Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2012-09-16T23:47:02Z

Jja1:

'''There have been many superb [[conservative]] films''':

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''October Baby''
|2012
|PG-13
|a first-rate, compelling film that leaves no doubt about how wrong [[abortion]] is.
|$5,357,328
|-
|''Soul Surfer''
|2011
|PG
|The true story of champion surfer 13-year-old Bethany Hamilton who loses her arm to a shark. Her Christian faith helps her overcome her handicap to surf once again.
|$ 43,853,424
|-
|''The Mill and the Cross'' (Polish original)
|2011
|UR
|persecution of Christians in the Netherlands
|$ 310,900
|-
|''Of Gods and Men'' (French original)
|2010
|R
|Martyrdom by Trappist monks from Muslim terrorists in an impoverished Algerian community
|$ 3,954,651
|-
|''Witness''
|1985
|R
|Highlights the virtues of strong moral values, with more substance than ''High Noon''.
|$ 65,500,000
|-
|''[[Spider-Man_(film)]]''
|2002
|PG-13
|Praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses [[abstinence]]. This was one of the most profitable films ever made.
|$ 403,706,375
|-
|''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]''
|1956
|UR
|A science fiction condemnation of [[communism]], produced for only $420,000 and remade successfully in three additional movies.
|$ 2,500,000
|-
|''[[The Exorcist]]''
|1973
|R
|(''not for children'') - A portrayal of pure evil against a positive characterization of [[Christianity]]. It broke the record for movie revenue.
|$ 441,071,011
|-
|''[[Dark Matter]]''
|2007
|R
|A candid look at [[professor values]] along with problems associated with lack of assimilation; [[liberal]]s first praised the movie, but after realizing its [[conservative]] message then panned it.
|$ 30,041
|-
|''Miracle''
|2004
|PG
|Movie about the United States hockey team which won the gold medal in the 1980 Winter Olympics. Stresses the important of hard work, resiliency, selflessness and putting your best effort forward to reach an unseen goal.
|$ 64,445,708
|-
|''[[Gone With the Wind]]''
|1939
|UR
|Celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]], and held the record for top-grossing movie for decades.
|$ 198,676,459
|-
|''[[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]]''
|1959
|UR
|Celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending, long held the record for the most [[Academy Awards]].
|$ 17,300,000
|-
|''[[Expelled | Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]''
|2008
|PG
|[[Ben Stein]] exposes [[evolution|evolutionists]]' scientific and education system [[deceit]].
|$ 7,690,545
|-
|''[[Atlas Shrugged, Part 1|Atlas Shrugged - Part 1]]''
|2011
|PG-13
|Big screen adaptation of the classic objectivist text.
|$ 4,563,873
|-
|''[[Hillary: The Movie]]''
|2008
|UR
|Citizens United film exposing Hillary Clinton. This movie was the impetus of the lawsuit which overturned the McCain-Feingold legislation by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Citizens United v. FEC]]''.
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[Indoctrinate U]]''
|2007
|UR
|Exposed political correctness, racial and ethnic politics in the academic setting. <ref>[http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3624795/9994231 Indoctrinate U -Part 1/3, Yahoo]</ref>
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Fireproof (film)|Fireproof]]''
|2008
|PG
|Highly successful pro-Christian, pro-marriage film created by [[Sherwood Pictures]].
|$ 33,451,479
|-
|''[[Beauty and the Beast]]''
|1991
|G
|A young woman overcomes a materialistic, shallow society and finds true love. A powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]], far better than the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] since.
|$ 25,487,028
|-
|''[[Titanic]]''
|1997
|PG-13
|Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues.
|$ 600,779,824
|-
|''The Lives of Others''
|2006
|R
|(''Not for children'') - This German-language film is a stinging criticism of the [[communist]] [[East Germany]] from a liberal perspective.
|$ 11,286,112
|-
|''[[The Sound of Music]]''
|1965
|UR
|Solid family entertainment.
|$ 158,671,368
|-
|''[[Chinatown]]''
|1974
|R
|A thriller about the deceit surrounding water rights in southern California and LA's water system, removing most of the water from the central valley.
|$ 30,000,000 (world wide estimate)
|-
|''[[The Fountainhead]]''
|1949
|UR
|Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal starring in Ayn Rand's classic story of the right of the individual to produce on their own terms.
|Unknown
|-
|''Moses''
|1974
|PG
|Italian-British-American production which features [[Burt Lancaster]] playing [[Moses]] the lawgiver. Less flamboyant than Cecil B. Demille's movie The Ten Commandments and focuses more on the biblical figure of Moses. Originally a 6-part TV mini-series, but edited to make it a movie.
|-
|''[[The Ten Commandments]]''
|1956
|UR
|The definitive film portrayal of [[Exodus]].
|$ 65,500,000
|-
|''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]''
|1939
|UR
|A tale of a good, simple man rising above the pressures of [[liberals]] to do the right thing. Features perhaps the best defense of the American political system ever committed to film.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Star Wars]]''
|1977-2005
|PG
|Simple truths about the triumph of good over evil.
|$460,998,007
|-
|''The Winning Team''
|1952
|UR
|[[Ronald Reagan]] stars as a baseball pitcher who overcomes his problems to help his team win. This was one of Reagan's own favorites.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[King of Kings]]''
|1961
|PG-13
|2 hour, 51 minute widescreen epic by the great director Nicholas Ray about Jesus and his promises of spiritual redemption, as contrasted with the story of the revolutionary leader Barabbas and his promises of worldly redemption.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Iron Eagle]]''
|1986
|PG-13
|
|$ 24,159,872
|-
|''[[On The Waterfront]]''
|1954
|UR
|[[Marlon Brando]] plays Terry Malloy, who under the inspiration of a Catholic priest (Father Barry, played by [[Karl Malden]]), becomes a Christ-like figure. Betrayed by his brother and almost killed by the gang, he finds the strength to overcome and redeem his people from the slavery to the mobsters who run the waterfront. In stunning contrast to the liberals who kept silent about the Communist subversion in Hollywood, the film portrays the informer as the hero; liberal Hollywood never forgave director [[Elia Kazan]] for his stunning film. In real life, Kazan, Malden and screenwriter Budd Schulberg all testified before Congress, along with [[Ronald Reagan]]. Together they broke the power of the Reds in Hollywood.
|$ 9,600,000
|-
|''The Name of the Rose''
|1986
|R
|A mystery centered around the balance between faith and science, as well as debate over the role of poverty in religion and religious orders.
|$ 5,595,706
|-
|''[[Sergeant York]]''
|1941
|UR
|A young American soldier during WWI overcomes an unfounded religious objection to killing and becomes a war hero.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]''
|1940
|UR
|Stars [[Ronald Reagan]] as corageous football player George Gipp, who dies before an important game.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Ninotchka]]''
|1939
|UR
|
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Forbidden Planet]]''
|1956
|UR
|
|$ 3,000,000
|-
|''[[Rudy]]''
|1993
|PG
|A young man overcomes many obstacles, including dyslexia, to play for the [[Notre Dame]] football team. Shows the value of hard work and never giving up.
|$ 22,750,363
|-
|''[[The Prince of Egypt]]''
|1998
|PG
|A telling of the life of [[Moses]].
|$ 101,217,900
|-
|''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]''
|1955
|UR
|Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]''
|1963
|UR
|Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Red Dawn]]''
|1984
|PG-13
|A film by conservative writer and director [[John Milius]] about American high school students resisting a Soviet invasion through guerrilla warfare.
|$ 35,866,000
|-
|''[[Harry's War]]''
|1981
|PG
|Anti-IRS comedy.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[The Patriot]]''
|2000
|R
|A patriot fights for American freedom during the [[American Revolution]].
|$ 113,330,342
|-
|''[[Ladder 49]]''
|2004
|PG-13
|Shows the courageousness of firefighters.
|$ 74,541,707
|-
|''[[Rocky]]''
|1976
|PG
|A talented but down-on-his-luck fighter gets a chance to challenge himself to the ends of his ability. This film reinforces man's ability to overcome challenges.
|$ 117,235,247
|-
|''[[October Sky]]''
|1999
|PG
|Four high school boys from a rural coal mining town, inspired by Sputnik, set out to build their own rockets and become rocket scientists.
|$ 32,481,825
|-
|''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]''
|2006
|PG
|Shows the horrors of slave trade.
|$ 21,208,358
|-
|''[[Bruce Almighty]]''
|2003
|PG-13
|Shows, in a comedic, accessible way, that no one mortal can successfully do [[God]]'s job.
|$ 242,589,580
|-
|''[[World Trade Center]]''
|2006
|PG-13
|Highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]]
|$ 70,236,496
|-
|''[[Flight 93]]''
|2006
|PG-13
|Shows the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93, which was hijacked on September 11th, 2001, and crashed into a Pennsylvania field. The passengers fought back against the hijackers.
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[A Man For All Seasons]]''
|1966
|UR
|In 16th Century England, statesman and philosopher Thomas More is forced to choose between his Catholic faith and his loyalty to the king. Winner of the Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor, Best Cinematography, and Best Costume Design in 1966.
|$ 20,000,000<ref>This figure is a worldwide gross.</ref>
|-
|''[[Chariots of Fire]]''
|1981
|PG
|
|$ 58,972,904
|-
|''[[One Foot In Heaven]]''
|1941
|UR
|
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Quo Vadis?]]''
|1951
|UR
|
|Unknown
|-
|''[[The Lost Weekend]]''
|1945
|UR
|Illustrates the dangers of alcohol abuse.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[The Green Berets]]''
|1968
|G
|Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.
|$ 11,000,000
|-
|''[[My Son John]]''
|1952
|UR
|A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[True Lies]]''
|1994
|R
|Stars the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.
|$ 146,261,000
|-
|''[[The Island]]''
|2005
|PG-13
|Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.
|$ 35,799,026
|-
|''[[Evelyn]]''
|2002
|PG
|True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.
|$ 1,483,975
|-
|''[[Shane]]''
|1953
|UR
|Western about defending a homesteading family.
|$ 20,000,000
|-
|''[[Lean on Me]]''
|1989
|PG-13
