The difference between the Dems and the Republicans these days is very simple (and this is not an orignal thought of mine, it's merely exapanding on something I read somewhere). The Republicans under Bush have goals and convictions and beliefs, and whether or not you agree with those beliefs, you can count on the Bush administration sticking to them, even when 50% of the country and much of the rest of the world disagrees. The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to only be united by one thing, their disdain for Bush. You have the "way-out-there" wing of the party led by Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy. These are the people that refuse to open their eyes and accept reality; that most of America is not nearly as far left as they are, and never will be because they believe in America, not in socialism. In the case of Kennedy, you also have a vehicular homocidist who used his wealth and influence to get out of jail free. Then you have the opportunist wing, led by John Kerry and John Edwards and Al Sharpton. These are the people who will do or say anything in order to gain influence or power. They will change their opinions (and all are on record for doing so) if they think it will help their careers. In the case of Al Sharpton, you can add that he's a race-baiter who drummed up a riot against an innocent and caused 7 deaths, but used his wealth and influence to get out of jail free. And finally you have Joe Lieberman, who is about the only major Democrat that has my respect right now (Zell Miller, too, but he's mostly retired now).

Growing up I had always heard that Democrats were liberals, and were always seeking to change things for the better, and Republicans were conservatives who followed the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" creedo. Now the Democratic leadership seems reactionary, virulently against anything changing anything (especially if Bush might get credit for doing something good), and against bringing freedom and democracy to the world (maybe not in theory, but in actual fact they have done what they can ever since Vietnam to avoid helping bring down tyrants and despots and help bring people freedom, and seem more than ever against such for the Iraqis). The Republicans seem to be the liberal ones. If you actually read the defnition of liberalism:

"1 the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties"

You see that I am right. First off, the whole religion thing seems absent and even facing hostility from the far left, whereas Bush frequently mentions that his faith is a player in his decisions. The second part involves free trade, something the Republicans favor, whereas the Democrats bemoan such (outsouricing jobs, which is a hallmark of free trade, seems to be the devil to most left-wingers these days). I think we can ignore the gold standard part, seeing as the world has passed beyond that. Finally the last part. Though many decry Bush for taking away our civil liberties, no one has yet been able to tell me of a instance when a citizen of the United States was not given their civil liberties by the Bush administration. The belief in the essential goodness of the human race can be illustrated by Iraq. The Dems were against going in there, for one reason because they didn't think that Iraq could handle a peaceful democracy, whereas Bush has faith that the Iraqi people are good people and will do just fine. The autonomy of the individual... Well which aprty is pushing private, individually owned security accounts as a better alternative to social security, and which party is championing leaving everything the same so that everyone, no matter their needs, is treated just like everyone else and has no ability to make any sort of decision about where their hard earned money goes to? Which party tries to make things so that individuals can be more responsible for theirselves and their actions, and which party seems to think the government-almagamation is the answer to everyone's problems, instead of their own individual resources?

The Democrats used to be a party worthy of respect, but now they become a mockery. Democrats from 50 years ago would be horrified at what their party has become, as Zell Miller himself has expressed.