Yes, Abraham Lincoln was our first Republican president, and, yes, the GOP proudly calls itself the Party of Lincoln. But could Lincoln win his party's nomination in 2012? Consider his stance on some of the hot-button issues in the Republican primary race.

While Republican candidates today win kudos for signing Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge, it is unlikely that Lincoln would sign on. He, in effect, invented income tax. That is to say he was the first American president to sign federal income tax into law. And not only that, but it was a progressive income tax, with the wealthiest Americans paying a higher rate. He made no distinctions between earned income and capital gains — money made was money earned — and Lincoln's administration needed its cut to pull the nation back from the brink of collapse. Strike one against Honest Abe.

Strike two: He didn't advertise his faith to boost his approval ratings. The debate over Lincoln's religious beliefs is a heated one. But there is good evidence that he questioned Christian orthodoxy — perhaps not so surprising at a time when Biblical verses were routinely used in defense of slavery, an institution he found morally repugnant. While it is true that Lincoln frequently evoked the divine in his speeches, he never took up membership in a church, and he certainly never spoke publicly about his personal relationship with Christ. Judging from the pious pronouncements from today's GOP field, Lincoln's lack of the proper spiritual credentials would put him at a distinct disadvantage.

Sad to say, Lincoln's appearance would be yet another handicap. When a political rival once accused him of being two-faced, Lincoln reportedly replied, "If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?" Gaunt and gangly, with suits that never quite seemed to fit, a mop of unruly hair, sunken eyes and an off-kilter smile, Lincoln would be hard-pressed competing for camera time with his well-coifed, media-savvy competitors. Nor would his image be improved by his tendency toward moderate positions and long and complex arguments. Of course, today the most beloved of Lincoln's speeches is his famously brief and achingly beautiful Gettysburg Address.

But Lincoln rose to national prominence on the strength of his detailed and nuanced explorations of the most pressing issues of his day. His pivotal Cooper Union address ran one and a half hours; his 1854 Peoria speech topped three hours; and, in the now-legendary Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, audiences braved the elements as the candidates took turns speaking for up to 90 minutes at a time. A far cry from the quick and dirty potshots and zingers of today's slickly produced debates. Strike three for the Great Emancipator.

Of course, Lincoln's record would serve him well among some segments of the electorate. He was critical of interventionist foreign wars (which would no doubt win him points among Ron Paul supporters); during the Civil War he implemented military tribunals for civilians, suspended habeas corpus and authorized indefinite detention of persons deemed to pose a security risk to the nation (policies that would appeal to defenders of Gitmo).

And, although this aspect of his record conveniently is forgotten today, he was a long-term and committed supporter of "colonization" (in effect, an assisted migration scheme for blacks who were willing to leave the United States voluntarily for special colonies in Africa, Central America and elsewhere). While many voters in 21st-century America would find this record objectionable, for birthers with a taste for "Witchdoctor Obama" and "Go Back to Kenya" signs, it would strike just the right chord.

So could Abraham Lincoln win the 2012 GOP nomination? As commentators are fond of observing, in this dizzyingly mercurial primary race, anything is possible. Perhaps the more important question, however, is whether Mr. Lincoln would want the nomination.

Jackie Hogan in Chair of Sociology at Bradley University and author of "Lincoln, Inc.: Selling the Sixteenth President in Contemporary America."