|A true story about combating drug use, violence, and contempt for authority while exalting positive values like academic achievement and family values.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097722/</ref>
|$ 31,906,454
|-
|''[[Hero]]''
|1992
|PG-13
|Even those with character flaws can do good.
|$ 19,487,173
|-
|''[[The 6th Day]]''
|2000
|PG-13
|Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]
|$ 34,543,701
|-
|''Ghostbusters''
|1984
|PG
|Fitting satire of an unfair (and likely liberal) professor, senseless academic research, paganism, and a villainous EPA regulator. Sample line by one of the stars (Dan Aykroyd) when asked to shift from the public to the [[private sector]]: “I don’t know about that. I’ve worked in the private sector. They expect results!”
|$ 238,632,124
|-
|[[Facing the Giants]]
|2006
|PG
|Trust in [[God]], let him take over, and good things will happen.
|$ 10,178,331
|-
|''Flash of Genius''
|2008
|PG-13
|The intellectual property of a hard-working, solitary inventor is promoted, and his children stuck by his side through enormous difficulties.
|$ 3,744,790
|-
|''Coma''
|1978
|PG
|Villains are running an anti-life conspiracy at a hospital.
|$
|-
|''Oh, God!''
|1977
|PG
|Acceptance of God's calling is rewarded, the faithful are vindicated, and naysayers are proven wrong.
|$ 41,687,243
|-
|''[[Courageous]]''
|2011
|PG-13
|[[Sherwood Pictures]] film focusing on the role of fathers.
|$ 34,522,221
|-
|''[[Air Force One (film)|Air Force One]]''
|1997
|R
|Positively portrays a strong U.S. president who takes an uncompromising stance against terrorism. Includes positive material about family, authority, the military and sacrifice.
|$ 172,956,409
|-
|''[[The Fellowship of the Ring (film, 2001)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]''
|2001
|PG-13
|Clear distinction between good and evil with positive themes of friendship, bravery, honor, sacrifice and overcoming temptation.
|$ 314,776,114
|-
|''[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers]]''
|2002
|PG-13
|Strong portrayals of redemption and good over evil.
|$ 340,478,898
|-
|''[[The Return of the King (2003 film)|The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King]]''
|2003
|PG-13
|Bravery, heroism, sacrifice and good ultimately triumphing over evil.
|$ 377,027,325
|-
|''[[Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World]]''
|2003
|PG-13
|Promotes many positive conservative values including faith in God, patriotism, duty, honor, respect for authority, discipline, bravery, sacrifice, and friendship.
|$ 93,926,386
|-
|''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]''
|2005
|PG
|Based upon the Christian allegory written by C.S. Lewis.
|$ 291,709,845
|-
|''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian]]''
|2008
|PG
|
|$ 141,621,490
|-
|''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]''
|2010
|PG
|
|$ 104,383,624
|-
|''Coach Carter''
|2005
|PG-13
|Promotes the theme that graduating from high school and having proper moral values are more important than becoming famous athletes.
|$ 67,253,092
|-
|''[[The Seventh Sign]]''
|1988
|R
|Starring Demi Moore, a fictional account of the return of Jesus to usher in the apocalypse and judge mankind. Catholic themed movie has Demi offering her life for the souls of others.
|$ 18,875,011
|-
|''[[Maafa21]]''
|2009
|UR
|This film explores the inception of [[Planned Parenthood]] as an organization created to exterminate African-Americans. It exposes the words of its' racist founder [[Margaret Sanger]] and their impact on black genocide more than a century later. <ref>[http://www.maafa21.com www.maafa21.com]</ref>
|NA - DVD
|-
|''[[Twelve O'Clock High]]''
|1949
|UR
|A thrilling movie about the heroics of fighter pilots during [[World War II]]; used as an educational film for management training seminars.
|$ 3,225,000
|-
|''[[Escape from Hell]]''
|2000
|UR
|Drama about a doctor and near-death experience.
|NA - DVD
|-
|''[[Waiting for Superman]]''
|2010
|PG
|Documentary on the failed public school system.
|$ 6,410,257
|-
|''The Hurt Locker''
|2008
|R
|A look into the life of an American bomb disposal regiment in Iraq risking their lives for their country and for the innocent by confronting evil. Rated R for violence and language.
|$ 12,647,089
|-
|''The Tunnel'' (''Der Tunnel'')
|2001
|
|Based on a true story a group of East Berliners escaping harsh Communist rule and hatch a plan to help others escape that same oppressive regime.
|$ 10,890
|-
|''A Charlie Brown Christmas''
|1965
|G
|The real meaning of Christmas is discussed, as Linus quotes Luke 2:8-14. Decries the materialism that can surround the Christmas holiday.
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]''
|2007
|UR
|Exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science.
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[Fiddler on the Roof]]''
|1971
|G
|A celebration of tradition, faith, and the importance of family, against a historical background of the persecution of Russian Jews.
|$ 50,000,000
|-
|''The Expendables''
|2010
|R
|Action movie featuring such Conservative Stars as [[Sylvester Stallone]], [[Bruce Willis]], and former California Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]
|$103,068,524
|-
|''The Expendables 2''
|2012
|R
|Sequel to 2010's ''The Expendables'' starring returning Conservative action stars Stallone, Willis and Schwarzenegger as well as [[Chuck Norris]].
|$11.5
|-
|''[[Kids Aren't Cars]]''
|2011
|UR
|How the teachers' unions are destroying our public schools. <ref>[http://www.kidsarentcars.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/KACOneSheet.pdf KAC Summary]</ref>
|Unknown
|-
|''[[How Should We Then Live]]''
|1976
|UR
|Christian film that traces Western history from Ancient Rome until 1976. A study of philosophic, scientific, and religious movements reflecting changing patterns.
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[Gattaca]]''
|1997
|PG-13
|A condemnation of human genetic engineering, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely totalitarian regime. Unfortunately the movie ends with a materialistic message: "They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home" (A phrase said when the protagonist finally managed to go to space).
|$ 12,339,633
|-
|''The Lion King''
|1994
|G
|A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory.
|$ 312,825,899
|-
|''Contact''
|1997
|PG
|The overall message is about how science and faith do not have to be in opposition to one another.
|$ 100,853,835
|-
|''The Sandlot''
|1993
|PG
|Honestly depicts 1950s America when boys acted like boys and girls acted like girls, wimps were taught to toughen up, and every boy had a chance to be great. No historical revisionism.
|$ 32,416,586
|-
|''I Confess''
|1953
|UR
|In this classic by Alfred Hitchcock, a clergyman honors his sacred vow of confidentiality with respect to a confession despite intense pressure to disclose it.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[The Dark Knight]]''
|2008
|PG-13
|Christian allegory with message of not giving in to terrorists.
|$ 533,316,061
|-
|''[[The Dark Knight Rises]]''
|2012
|PG-13
|Movie that depicts [[Occupy Wall Street]] esque protestors as terrorists and has a hero that does the right thing even when it is the harder thing to do.
|$433,311,261
|-
|''Mr. Skeffington''
|1944
|UR
|Bette Davis portrays a socialite whose life is ruined when she turns ugly with age. Anti-Nazi and anti-materialistic.
|Unknown
|-
|''The Forgotten''
|2004
|PG-13
|A mystery film with a great [[Pro-life]] message.<ref>[http://www.decentfilms.com/reviews/forgotten.html ''The Forgotten''] at Decent Film Guide</ref>
|Unknown
|-
|''The Tree of Life''
|2011
|PG-13
|An adaptation of the Book of Job set in 1950s Texas with a narrative structure based on the nature of human memory which many viewers will find confusing.
|Unknown
|-
|''Cronos''
|1993
|R
|In this Mexican film by Guillermo del Toro (''Pan's Labyrinth'', ''Hellboy''), an elderly antiques dealer has a chance at immortality—but at the cost of being a leech to others. Mostly in Spanish with large parts in English.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[An American Carol]]''
|2008
|PG-13
|[[David Zucker]]'s [[conservative]] comedy starring Kevin Farley, Kelsey Grammer, Jon Voight, Dennis Hopper, Trace Adkins and Leslie Nielson.
|$7,013,191
|-
|''[[Raiders of the Lost Ark]]''
|1981
|PG
|
|$242,374,454
|-
|''[[Indiana Jones]] series''
|1981, 1984, 1989, 2008
|PG PG-13
|
|Unknown
|-
|''[[1984]]''
|1984
|R
|Big-screen adaptation of the iconic [[conservative]] text from [[George Orwell]].
|$8,430,492
|-
|''[[For Greater Glory]]''
|2012
|R
|The [[Catholic]] Cristeros Army fights back for religious freedom against a suppressive, [[leftist]] government. Based on the Cristeros War of the 1920's.
|$5,608,651
|-
|''[[Liar Liar]]''
|1997
|PG-13
|Surprisingly takes on an anti-feminist theme by depicting the father as the good, righteous side in a courtroom divorce trial.
|$181,410,615
|-
|''[[The Hunger Games]]''
|2012
|PG-13
|
|$406,267,858
|-
|''[[Animal Farm]]''
|1999
|Not Rated
|Live-action film adaptation of the [[conservative]] text of the same name from [[George Orwell]].
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[Captain America: The First Avenger]]''
|2011
|PG-13
|Contains messages of patriotism, perseverance and standing up to evil dictators. The film's protagonist Steve Rogers is also arguably the most conservative superhero of the Avengers universe. Last film produced by Marvel Studios before it's takeover by liberal parent [[Disney]].
|$176,654,505
|-
|''[[I Want Your Money]]''
|2010
|PG
|Documentary film which supports the triumph of [[Reagan]]-economics over [[Obamanomics]].
|$433,588
|-
|''Bella''
|2007
|PG-13
|[[Pro-life]] drama.
|$8,070,537
|-
|''The Nativity Story''
|2006
|PG
|
|$37,629,831
|-
|''Shattered Glass''
|2003
|PG-13
|Based on the true story of Stephen Glass (Hayden Christensen), a reporter in the late 90's for the liberal magazine The New Republic, lies and distorts news stories to make them entertaining. He begins by submitting an article about the Conservative Political Action Conference, in which he fabricated stories of drinking and sexual mischief. Then, after he writes a colorful but suspicious story on a superstar web hacker, a group from a small online news site begin to question his journalistic integrity.
|$2,220,008
|-
|''[[2016: Obama's America]]''
|2012
|PG
|Documentary by Conservative author [[Dinesh D'Souza]] explores the disturbing origins of [[Barack Hussein Obama]], including his relationship with his [[Barack Obama Sr.|drunken father]] and his inspiration from [[communist]]s [[Frank Marshall Davis]] and [[William Ayers|Bill Ayers]].
|$28,791,000
|-
|''Last Ounce of Courage''
|2012
|PG
|
|$690,000
|-
|''[[Adam's Rib]]''
|1949
|Not rated
| Spencer Tracy hilariously exposes budding feminist Katharine Hepburn's hypocritical double standards in the legal system.
|
|}

