Whoever wrote that article about MLK had no idea what she was talking about--and had no idea how different the Republican party was 40 years ago. She also had no idea about MLK. I gather she just wanted to write something to polarize opposition to Democrats, but she only revealed herself as knowing nothing about politics, either after the Civil War (Republicans then were very different than they are today, just as Republicans 40 years ago were, too). If MLK were alive today, he'd have been a modern Democrat, like Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young and the rest of his former SCLC colleagues are (not to mention his widow and kids, who were/are active Democrats). He supported the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts, which were important pieces of Democratic legislation in the 60s. He objected to both LBJ and Nixon because he objected strongly to the Vietnam War, and he had strong socialist--some say communist--leanings. He likely had some holdover allegiance because of the fact that Lincoln was a Republican, but anyone who knows anything about MLK's politics and what he worked for in civil rights knows that his attitudes were far from Republican. Except the writer of that article, unfortunately. She needs to read a bit more about MLK, Civil War politics (the majority of Southerners who supported the Confederacy weren't supporting slavery; they were supporting states' rights), and the difference between 21st century Republicans, Civil War-era Republicans and Civil Rights-era Republicans.