The Republican Party needs to decide whether it is a "movement" as one of your discussants calls it, or a political party organised to win office. If the former, it is doomed to irrelevancy and failure. If the latter, then it must find out what the electorate wants, and give it to them. Ideology or "principles" wont cut it. The battles will be over means, not ends. Universal health care? Yes. How to do it? Lots of room for legitimate, non-ideological debate.

As I see it, the Republican believes in small government, low taxes, and strong national defence. The Democrat believes in, wait for it, small government (effective and efficient), low taxes (as low as possible), and strong national defence(as strong as necessary).

The differences, perhaps, are that the Republican is prepared to ignore or minimise compelling national issues (the poor are all lazy and deserve their situation) because they don't want to pay for programs to deal with them, and and remain generally unconvinced that solutions to these issues are possible using government interventions. Ironically, the Republican doesn't have any problem with the contradictions implicit in big government for national defence. The Democrat believes government can and should address social issues, and is prepared to pay the price with higher taxes. Call it the Canadian way.

A conservative (not the same as the Republican) is concerned about the demonstrated inefficiency of government, whether the programs are pork-barrel subsidies to farmers and companies, and bloated military programs, on the one hand; or throw the money at health and education programs by the Democrat. Both the Republican and Democrat have a vested interest in big government, they simply differ it what area they want to see big. The conservative believes in the law of unintended consequences and the slippery slope of good intentions. He demands prudence, accountability, and results from government.

If Obama is true to form then the era of the conservative is emerging. One where there is a broad consensus on such as the need for major reforms in healthcare, education, and economic regulation. To prosper, the Republican Party must embrace this pragmatic non-ideological centrist position in direct competition with the Democratic Party. The culture wars are over or to be relegated to the fringes.

Although I agree with much of what Dr Kaufman says here, I don't think it really adds very much to the debate about evolution or what? This mystical, humble sense of awe about the universe and life is not contradicted by the theory of evolution; nor would most atheists be uncomfortable with it. This "God" has certainly little in common with "religion" as commonly understood and practised. It does not give meaning to life, nor does it explain the origins of life. Nor does it need to. "To see the world in a blade of grass and heaven in a flower" is quite sufficient for me.

Whether pragmatism has now displaced ideology in American politics is debatable and I think unlikely, however it should. Ideology means that you have the answer before you have heard the question. "Small government, low taxes, freedom" is the mantra. Belief trumps analysis. Pragmatism is "as big as necessary, as low as possible, and as free as practicable: let me take a look at the problem". As practised in politics today, ideology is, either or both, abysmal intellectual deficiency or gross political cynicism.

Foreign policy as practised, as opposed to foreign policy analysis, is all about domestic politics, not about objective facts abroad and rational analysis of national interests.

"As a government lawyer, Yoo was the equivalent of one of those doctors who did "research" for Hitler."

Yes. Exactly. At the very least he should be stripped of his tenured professorship and of his license to practice law. Even better would be jail and civil damages.

Absolutely spot-on. I was stunned to learn recently that The New Republic until recently was owned by Canwest, that relentless Canadian zionist propaganda machine owned by the Asper family. That explains the Chait, Peretz and Co's strident zionist rants. Birds of a feather.

I am not anti-jewish, nor anti-semitic (whatever that means). I am anti-zionist and anti-Israel; at least the Israel which so many American jews ideolize at the expense of truth and justice, not to speak of American interests.

I sincerely hope Freeman is confirmed and that American policy in the Middle-east becomes more honest and intelligent. I have less hope for the public debate, given the successful tactics of intimidation pursued by the American Israel lobby. It is ironic that there is more intelligent debate about Israel's policies towards the Middle-east in Israel than there is in the US.

The day I consider supporting zionism is the day New York zionists start handing over their apartments to the American native people who have a much greater claim to North America than any European or American jew has to Palestine.

Geithner is doing just fine. Remember he is a technocrat not a politician. Let him get on with the job. Obama can do all the necessary political talking.

Another thing to keep in mind: the stock market is NOT the economy. At best it may mirror the economy, but not all the time. The stock market is simply a bunch of people, whether acting as individuals or on behalf of their companies, buying and selling. For every seller there must be a buyer. Who has it right? We all know about the collective "wisdom" of the market, don't we.

"...but the phone is still technically locked to the only official U.S. iPhone carrier"

What exactly does "technically locked" mean. Is it tied to AT&T or not? Serious question.