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''[[The Passion of the Christ]]''
|2004
|R
|Downplays the [[Resurrection]],<ref>The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.</ref> and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.
|$ 370,782,930
|-

|''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]''
|1946
|UR
|Falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.
|$ 3,300,000
|-
|''[[High Noon]]''
|1952
|UR
|A favorite of both Presidents [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and [[Bill Clinton]]; [[John Wayne]] said it was "the most un-American thing I've ever seen in my whole life";<ref>http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php</ref> though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.
|$ 3,750,000
|-
|''[[P.C.U.]]''
|1994
|PG-13
|College students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.
|$ 4,350,774
|-
|''Pillow Talk''
|1959
|UR
|A classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones. There are no distortions by feminist ideology. Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!
|$ 18,750,000
|-
|''[[Blues Brothers]]''
|1980
|R
|Comedy musical. A story of redemption, "A mission from God", raising money to save a Catholic orphanage. R-rated movie for vulgar language, slap stick comedy. Vatican approved. <ref>[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/18/vatican-blesses-blues-brothers/ Vatican Calls The Blues Brothers “Catholic”, FOXNews, June 19, 2010]</ref>
|$ 57,229,890
|-
|''The Way We Were''
|1973
|PG
|Unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women.
|$ 49,919,870
|-
|''Grease''
|1978
|PG-13
|Some [[conservative]] messages and no [[feminism]] or other [[political correctness]]; mocks [[public school]] and even [[television]].
|$ 153,113,000
|-
|''Fargo''
|1996
|R
|Pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping and murder scheme.
|$ 24,611,975
|-
|''[[Juno (film)|Juno]]''
|2007
|PG-13
|A pregnant teenage woman rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. This movie pushes [[feminism]] and marginalizes the essential role of fatherhood.
|$ 143,492,840
|-
|''Camelot''
|1967
|G
|The famous jousting scene is a powerful display of Christian values and chivalry, but the movie seems lost afterward.
|$ 31,102,578
|-
|''The Iron Lady''
|2011
|PG-13
|The British biopic of [[Conservative Party]] leader and 1979-90 [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British Prime Minister]], Margaret Thatcher, showing the effects of conservative economic policy on Britain, helping to lift the country out of recession.
|$ 80,554,188 (international including UK), $27,081,674 (US - domestic)
|-
|''The Simpsons Movie''
|2007
|PG-13
|Portrays the liberal [[Environmental Protection Agency|EPA]] as a villainous and devious agency, and portrays the Government in general as intrusive and corrupt.
|$183,135,014
|-
|''Back to the Future''
|1985
|PG
|Contains some conservative messages such as the triumph of chivalry as well as the negative effects of deviancy and drug/alcohol addiction, although the film also promotes negative values including premarital sexual activity and disregard for chasity.
|$210,609,762
|-
|''Jurassic Park''
|1993
|PG-13
|Criticizes the effects of research into genetic [[cloning]], although the film's source material has been credited to inspiring further research into cloning.
|$357,067,947
|-
|''The Campaign''
|2012
|R
|Political comedy depicts the Democratic candidate (Will Ferrell) as an obnoxious, drunken womanizer and satire of [[John Edwards]], although the Republican candidate (Zach Galifinakis) is portrayed just as negatively as a corrupt capitalist.
|$33,165,738
|-
|''Knocked Up''
|2007
|R
|Unemployed, immature and childish 23-year old Ben Stone (Seth Rogen) has a one night stand with serious career woman Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl), with the unintended consequence of pregnancy. Alison's mother (Joanna Kerns) says she should get the pregnancy "taken care of", while Ben's best friend Jonah (Jonah Hill) suggests that "I won't say the A-word, but it rhymes with shmashmortion." Alison decides to keep the child, while Ben decides to find a real job, grow up, and become a father.
|$148,768,917
|-
|}

== Debatable Whether Great ==

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''The Room''
|2003
|R
|A tragedy showing the corrosive effects of [[liberal values]] like [[alcoholism]] and [[adultery]], while reflecting the conservative traits of [[charity]], innovation (in banking) and support for small business.
|Unknown
|-
|''Space Jam''
|1996
|PG
|Michael Jordan uses the help of beloved children's characters from the '50s (a simpler time in America's history) to beat back foreign invaders who wish to take away our freedoms.
|$ 90,443,603
|-
|}

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]
[[Category: Greatest Conservative Movies]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2012-07-18T00:21:15Z

Jja1:

'''There have been many superb [[conservative]] films''':

