Also , we can't ignore the divide between the "country clubbers" and the "social conservatives".  After all, Guiliani and Paul both say they are Republicans.  And a lot of Republicans are praying for the day when the RTL language comes out of the platform.  

And while that causes some confusion at times, I think the dissent among party rank and file makes it more interesting and a better cross-sketch of the American population. The vast majority of Americans aren't 100 percent liberal, nor are they 100 percent conservative; they fall somewhere in the middle. Hence, why many candidates swing to the middle during elections -- they aren't going to win parroting Democratic or Republican talking points, in most cases.  

There certainly isn't uniformity in either party on the issue of abortion or the legalization of gay marriage. Same thing with Medicare reform. Ditto the Iraq war, foreign policy, the death penalty, and a host of other issues.

And, at a cursory glance, the legislation and initiatives both parties bring up -- for example, your point about marijuana vs. trans fats and smoking -- are, to a certain extent, at odds. But when you consider that, to use your example, most 8 year old kids aren't going to be smoking marijuana, yet they can certainly be exposed to the dangers of trans fats and second hand smoke, it becomes a somewhat more complex issue.

Also refer to an estimated $1 trillion to $2 trillion cost of the Iraq war vs. the idea of fiscal responsibility and keeping as many taxpayer dollars in their pockets. We, our children, our children's children, and possibly beyond, will be paying for this war. Plus, Bush hated the idea of nation-building and U.S. intervention in foreign lands when he was first elected in 2000 (granted, 9/11 put a damper on that philosophy, probably rightfully so). But that point has been exhausted.

While I didn't answer the question of "What is a Democrat?" I don't think that's any harder to answer than, "What is a Republican?"

Two quick things before I make myself unwelcome here even more than I already am: 01) Plenty of Democrats believe in few, if any, restrictions on the Second Amendment (I personally believe in few limitations, but carrying an Uzi for protection is going a bit overboard, in my opinion). 02) I believe the "party line", if you want to call it that, is that life begins at birth, not conception.

FYI, I respect the fact you don't push your political beliefs on young children. I've known parents who did that to their kids and it just made things worse in the long run. Many kudos for that.

My pointing out the Democrats' short comings led to quite the flood of comments against the GOP and why we lost our majorities in the 2006 elections.  This is because we Republicans feel that our PRINCIPLES have been abandoned.  When that happens, it is expected and should be expected for those in the party to get frustrated.

If you look at DailyKos or DemoncratUnderground... You see this struggle between the Environmentalists, Peaceniks, Communists, and all of the other splintered hippie groups you can think of.

I'm sure there are an equal numbers of stories about how all of these splinter groups have affected past elections - generally smaller elections.  Perhaps the most recent memory is how John Kerry lost because of Ralph Nader.

Nancy Pelosi is elected.

Making what US Representatives make, she can afford a lot of uppers.  And botox.

As to what brand of Wacko Leftism she is?  I don't know.  Maybe the best description is "holder hippie who longs for more Haight Ashbury drug trips".  I don't know, it doesn't matter.  The fracture and frustration is there in the Democrats, and they get more fractured than Republicans.

You say Republicans are in lock-step, and Democrats aren't.  So I point out how ludicrous being in lockstep is, by what happened to us in 2006.