? I doubt that Kirk would have liked Mitt at all at all. And who are the clear leaders of the Republican Party? We know who the well=known Republicans are, but who among them lead the others?Not that the Democrats are in much better shape. i can't think of a theorist of any import in the last 80 years except maybe John Rawls and his theory of justice. The Democrats too are a coalition of interest groups.
Tweets by @commonwealmag