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''October Baby''
|2012
|PG-13
|a first-rate, compelling film that leaves no doubt about how wrong [[abortion]] is.
|
|-
|''Soul Surfer''
|2011
|PG
|The true story of champion surfer 13-year-old Bethany Hamilton who loses her arm to a shark. Her Christian faith helps her overcome her handicap to surf once again.
|$ 43,853,424
|-
|''The Mill and the Cross'' (Polish original)
|2011
|UR
|persecution of Christians in the Netherlands
|$ 310,900
|-
|''Of Gods and Men'' (French original)
|2010
|R
|Martyrdom by Trappist monks from Muslim terrorists in an impoverished Algerian community
|$ 3,954,651
|-
|''Witness''
|1985
|R
|Highlights the virtues of strong moral values, with more substance than ''High Noon''.
|$ 65,500,000
|-
|''[[Spider-Man]]''
|2002
|PG-13
|Praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses [[abstinence]]. This was one of the most profitable films ever made.
|$ 403,706,375
|-
|''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]''
|1956
|UR
|A science fiction condemnation of [[communism]], produced for only $420,000 and remade successfully in three additional movies.
|$ 2,500,000
|-
|''[[The Exorcist]]''
|1973
|R
|(''not for children'') - A portrayal of pure evil against a positive characterization of [[Christianity]]. It broke the record for movie revenue.
|$ 441,071,011
|-
|''[[Dark Matter]]''
|2007
|R
|A candid look at [[professor values]] along with problems associated with lack of assimilation; [[liberal]]s first praised the movie, but after realizing its [[conservative]] message then panned it.
|$ 30,041
|-
|''Miracle''
|2004
|PG
|Movie about the United States hockey team which won the gold medal in the 1980 Winter Olympics. Stresses the important of hard work, resiliency, selflessness and putting your best effort forward to reach an unseen goal.
|$ 64,445,708
|-
|''[[Gone With the Wind]]''
|1939
|UR
|Celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]], and held the record for top-grossing movie for decades.
|$ 198,676,459
|-
|''[[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]]''
|1959
|UR
|Celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending, long held the record for the most [[Academy Awards]].
|$ 17,300,000
|-
|''[[Expelled | Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]''
|2008
|PG
|[[Ben Stein]] exposes [[evolution|evolutionists]]' scientific and education system [[deceit]].
|$ 7,690,545
|-
|''[[Atlas Shrugged|Atlas Shrugged - Part 1]]''
|2011
|PG-13
|Big screen adaptation of the classic objectivist text.
|$ 4,563,873
|-
|''[[Chasing the Devil: Inside the Ex-Gay Movement]]''
|2008
|UR
|The personal journeys of four people who claim to have changed their sexual orientation from gay to straight. <ref>[http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/chasing_the_devil_inside_the_ex_gay_movement Chasing the Devil:Inside the Ex-Gay Movement documentary online]</ref>
|NA
|-
|''[[Hillary: The Movie]]''
|2008
|UR
|Citizens United film exposing Hillary Clinton. This movie was the impetus of the lawsuit which overturned the McCain-Feingold legislation by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Citizens United v. FEC]]''.
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[Indoctrinate U]]''
|2007
|UR
|Exposed political correctness, racial and ethnic politics in the academic setting. <ref>[http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3624795/9994231 Indoctrinate U -Part 1/3, Yahoo]</ref>
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Fireproof (film)|Fireproof]]''
|2008
|PG
|Highly successful pro-Christian, pro-marriage film created by [[Sherwood Pictures]].
|$ 33,451,479
|-
|''[[Beauty and the Beast]]''
|1991
|G
|A young woman overcomes a materialistic, shallow society and finds true love. A powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]], far better than the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] since.
|$ 25,487,028
|-
|''[[Titanic]]''
|1997
|PG-13
|Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues.
|$ 600,779,824
|-
|''The Lives of Others''
|2006
|R
|(''Not for children'') - This German-language film is a stinging criticism of the [[communist]] [[East Germany]] from a liberal perspective.
|$ 11,286,112
|-
|''[[The Sound of Music]]''
|1965
|UR
|Solid family entertainment.
|$ 158,671,368
|-
|''[[Chinatown]]''
|1974
|R
|A thriller about the deceit surrounding water rights in southern California and LA's water system, removing most of the water from the central valley.
|$ 30,000,000 (world wide estimate)
|-
|''[[The Fountainhead]]''
|1949
|UR
|Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal starring in Ayn Rand's classic story of the right of the individual to produce on their own terms.
|Unknown
|-
|''Moses''
|1974
|PG
|Italian-British-American production which features [[Burt Lancaster]] playing [[Moses]] the lawgiver. Less flamboyant than Cecil B. Demille's movie The Ten Commandments and focuses more on the biblical figure of Moses. Originally a 6-part TV mini-series, but edited to make it a movie.
|-
|''[[The Ten Commandments]]''
|1956
|UR
|The definitive film portrayal of [[Exodus]].
|$ 65,500,000
|-
|''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]''
|1939
|UR
|A tale of a good, simple man rising above the pressures of [[liberals]] to do the right thing. Features perhaps the best defense of the American political system ever committed to film.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Star Wars]]''
|1977-2005
|PG
|Simple truths about the triumph of good over evil.
|$460,998,007
|-
|''The Winning Team''
|1952
|UR
|[[Ronald Reagan]] stars as a baseball pitcher who overcomes his problems to help his team win. This was one of Reagan's own favorites.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[King of Kings]]''
|1961
|PG-13
|2 hour, 51 minute widescreen epic by the great director Nicholas Ray about Jesus and his promises of spiritual redemption, as contrasted with the story of the revolutionary leader Barabbas and his promises of worldly redemption.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Iron Eagle]]''
|1986
|PG-13
|
|$ 24,159,872
|-
|''[[On The Waterfront]]''
|1954
|UR
|[[Marlon Brando]] plays Terry Malloy, who under the inspiration of a Catholic priest (Father Barry, played by [[Karl Malden]]), becomes a Christ-like figure. Betrayed by his brother and almost killed by the gang, he finds the strength to overcome and redeem his people from the slavery to the mobsters who run the waterfront. In stunning contrast to the liberals who kept silent about the Communist subversion in Hollywood, the film portrays the informer as the hero; liberal Hollywood never forgave director [[Elia Kazan]] for his stunning film. In real life, Kazan, Malden and screenwriter Budd Schulberg all testified before Congress, along with [[Ronald Reagan]]. Together they broke the power of the Reds in Hollywood.
|$ 9,600,000
|-
|''The Name of the Rose''
|1986
|R
|A mystery centered around the balance between faith and science, as well as debate over the role of poverty in religion and religious orders.
|$ 5,595,706
|-
|''[[Sergeant York]]''
|1941
|UR
|A young American soldier during WWI overcomes an unfounded religious objection to killing and becomes a war hero.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]''
|1940
|UR
|Stars [[Ronald Reagan]] as corageous football player George Gipp, who dies before an important game.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Ninotchka]]''
|1939
|UR
|
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Forbidden Planet]]''
|1956
|UR
|
|$ 3,000,000
|-
|''[[Rudy]]''
|1993
|PG
|A young man overcomes many obstacles, including dyslexia, to play for the [[Notre Dame]] football team. Shows the value of hard work and never giving up.
|$ 22,750,363
|-
|''[[The Prince of Egypt]]''
|1998
|PG
|A telling of the life of [[Moses]].
|$ 101,217,900
|-
|''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]''
|1955
|UR
|Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]''
|1963
|UR
|Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Red Dawn]]''
|1984
|PG-13
|A film by conservative writer and director [[John Milius]] about American high school students resisting a Soviet invasion through guerrilla warfare.
|$ 35,866,000
|-
|''[[Harry's War]]''
|1981
|PG
|Anti-IRS comedy.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[The Patriot]]''
|2000
|R
|A patriot fights for American freedom during the [[American Revolution]].
|$ 113,330,342
|-
|''[[Ladder 49]]''
|2004
|PG-13
|Shows the courageousness of firefighters.
|$ 74,541,707
|-
|''[[Rocky]]''
|1976
|PG
|A talented but down-on-his-luck fighter gets a chance to challenge himself to the ends of his ability. This film reinforces man's ability to overcome challenges.
|$ 117,235,247
|-
|''[[October Sky]]''
|1999
|PG
|Four high school boys from a rural coal mining town, inspired by Sputnik, set out to build their own rockets and become rocket scientists.
|$ 32,481,825
|-
|''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]''
|2006
|PG
|Shows the horrors of slave trade.
|$ 21,208,358
|-
|''[[Bruce Almighty]]''
|2003
|PG-13
|Shows, in a comedic, accessible way, that no one mortal can successfully do [[God]]'s job.
|$ 242,589,580
|-
|''[[World Trade Center]]''
|2006
|PG-13
|Highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]]
|$ 70,236,496
|-
|''[[Flight 93]]''
|2006
|PG-13
|Shows the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93, which was hijacked on September 11th, 2001, and crashed into a Pennsylvania field. The passengers fought back against the hijackers.
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[A Man For All Seasons]]''
|1966
|UR
|In 16th Century England, statesman and philosopher Thomas More is forced to choose between his Catholic faith and his loyalty to the king. Winner of the Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor, Best Cinematography, and Best Costume Design in 1966.
|$ 20,000,000<ref>This figure is a worldwide gross.</ref>
|-
|''[[Chariots of Fire]]''
|1981
|PG
|
|$ 58,972,904
|-
|''[[One Foot In Heaven]]''
|1941
|UR
|
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Quo Vadis?]]''
|1951
|UR
|
|Unknown
|-
|''[[The Lost Weekend]]''
|1945
|UR
|Illustrates the dangers of alcohol abuse.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]''
|1962
|PG-13
|Anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]].
|Unknown
|-
|''[[The Green Berets]]''
|1968
|G
|Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.
|$ 11,000,000
|-
|''[[My Son John]]''
|1952
|UR
|A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.
|Unknown
|-

