Jackson was the founder of her party though...
Lincoln was the first President from the Republican party, but the current GOP could hardly care about him, so...
Which why the GOP still has Lincoln Day Dinner. (except a whole bunch of republican organisations have changed it to "reagan day dinner" *gag*) It is the Dem party in its pandering to minorities (how dare they!? obviously minorities deserve no attention whatsoever) that wants to dump the founder of the modern day (1820s is basically modern day, right?) Dem party a guy who stood against banks (except for ones run by his cronies, he fckin' loved those) and for the little man (as long as he was white, anyway. but that's the only kind of person who matters, right?).
The dumping of Jackson is all you need to know about today's Dem party. Elitist (unlike mitt "47%" romney), coastal (like over 60% of the u.s. population), anti-American history and culture (america has never done anything bad, ever! if you disagree you are clearly anti-american). They should suggest Rigoberta Menchu (an unabashedly anti-elitist freedom fighter) for ther $20.
a good post.
p.s.: bobloblaw, andrew jackson committed actual, literal genocide. no doubt if democrats were singing his praises you would be comparing them to nazis.
Ok, and as I said before, LBJ killed 50x more people, and his legacy is still celebrated by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. You aren't really fooling anyone by calling one a genocide and trying to skirt over the other and blame it on Nixon, somehow.
i never mentioned lbj? and the "but this one other guy was worse" deflection is bullsht anyway.
and, it's not even really accurate. lbj killed more people
because there were more people. vietnam lost roughly 2-3% of its population while the native americans lost in the neighborhood of 20-25%, and their homeland. vietnam was a horrible, criminal war, but it wasn't a genocide.