I believe I did so successfully in this post from last August. To summarize:

"Imagine two parallel horizontal lines, one representing a philosophy of greater government intervention in people’s lives, and the other a philosophy of lesser intervention, but both applying their philosophy equally to everyone. The higher line could be called the social community philosophy, the lower the individual autonomy philosophy. Or imagine two points of view on what constitutes the good and moral life, one material, one spiritual. Those holding one point of view could be called the new Athenians, and the other the new Israelites. In that case I could respect either philosophy or point of view. Neither of these divisions, however, and indeed no universal philosophy or ideology at all, describes the Republican or Democratic parties today. Rather than two sets of principles of what is best for everyone, these parties for the most part represent two sets of interests seeking a better deal for their insiders at everyone else’s expense, and at the expense of the future and the younger generations who will live in it. The parallel lines are in fact vertical, not horizontal, with some feeling entitled to more out of government and others left with less, some forced to contribute more to government and others avoiding similar contributions."

"...With these compromises and deceptions, what is left of ideologies? What you are left with is two hypocrisies, with contradictory positions and rationalizations buried under shrill rhetoric and appeals to tribal loyalty. The divide that matters today is not between liberals and conservatives (to the extent that these two terms have any real meaning), Republicans and Democrats. It is between those any “persons, associations or individuals” who seek and receive “any exclusive privilege, immunity, or franchise whatever,” and everyone else. The former are represented by the Democratic and Republican parties. The latter are, for the most part, not represented at all. In public policy, at all levels of government, the truth is that the real decisions are not about 'what.' They are about 'who.'"

To anyone who would argue otherwise, I would point to all those future-destroying budgets in Albany that pass 212 or 213 to 0.  The only disputes you see are about who gets the bigger offices, staffs, and small packets of money to hand out, and who is handed plum seats like the subject of your post.

In my post, I go on to say that the two parties seek votes by non-lobbyists by appealing to selfishness and irresponsibility, wit the Democrats pandering to those who are unwilling to meet their personal responsibilities, and the Republicans to those who are unwilling to meet their social responsibilities. And now, the consequences will come due.

skurnik, thanks for your well supported analysis.  but to the writer of the following: 

"How is someone that is anti-immigrant", Another loony dem who wants to mix up anyone who breaks in with people who belong, either through birth or naturalization, or other legality.

 anti-gun control, Another loony dem who doesn't know that there are enough laws on the books, which, if they were enforced, would keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

anti-gay rights.  Another loony dem who thinks gay marriage is as important as workplace rights.

, pro-Iraq War;  , pro-FISA, pro-Bush tax cuts, etc. in any way considered a Democrat and eligible to represent the State of New York as a Democratic Senator.

enough! the above is why though a lifelong registered dem, i haven't voted for a dem candidate in 20-yrs (although since bloomy's coup, i may have to swallow hard and vote for whomever the dems run for next mayor, blast!!)

Party choice, like religion, seems to be an inherited quality.  How your family voted when you were born, is how you will probably vote in your lifetime.  Any change, if it comes at all, is usually, but not always, the result of economic circumstances.  Principles learned at the dinner table in early childhood are generally hard to reverse, as are economic strata.

The frightening thing is not so much the label of the party, but the spokespeople for the party.  Democrats wrap themselves in issues that resonate with the middle class, while Republicans are more interested in wrapping themselves in the flag.  Neither of the two major parties can really be proud of what they hear in the media, but it is difficult for the average person to get his voice heard by the public.

In only a few days past the inauguration, the Republicans have launched their campaign on the tax issue.  They are hot and heavy in pursuit of retaining tax cuts, not withstanding what is a Democratic proposal for 95% inclusion of the workforce and small business in tax cuts, but wanting to retain the Bush tax cuts, which apply to only 1% of the population.  They are trying to sound like saviors of the common man, when in reality, all they are trying to do is help the rich get richer.

Trickle down economics, a codeword launched by the Reagan administration, has never and will never work.  Playing the tax payroll game makes little or no sense either, because the amount of money involved weekly for the average family does not even buy a new pair of shoes.  Add to that the fact that the cumulative revenue of those taxes can act as funding and to some extent security to lenders, should we close that door of revenue?

The so-called stimulus checks sent out last year did little or nothing to help the economy, so even if the Republican idea of payroll tax cuts were instituted, life family is going to take the 10 or $15 weekly difference and bank it to used as a lump sum for any future purchase?

And therein, lies the difference.  No matter what, we are putting future generations in hock, but if we don't do something now, there may very well never be any future generations.  Most of us do not think in terms of raising children if we cannot feed our-selves or even have a home to live in.  I do not want to look at a future like the Rome of yesteryear, where 90% of the population was on the dole.

I guess if you really want to answer the question, "What is a Democrat", then perhaps the answer is a thoughtful and sensible person at the helm, not a pontificating party hack who speaks in catch-words like "tax cuts", "our future generations", and then wraps himself in the flag, shouting pious epiteths for the country while heading for the country club to have dinner.