|''[[True Lies]]''
|1994
|R
|Stars the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.
|$ 146,261,000
|-
|''[[The Island]]''
|2005
|PG-13
|Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.
|$ 35,799,026
|-
|''[[Evelyn]]''
|2002
|PG
|True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.
|$ 1,483,975
|-
|''[[Shane]]''
|1953
|UR
|Western about defending a homesteading family.
|$ 20,000,000
|-
|''[[Lean on Me]]''
|1989
|PG-13
|A true story about combating drug use, violence, and contempt for authority while exalting positive values like academic achievement and family values.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097722/</ref>
|$ 31,906,454
|-
|''[[Hero]]''
|1992
|PG-13
|Even those with character flaws can do good.
|$ 19,487,173
|-
|''[[The 6th Day]]''
|2000
|PG-13
|Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]
|$ 34,543,701
|-
|''Ghostbusters''
|1984
|PG
|Fitting satire of an unfair (and likely liberal) professor, senseless academic research, paganism, and a villainous EPA regulator. Sample line by one of the stars (Dan Aykroyd) when asked to shift from the public to the [[private sector]]: “I don’t know about that. I’ve worked in the private sector. They expect results!”
|$ 238,632,124
|-
|[[Facing the Giants]]
|2006
|PG
|Trust in [[God]], let him take over, and good things will happen.
|$ 10,178,331
|-
|''Flash of Genius''
|2008
|PG-13
|The intellectual property of a hard-working, solitary inventor is promoted, and his children stuck by his side through enormous difficulties.
|$ 3,744,790
|-
|''Oh, God!''
|1977
|PG
|Acceptance of God's calling is rewarded, the faithful are vindicated, and naysayers are proven wrong.
|$ 41,687,243
|-
|''[[Courageous]]''
|2011
|PG-13
|[[Sherwood Pictures]] film focusing on the role of fathers.
|$ 34,522,221
|-
|''[[Air Force One (film)|Air Force One]]''
|1997
|R
|Positively portrays a strong U.S. president who takes an uncompromising stance against terrorism. Includes positive material about family, authority, the military and sacrifice.
|$ 172,956,409
|-
|''[[The Fellowship of the Ring (film, 2001)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]''
|2001
|PG-13
|Clear distinction between good and evil with positive themes of friendship, bravery, honor, sacrifice and overcoming temptation.
|$ 314,776,114
|-
|''[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers]]''
|2002
|PG-13
|Strong portrayals of redemption and good over evil.
|$ 340,478,898
|-
|''[[The Return of the King (2003 film)|The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King]]''
|2003
|PG-13
|Bravery, heroism, sacrifice and good ultimately triumphing over evil.
|$ 377,027,325
|-
|''[[Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World]]''
|2003
|PG-13
|Promotes many positive conservative values including faith in God, patriotism, duty, honor, respect for authority, discipline, bravery, sacrifice, and friendship.
|$ 93,926,386
|-
|''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]''
|2005
|PG
|Based upon the Christian allegory written by C.S. Lewis.
|$ 291,709,845
|-
|''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian]]''
|2008
|PG
|
|$ 141,621,490
|-
|''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]''
|2010
|PG
|
|$ 104,383,624
|-
|''Coach Carter''
|2005
|PG-13
|Promotes the theme that graduating from high school and having proper moral values are more important than becoming famous athletes.
|$ 67,253,092
|-
|''[[The Seventh Sign]]''
|1988
|R
|Starring Demi Moore, a fictional account of the return of Jesus to usher in the apocalypse and judge mankind. Catholic themed movie has Demi offering her life for the souls of others.
|$ 18,875,011
|-
|''[[Maafa21]]''
|2009
|UR
|This film explores the inception of [[Planned Parenthood]] as an organization created to exterminate African-Americans. It exposes the words of its' racist founder [[Margaret Sanger]] and their impact on black genocide more than a century later. <ref>[http://www.maafa21.com www.maafa21.com]</ref>
|NA - DVD
|-
|''[[Twelve O'Clock High]]''
|1949
|UR
|A thrilling movie about the heroics of fighter pilots during [[World War II]]; used as an educational film for management training seminars.
|$ 3,225,000
|-
|''[[Escape from Hell]]''
|2000
|UR
|Drama about a doctor and near-death experience.
|NA - DVD
|-
|''[[Waiting for Superman]]''
|2010
|PG
|Documentary on the failed public school system.
|$ 6,410,257
|-
|''The Hurt Locker''
|2008
|R
|A look into the life of an American bomb disposal regiment in Iraq risking their lives for their country and for the innocent by confronting evil. Rated R for violence and language.
|$ 12,647,089
|-
|''The Tunnel'' (''Der Tunnel'')
|2001
|
|Based on a true story a group of East Berliners escaping harsh Communist rule and hatch a plan to help others escape that same oppressive regime.
|$ 10,890
|-
|''A Charlie Brown Christmas''
|1965
|G
|The real meaning of Christmas is discussed, as Linus quotes Luke 2:8-14. Decries the materialism that can surround the Christmas holiday.
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]''
|2007
|UR
|Exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science.
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[Fiddler on the Roof]]''
|1971
|G
|A celebration of tradition, faith, and the importance of family, against a historical background of the persecution of Russian Jews.
|$ 50,000,000
|-
|''[[Kids Aren't Cars]]''
|2011
|UR
|How the teachers' unions are destroying our public schools. <ref>[http://www.kidsarentcars.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/KACOneSheet.pdf KAC Summary]</ref>
|Unknown
|-
|''[[How Should We Then Live]]''
|1976
|UR
|Christian film that traces Western history from Ancient Rome until 1976. A study of philosophic, scientific, and religious movements reflecting changing patterns.
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[Gattaca]]''
|1997
|PG-13
|A condemnation of human genetic engineering, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely totalitarian regime. Unfortunately the movie ends with a materialistic message: "They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home" (A phrase said when the protagonist finally managed to go to space).
|$ 12,339,633
|-
|''The Lion King''
|1994
|G
|A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory.
|$ 312,825,899
|-
|''Contact''
|1997
|PG
|The overall message is about how science and faith do not have to be in opposition to one another.
|$ 100,853,835
|-
|''The Sandlot''
|1993
|PG
|Honestly depicts 1950s America when boys acted like boys and girls acted like girls, wimps were taught to toughen up, and every boy had a chance to be great. No historical revisionism.
|$ 32,416,586
|-
|''I Confess''
|1953
|UR
|In this classic by Alfred Hitchcock, a clergyman honors his sacred vow of confidentiality with respect to a confession despite intense pressure to disclose it.
|Unknown
|-
|''Mr. Skeffinton''
|1944
|UR
|Bette Davis portrays a socialite whose life is ruined when she turns ugly with age. Anti-Nazi and anti-materialistic.
|Unknown
|-
|''The Forgotten''
|2004
|PG-13
|A mystery film with a great [[Pro-life]] message.<ref>[http://www.decentfilms.com/reviews/forgotten.html ''The Forgotten''] at Decent Film Guide</ref>
|Unknown
|-
|''The Tree of Life''
|2011
|PG-13
|An adaptation of the Book of Job set in 1950s Texas with a narrative structure based on the nature of human memory which many viewers will find confusing.
|Unknown
|-
|''Cronos''
|1993
|R
|In this Mexican film by Guillermo del Toro (''Pan's Labyrinth'', ''Hellboy''), an elderly antiques dealer has a chance at immortality—but at the cost of being a leech to others. Mostly in Spanish with large parts in English.
|Unknown
|-
|''An American Carol''
|2008
|PG-13
|
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Raiders of the Lost Ark]]''
|1981
|PG
|
|Unknown
|-
|}

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''[[The Passion of the Christ]]''
|2004
|R
|Downplays the [[Resurrection]],<ref>The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.</ref> and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.
|$ 370,782,930
|-

|''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]''
|1946
|UR
|Falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.
|$ 3,300,000
|-
|''[[High Noon]]''
|1952
|UR
|Bill Clinton saw this movie 20 times, and John Wayne said it was the most un-American movie ever;<ref>http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php</ref> though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.
|$ 3,750,000
|-
|''[[P.C.U.]]''
|1994
|PG-13
|College students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.
|$ 4,350,774
|-
|''Pillow Talk''
|1959
|UR
|A classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones. There are no distortions by feminist ideology. Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!
|$ 18,750,000
|-
|''[[Blues Brothers]]''
|1980
|R
|Comedy musical. A story of redemption, "A mission from God", raising money to save a Catholic orphanage. R-rated movie for vulgar language, slap stick comedy. Vatican approved. <ref>[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/18/vatican-blesses-blues-brothers/ Vatican Calls The Blues Brothers “Catholic”, FOXNews, June 19, 2010]</ref>
|$ 57,229,890
|-
|''The Way We Were''
|1973
|PG
|Unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women.
|$ 49,919,870
|-
|''Grease''
|1978
|PG-13
|Some [[conservative]] messages and no [[feminism]] or other [[political correctness]]; mocks [[public school]] and even [[television]].
|$ 153,113,000
|-
|''Fargo''
|1996
|R
|Pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping and murder scheme.
|$ 24,611,975
|-
|''[[Juno (film)|Juno]]''
|2007
|PG-13
|A pregnant teenage woman rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. This movie pushes [[feminism]] and marginalizes the essential role of fatherhood.
|$ 143,492,840
|-
|''[[The Dark Knight]]''
|2008
|PG-13
|Christian allegory with message of not giving in to terrorists, but the movie also arguably has some liberal themes as pointed on [[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]].
|$ 533,316,061
|-
|''Camelot''
|1967
|G
|The famous jousting scene is a powerful display of Christian values and chivalry, but the movie seems lost afterward.
|$ 31,102,578
|-
|''The Iron Lady''
|2011
|PG-13
|The British biopic of [[Conservative Party]] leader and 1979-90 [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British Prime Minister]], Margaret Thatcher, showing the effects of conservative economic policy on Britain, helping to lift the country out of recession.
|$ 80,554,188 (international including UK), $27,081,674 (US - domestic)
|-
|}

== Debatable Whether Great ==

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''The Room''
|2003
|R
|A tragedy showing the corrosive effects of [[liberal values]] like [[alcoholism]] and [[adultery]], while reflecting the conservative traits of [[charity]], innovation (in banking) and support for small business.
|Unknown
|-
|''Space Jam''
|1996
|PG
|Michael Jordan uses the help of beloved children's characters from the '50s (a simpler time in America's history) to beat back foreign invaders who wish to take away our freedoms.
|$ 90,443,603
|-
|}

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]

Talk:Rick Santorum

2012-03-07T02:03:48Z

Jja1:

Obsessed? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:21, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:What would you say? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:28, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
::I was going to look at the reference to see if I could pick out a better word, but there wasn't one. So without doing any research of my own, I would say something like "there was an increase of media coverage after..." or some such verifiable claim. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:29, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh man I just read more of the article and saw "cult-like" and "forthright and truthful". And no sources :( I should have quit while I was ahead. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:32, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

==Senselessly==
Maybe Santorum is running for VP; he'd reunite social conservatives to a Romney/Santorum ticket. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:11, 28 January 2012 (EST)
: Meh.... Romney's socially conservative enough for most voters. The issue is his view on economic issues, which is why I think he would pick a Tea Party fiscal conservative like Rand Paul. Santorum isn't very conservative on most fiscal issues, and neither is Romney. He needs someone who is to balance the ticket. Santorum/Romney makes more sense, with Santorum choosing a moderate to get some independents in. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:54, 17 February 2012 (EST)

== Endorsement ==

When is Conservapedia going to endorse this man? Time is running out. If no one objects I'll add our endorsement soon. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 01:21, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:Nah, Newt is our man [http://www.conservapedia.com/Gingrich_Administration]. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:23, 17 February 2012 (EST)

^ Agreed. Santorum is an extreme social conservative and has no clue what he's doing when it comes to finance. --[[User:Jja1|Jja1]] 21:03, 6 March 2012 (EST)

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-01-22T13:18:16Z

Jja1:

'''''The next presidential debates are on January 23 and 26. The next primary election is on Tuesday, January 31, in [Florida]]'''''.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is nearly 9% (and real unemployment much higher) less than 12 months before the election. [[Barack Obama]] also cannot win reelection unless he carries [[Florida]], where he has a high disapproval rating; he is likewise polling poorly in the key swing states of [[Ohio]], [[Virginia]] and [[North Carolina]].

