Not to mention the fact that Obama is no Lincoln. The Democrats were then, as now, a party that practiced identity politics by setting one group against each other, appealed to racism to stir supporters, and believed in keeping African-Americans enslaved and dependent. Not only was Abraham Lincoln a Republican, so was Frederick Douglass. On the other hand, when the KKK was created, it was known as "the military arm of the Democratic Party." A pity more people don't know history.

Uh, quotes usually mean that someone actually said the words enclosed. Who are you quoting...other than yourself? Trolls, especially those that use the reductio ad hitlerum fallacy, can't expect to be taken seriously.

Have you ever been to a Tea Party gathering? Obviously not. Name-calling is the province of ignorant bullies, not rational debaters. However, I find your handle appropriate--you've chosen an absolute monarch who used the coercive power of the state to crush those who disagreed with his politics and religion. Sounds like the sort of government you favor.

Mary, I thought this way, too, but Reagan's article convinced me that Bush could have been helpful--in a few very specific ways. I definitely don't think he should have been linked with the Romney campaign directly or appeared at the Convention, but he could have answered those criticisms by placing the economic blame where it mostly belonged (with Congressional Democrats) and also campaigned among Latinos, who have been reasonably favorable toward him.That said, I am not surprised he remained below the radar--his father did the same when he was defeated by Clinton.