For the Republican nomination, in early December it seemed to become a two-man race between [[Newt Gingrich]] and [[Mitt Romney]], but then [[Ron Paul]] ran devastatingly negative political ads against Gingrich in [[Iowa]] that dropped Newt to fourth place there.<ref>For the dates of early primaries, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Still, Romney was unable to attain a commanding lead. About 1,214 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination. Primaries held before April 1, 2012, will award delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except for Florida, which will be winner-take-all but only half its delegates will count).<ref>Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but Texas is going to be proportional anyway.</ref> It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win a majority of delegates before June 2012.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ==
<center><big>'''Candidates who are still running'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, heavily favored by the Establishment, has business experience, was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Romney is a prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner who won the initial primaries in Iowa and New Hampahire. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Has come out with a new jobs plan. Received endorsements from [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], and South Carolina Governor [[Nikki Haley]].
|Has big weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it unlikely Romney can win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations; Romney also continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. Won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008. The lack of criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] suggests that they want him to win so that they can defeat him in the general election.
|Endorsed by [[John McCain]], [[John Bolton]], and [[Jon Huntsman]] after coming in second in the Iowa caucuses, and a solid win in the [[New Hampshire]] Primary. He remains strong in national polling, and even has a lead in conservative South Carolina. He's done well in most of the debates so far, yet Romney has done poorly in straw polls, and the majority of [[Republican]] voters are apparently still looking for an alternative.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The only candidate who stands up to the [[lamestream media]]. His debate performances have earned him a reputation as the Republican most capable of winning debates against Obama. Newt had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including his [[pro-life]] positions and his passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government.
|Has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax), a [[Con Con]], and limited amnesty. On a personal level, Newt divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a woman 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. For a period after 9/11, Newt adopted more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.
|Rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to victory for Gingrich in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. Despite having led in most polls conducted in late 2011, he lost the #1 spot on Dec. 24th due to the toll taken by attacks from the media and other candidates and his failure to qualify for the ballot in Virginia even though he lives there and is in first place in its polling. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates has been brilliant. With Romney unable to gain 50% support in any State there remains an opportunity for conservatives to rally behind Newt. Was endorsed by Rick Perry. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his assumed Cabinet.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treats him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Finished a strong third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, and is the only candidate other than [[Mitt Romney]] to qualify for the ballot in Virginia; Paul has won at least fifteen regional straw polls and online polls and, surprisingly, won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by evangelicals, strongly conservative across the board.
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; endorsed Romney in 2008. His tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes.
|Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], is fabulous in debates and television interviews, but has been near the bottom in polling in some key states. Campaigned relentlessly in Iowa and succeeded in picking up several important endorsements. Then sagged to only 9% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary and was an also-ran behind Gingrich and Romney in the South Carolina primary.
|-
|}

{{clear}}

<center><big>'''Candidates who have dropped out'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser with plenty of funds on hand.
|It can be argued is more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and the question of building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his electability. Suspended his campaign on January 19, two days prior to the South Carolina primary.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011, one day after the [[Iowa Caucuses]]. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachman withdrew from the race after a poor finish in Iowa.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|Getting little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. Claiming that there are three tickets out of New Hampshire (the usual observation made about Iowa, not New Hampshire), he originally announced that his candidacy would continue, but dropped out of the race less than a week later.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. Cain denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011 and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|}

{{clear}}
<center><big>'''Candidates who never declared a candidacy (but possible Vice President picks)'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|The opportunity for Jeb to win is now, not in 2016 when another Republican would be the incumbent; Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|The deadlines have passed for getting on the ballot in New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina. Also, in February Jeb polled unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012. Knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, refused to run in 2008 on these grounds. Is disliked by many Tea Partiers.
|Stands at #3 with the inability of any other candidate to win a majority, thereby increasing the likelihood of the winner being chosen after many ballots at the convention. Though Romney's strong performances so far make him look more formidable than he did earlier in the race. Jeb will not want to wait until 2020 to run, which may be his next opportunity if a Republican wins in 2012 amid the persistent high unemployment.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. 3) Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA has been seized upon by Democrats hoping to hurt him with Hispanic voters and also get even with Conservatives for questioning Obama's place of birth. 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, 2011 showed gains for her but also that a large majority of Republicans still didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Definitely not running now.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president. Has endorsed Perry.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he has declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity but may re-emerge as a Vice Presidential contender because of Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich may be able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

McClatchy-Marist survey after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur. 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal. The Marist poll says,
{{Cquote|Interestingly, a plurality of Democrats – 42 percent – would like to see a more liberal challenger while half of Democratic leaning independents – 50 percent – would like to see a more conservative one.}}
The McClatchy-Marist poll indicates that 48 percent of registered voters nationwide plan to vote against the president in 2012, with 36 percent saying they'll vote to re-elect Obama.

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Will make this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention, and he likely will never get a chance to go up against Obama in a debate.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, when he's mentioned
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump is also considering an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed is party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Libertarian Party]]
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party's nomination on December 28, 2011.
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-01-12T22:10:18Z

Jja1:

'''''The next debates are on January 16 and 19, 2012. The next primary elections are on Saturday, January 21, in [[South Carolina]], and then [[Florida]] on Tuesday, January 31'''''.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is nearly 9% (and real unemployment much higher) less than 12 months before the election. [[Barack Obama]] also cannot win reelection unless he carries [[Florida]], where he has a high disapproval rating; he is likewise polling poorly in the key swing states of [[Ohio]], [[Virginia]] and [[North Carolina]].

For the Republican nomination, in early December it seemed to become a two-man race between [[Newt Gingrich]] and [[Mitt Romney]], but then [[Ron Paul]] ran devastatingly negative political ads against Gingrich in [[Iowa]] that dropped Newt to fourth place there.<ref>For the dates of early primaries, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Still, Romney was unable to attain a commanding lead. About 1,214 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination. Primaries held before April 1, 2012, will award delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except for Florida, which will be winner-take-all but only half its delegates will count).<ref>Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but Texas is going to be proportional anyway.</ref> It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win a majority of delegates before June 2012.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, business experience, Republican governor of a Democratic state, cut taxes and the deficit, prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner, has polled as high as 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], and was credited with helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Has come out with a new jobs plan. Received endorsements from [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], South Carolina Governor [[Nikki Haley]], and [[John McCain]].
|Weak on the pivotal pro-life issue, and even refuses to sign the same [[pro-life]] pledge that all other major [[Republican]] candidates signed;<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57256.html</ref> continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]]; Romney once supported [[abortion]] and [[civil unions]]; is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. Won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008. The lack of criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] suggests that they want him to win so that they can defeat him in the general election.
|Has failed to pick up much additional support, but won the Iowa caucuses and the [[New Hampshire]] Primary (the first non-incumbent Republican to do so). He remains strong in national polling, and even has a lead in conservative South Carolina. He's done well in the debates so far, yet Romney has done poorly in straw polls, and the majority of [[Republican]] voters are apparently still looking for an alternative.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Has the backing of Fox News and will likely receive the endorsement of those who appear on it: [[Sarah Palin]], [[John McCain]], [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Lindsey Graham]] (influential in [[South Carolina]]), etc.; Newt has already won the endorsement of the most influential newspaper in [[New Hampshire]] and is likely to obtain endorsement by older "right to life" groups against Mitt; as [[Speaker of the House]] in the 1990s, Gingrich had a strong record of passing [[conservative]] legislation, including welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. He also had the courage to shut down the government.
|Has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]. Advocated a limited amnesty for illegal immigrants during the November 22 debate. Resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a woman 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. Since 9/11, Newt has come to adopt more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.
|Strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney pushes Gingrich back to #2, and with Romney unable to gain 50% support in any State there remains an opportunity for his opponents to rally behind Newt. Newt did lose the #1 spot on Dec. 24th due to his failure to qualify for the ballot in Virginia, even though he lives there and is in first place in its polling. Most polls released in November and December put Newt in 1st place, but attacks from other candidates and the media erased his lead. His debate performances earned him a reputation as the most knowledgeable of the Republican candidates and the one most capable of winning next year's debates against Obama. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates has been brilliant. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his assumed Cabinet. Still has not done better than 4th place in the first two contests of the election season.
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|The opportunity for Jeb to win is now, not in 2016 when another Republican would be the incumbent; Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|The deadlines have passed for getting on the ballot in New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina. Also, in February Jeb polled unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012. Knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, refused to run in 2008 on these grounds. Is disliked by many Tea Partiers.
|Stands at #3 with the inability of any other candidate to win a majority, thereby increasing the likelihood of the winner being chosen after many ballots at the convention. Though Romney's strong performances so far make him look more formidable than he did earlier in the race. Jeb will not want to wait until 2020 to run, which may be his next opportunity if a Republican wins in 2012 amid the persistent high unemployment.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treats him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls.
|Finished a strong third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, and is the only candidate other than [[Mitt Romney]] to qualify for the ballot in Virginia; Paul has won at least fifteen regional straw polls and online polls and, surprisingly, won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser with plenty of funds on hand.
|It can be argued is more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. ''Could simply block [[Mitt Romney]] from winning the nomination, without winning it himself''.
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and the question of building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically.
Did well in the first debate that he participated in, but seemed tired or unprepared during a string of later debates, raising doubts about his electability. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010, strongly conservative across the board.
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; endorsed Romney in 2008. His tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes.
|Did amazingly well in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], is fabulous in debates and television interviews, but has been near the bottom in polling in some key states (like [[South Carolina]]). Campaigned relentlessly in Iowa, succeeded in picking up several important endorsements, and finished eight votes out of first in the caucuses. Then sagged to only 9% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|Getting little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. Claiming that there are three tickets out of New Hampshire (the usual observation made about Iowa, not New Hampshire), he announced that his candidacy continues.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy could unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011, one day after the [[Iowa Caucuses]]. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachman withdrew from the race after a poor finish in Iowa.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. 3) Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA has been seized upon by Democrats hoping to hurt him with Hispanic voters and also get even with Conservatives for questioning Obama's place of birth. 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, 2011 showed gains for her but also that a large majority of Republicans still didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. Cain denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011 and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Definitely not running now.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president. Has endorsed Perry.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he has declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, and stay in the House
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity but may re-emerge as a Vice Presidential contender because of Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]]; was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|Announced in late April 2011 that he is not running; also, rarely seen at conservative conferences, and a Republican from the [[Deep South]] may have trouble attracting independent voters.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich may be able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

McClatchy-Marist survey after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur. 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal. The Marist poll says,
{{Cquote|Interestingly, a plurality of Democrats – 42 percent – would like to see a more liberal challenger while half of Democratic leaning independents – 50 percent – would like to see a more conservative one.}}
The McClatchy-Marist poll indicates that 48 percent of registered voters nationwide plan to vote against the president in 2012, with 36 percent saying they'll vote to re-elect Obama.

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Will make this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention, and he likely will never get a chance to go up against Obama in a debate.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, when he's mentioned
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump is also considering an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed is party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Libertarian Party]]
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party's nomination on December 28, 2011.
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2012-01-12T22:01:00Z

Jja1:

I think the biggest negative about John Thune (other than the fact that he's not really well known right now) is that he supported the McCain-Feingold bill. He's since admitted that that was a mistake, and no one is perfect, of course, but if he does seriously run in 2012, people are going to bring that vote up.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 22:56, 12 February 2010 (EST)

:Good point, I'll add it. I don't think it disqualifies him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Is Mitt Romney "regularly" on Fox? I haven't seen that, but I don't watch it regularly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:44, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:If no one can vouch for Mitt Romney being "regularly" on Fox, then I'll revert it back to something like "rarely" on Fox.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::While "regularly" is obviously a subjective measure, he's been on Fox a lot lately. He was on Hannity on January 20th, on "On the Record with Greta van Sustern" on January 11th, and on Hannity again on December 18th. Of course, a lot of that was to discuss the Scott Brown race. Sean Hannity also had him on a lot in 2008 after John McCain got the nomination to analyze the presidential race. While I don't have an opinion as to whether or not that counts as regularly, I thought you might like to know.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 17:23, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::::That's helpful, but doesn't seem to be nearly as much as the Fox favorites of Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich. So perhaps "on occasionally" might describe this best. 2008 is ancient history and not relevant to appearances in connection with 2012.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 15 February 2010 (EST)

==Hillary Clinton==
Of all potential candidates, Obama, Palin, McCain, Romney, ''et all'', [[Hillary Clinton]] currently enjoys the highest approval ratings at 58%. It is hard not to believe the Clintons are not seriously mulling thier options at the moment. This article should note the distinct possibility of a Democratic Primary challenge in 2012 as ''[[US News]]'' has reported. [http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/27/a-hillary-clinton-primary-challenge-to-obama-in-2012.html] Obama recently remarked on the possibility of being a one term president in his Diane Sawyer interview and Hillary stated she cannot see herself being Secretary of State after 2012. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 10:02, 15 February 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Is "irrational liberal hatred of her" really a con? It seems it will just make the Democrats look foolish when they foam at the mouth and drive more voters to the Republicans. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:40, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: You may be right, but it could be a hurdle. The liberal media are losing market share but still have some.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:00, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::I'm guessing it'd come down to her performance. If she does well in debate and interviews, the rage will look silly. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 17:10, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
:::People resent seeing those like them being attacked. They look at Palin and see someone they know IRL. We all have family dramas and tribulations. Those outside the political world don't see her quitting as Governor to be as bad a thing as the media and political world make it out to be, to use but one example. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:20, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

== Ken Cuccinelli ==
Why is "effective critic of Obama" under cons? I have a feeling that might have been vandalism. Does anyone oppose if that is moved to a pro?--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 18:45, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: Please do. Great point, thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:06, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== A concern ==

Does anyone feel like having so many potential Republican candidates is a detriment? It just feels like the Republican Party is so divided these days.
As for Clinton and Obama, if Clinton wins over Obama I'd be thoroughly surprised. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the incumbent president has never been beaten in the primaries by someone else in their own party. Also, I think Obama has kept a lot of moderates on his side. However, he's never been a friend of the right, and he's alienating the left. Just my 2 cents. --[[User:JasonN|JasonN]] 12:40, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

: In 1968, incumbent [[Lyndon Johnson]] felt compelled to withdraw from the race after being humiliated by the strong showing of [[Eugene McCarthy]] against him in the first primary.

: As to the large number, that's appropriate at this stage so that no one is missed. Competition is a good thing!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== Rubio and Experience ==

I'm curious what you all think about Rubio in 2012. The article says "Will face liberal double standard: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a conservative." But it seems to me that by pushing him in 2012 we might be equally guilty of a conservative double standard: Obama was quite rightly attacked by conservatives for inexperience. But what's not OK for Obama is OK for Rubio? My perspective is that Rubio should serve out his term and consider a run in 2020, probably holding a high office (maybe VP) during the 2017-2021 term of whoever ends up beating Obama. Thoughts? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 22:31, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

:Most conservatives criticized Obama for being too liberal. I don't think Obama's inexperience was the major basis for criticism, but it will be when liberals criticize Rubio.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:47, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

::Obama was criticized, and rightly so, for ''absolutely no executive experience''. He had experience as a legislator, but had never actually held a job that required executive experience, running a company and meeting a payroll. Since that criticism was rejected by the Obama camp, one would think it would be off-limits for them to use it against Rubio. But since liberals don't think logically, and only care about smearing their opponents, as Andy said.....of course they will use it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:08, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

== "New" president ==

I just made a minor edit, but have a feeling it may be contentious, so I'll explain a bit here. The opening sentence said the election is when the U.S. "picks a new president." I removed "new" because, inasmuch as it's likely that Obama will not be re-elected, it's still possible, meaning the country may not have a new president, but rather the same old one. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:34, 15 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your clarifying edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 15 November 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Sarah Palin did appoint a judge who is not pro-life, but with the way the Alaskan Constitution is written she had to appoint one of the people nominated by the Judicial council. Her choices were anti-life, more anti-life, and most anti-life. She chose anti-life. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:45, 6 February 2011 (EST)

:I don't agree. Palin picked the more anti-life candidate, and of course she did not have to pick anyone at all. Moreover, good politicians anticipate tricks by the other side and advert crises before they occur ... if they want to, that is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 17 February 2011 (EST)

== Question ==

I understand that the Republicans are ordered by likelihood of success, but have you done the same for the Democrats? If so, I really don't see Mike Gravel having any chance of winning the nomination. He is too far left for most of the democratic base and he is an incredible flip-flopper (he ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2008). Otherwise, this is a fascinating article. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 13:23, 17 February 2011 (EST)

:Excellent point. I've improved the ranking on the [[Democratic]] side. Please feel free to improve further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:42, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::The new ranking is great. It would be very interesting to see Hillary Clinton attempt another primary run against Obama. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 16:56, 17 February 2011 (EST)
:::That would be silly of her. She'd have to resign as SoS to do so effectively since all Obama need do is keep her bogged down with impossible tasks. She'll bide her time until 2016. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 18:05, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::::She'd have to pick a fight with the Admin, claiming the President is to soft on Iran or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for instance, and she's unable to continue her duties as SoS. In reality, this in unlikely, for the simple reason she doesn't have any fresh faces to bring into a Hillary Administration; Obama pretty much fired all his old Chicago mafia after the midterm fiasco and replaced them with Clinton retreads. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:51, 19 February 2011 (EST)
:::::SoS ''used'' to be the place to gain experience for POTUS position but that was "back in the day" right after the Revolution. Who ''was'' the last President that held the SoS job in a previous administration? [[James Buchanan]]? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:40, 20 February 2011 (EST)

== Mitch Daniels ==
His star is dropping rapidly among conservatives. Recently, he spoke well of Democrats fleeing their duties, then backtracked. He was behind stalling the right to work legislation for another date. He called for social conservative issues to be put aside while we work on the economy. Liberal press all buttons on all fronts, they don't say hold off and focus here or there. Daniels needs to drop on our list. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:46, 25 February 2011 (EST)

:I agree. I don't see any plausible scenario now in which Mitch Daniels could win the nomination. Pawlenty, unlikely himself, has a far greater chance of winning the nomination than Daniels. Please downgrade Daniels as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 February 2011 (EST)

== Dropping Christie ==

Swapping Palin with Christie in the ranking makes sense. The rumor in [[New Jersey]] is that [[Chris Christie|Christie]] is going to run candidates in the primary ''against'' incumbents more [[conservative]] than he.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:27, 6 March 2011 (EST)

== Trump/Gingrich ==

Should Trump's 2 divorces and his much younger wife (24 years difference) be listed as cons when Gingrich's are? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:27, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

:Good question. Maybe it should be. But one difference may be this: Trump may have converted to a churchgoing life ''after'' his divorces, unlike Gingrich. Also, the circumstances of Trump's divorces may have been significantly different from Gingrich's.

:Reagan's first wife left him. Is that something voters should have used against him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

::Trump cheated on his first wife with his second one. I'm not sure about the circumstances behind the second divorce. As to his religion, I haven't read anything stating when he converted.

::There is certainly a huge difference between one's spouse leaving and being unfaithful. If Reagan's wife left for reasons other than him cheating on her or abuse, then no, it shouldn't be held against him. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:25, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

:::I thought a precedent had been established that what a person does in their private life is nobody's business? Were not holding Republicans to a different standard than we would Democratic officeholders, are we? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Then we should either remove the mention of Gingrich's multiple marriages or add Trump's multiple marriages. It shouldn't be considered a negative for one and ignored for the other. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:55, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== the republican table ==

I was wondering, for ease of viewing, if we could make 2, one for those who have and those who have not announced they are. Or is that not a good idea?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:01, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

:Ideas for improvements are welcome, but I'm not it is meaningful whether someone has formally announced or not. Mitt Romney, for example, has not announced yet but he's the clear frontrunner. Meanwhile candidates who announced long ago have almost no chance of winning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:09, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
::You never know. But it might help, if we won't do a separate table, to at least make them be more noticeable, since at the moment I can't actually tell who's running and who we think might run--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:11, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Idea for improvement ==

Hi, this is my first edit, though I have occasionally browsed Conservapedia in the past. I was linked to this page from the front page news item about George Will. From reading the page, it doesn't seem clear to me what the methodology of the rankings are. For example, New Gingrich is listed as second most likely to win the nomination. Most polls I have seen show him far behind Mitt Romney, polling close to candidates like Ron Paul or Tim Pawlenty. It also seems odd to me that Donald Trump is number three, as only a few polls have shown him with a lead, and recently that lead has disappeared. It seems a bit unencyclopedic to rank candidates by likelihood without clearly saying what the methodology is.

By the way, the article about George Will seemed to imply that he believed that Pawlenty and Daniels were the only Republicans who could win the general election, not that they were the Republican frontrunners.

I apologize if I sound like I'm telling editors how to run this wiki. However, I think many readers would appreciate seeing where this ranking comes from. [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 22:57, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

== trump ==

"In trademark Trump fashion, he maintained he could have won the election if he wanted to."[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/] LOL! Maybe [[Richard Dawkins]], "the Donald" of atheism, will say he could win a debate against [[William Lane Craig]] if he wanted to! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:40, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio ==

Let's face the facts, Marco Rubio's parents weren't citizens when he was born. Nevertheless, he was born in Florida, grew up in the USA, and cannot fairly be called anything other than a natural born citizen. That may not stop some liberals from raising the issue out of spite. By the same laws, Obama is a natural born citizen too. Or, they're both not. There's no logical way you can claim that one is and the other isn't. So let's emphasize the positive here. Rubio's immigrant background makes him a uniquely American success story. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: Rubio's parents were refugees who unambiguously sought to be Americans and fully subjected themselves to American jurisdiction immediately. Not so for both of Obama's parents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Does the Constitution make express claims about a child's parents' behavior/intentions? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:09, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

:::That's the debate. So the question is: Since Obama's father did not submit his-self to U.S. jurisdiction - in that he did not seek citizenship and was merely a student visiting - would that affect whether Obama was born "''subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]''"? (Citizenship Clause) (His mother, it should be noted, was an American citizen.)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:42, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Iduan states the issue well. The real issue is whether the family subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the United States. Visitors, diplomats, students on visas and (200 years ago) Native Americans typically do or did not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, but American citizens -- like, say Anne Dunham and her child, Barack Obama -- are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Where exactly in the case law or the Constitution is there a provision that BOTH parents or even the father must be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when ascertaining whether or not an individual is a natural-born citizen? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:10, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Subject to the jurisdiction" can't have anything to do with a person's actions but his status. If you're in the US on a visa you're subject to its jurisdiction - you can get sued, you can get arrested, etc. Diplomats and foreign heads of state can't. Please show us one single case that says visitors are included in the list with diplomats and foreign heads of state. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:22, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly -- people on an F-1 visa have to file tax returns with the IRS, obey US law, fill out census forms, etc. etc. In what way, exactly, are they not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:26, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, with all due respect, the issues you're bringing up have nothing to do with the natural born citizen requirement. The most obvious definition of the term in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA. There is not and has never been a tradition of ''jus sanguinis'' in the USA, so the parents' status in the overwhelming majority of cases plays absolutely no role in the child's status. The exceptions and gray areas to this are very narrow indeed, and none of them apply to either Obama or Rubio. You're simply inventing ambiguity where there is none. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:48, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::: JDW wrote, "The most obvious definition of the term [natural born citizen] in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA." Right, no problem there. But implicit in that concept -- and made explicit by the [[14th Amendment]] -- is that the family submit to the jurisdiction of the United States as its national sovereign. That's what is lacking in births to diplomats, visitors, Native Americans circa 1800, students on visas, etc. There is nothing "very narrow indeed" about those exceptions. The Native American population was large, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Seeing as the words "parent," "parents," "mother," "father" or "family" do not appear in the 14th Amendment, where do see the question of a familial commitment to US sovereignty coming into play? Also, in what ways do students on visas not submit to the US as national sovereign? Are filing tax returns, being subject to the law of the land, obliged to fill out the census and other obligations not an aspect of their being subject to US sovereignty for the duration of their stay in the US? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 21:38, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::::Many visitors insist on being deported rather than being subjected fully to U.S. laws. When those visitors take that position -- or act in a way indicative of that position -- then they do not submit fully to the jurisdiction of the United States and their children born during their visit are not "natural born citizens" of the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
That does not answer the more substantive point of my argument -- the fact that the 14th Amendment says nothing about parents or family. Moreover, the fact that some people get legally deported only speaks to the fact that they are subject to US sovereignty, as it's American law that determines their status in the country. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:23, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: The [[14th Amendment]] defines citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, '''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States''' and of the State wherein they reside." (emphasis added). Many people have been born here who do not accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Really? Who? And more to the point, does the refusal of some people to recognize US sovereignty has anything to do with any particular individual's eligibility? Is there any evidence that Anne Dunham's baby boy did not "accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States?" [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:53, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, from the opinion in Wong Kim Ark:
::::"The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,
:::::"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and ''subject to the jurisdiction thereof'', are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.
::::"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, '''this was not intended'' to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or '''to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States''' who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
:::From that legal precedent set by the opinion of the Supreme Court, I think the case is settled that being born in the US means you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:11, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

::::If you were right, then no one born on American soil would ever be deported. But this has been done by government, including high-profile cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::So your argument here is that because some people born on American soil are subject to deportation (which demonstrates that they are subject to US law, as it is US law that is determining where they might live), a child of a citizen and a non-citizen born on US soil may not qualify as "natural born," and this is backed up by the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about a child's parents or family. Moreover, because of the preceding, a child born to two non-US citizens has a greater claim on being a natural-born citizen than does the child of the American citizen. And Anne Dunham's baby may not have accepted US sovereignty, though you still have not provided any evidence for that claim. Do I have that right?[[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 09:06, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Vague anecdotes fail to persuade. Binding legal precedent set by the Supreme Court clearly says you're wrong. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 11:52, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Isn't one of the main rationales to keep those detainees at Guantanamo Bay that they would become ''subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States if they ever set foot on American soil, as they owe allegiance to no other sovereignty (most obviously, they aren't soldiers)? Whether they were willing to accept this or not? And isn't that the idea behind the “wet feet–dry feet” policy, too? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point exactly. Since when is national sovereignty/jurisdiction something that an individual can choose to recognize or not. Here's a thought experiment: ask someone from another country to come to the US and do something in the US that is illegal in America, but legal back home. When they are arrested and tried, go with the defense of "My client doesn't recognize US sovereignty or jurisdiction, and should be released." See how far that goes with a jury, if the judge even allows such a defense. With the very narrow and specific exception of diplomatic immunity, which is not really relevant in this case, anyone entering the US implicitly recognizes US sovereignty and jurisdiction. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:02, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

== ".... giving him a greater claim to being a natural-born citizen than Obama has." ==

So the child of ZERO American citizens is more likely to be a citizen by birth than is the child of ONE American citizen? Seriously, Andy, I think you need to reconsider this position -- or at least show us something in American citizenship laws that backs this up. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 10:46, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: See above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Where does the law say that any of that is relevant? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:07, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

== Separating out the Real Presidential Candidates ==

Now that several republicans have declared that they will run in the primaries, is it appropriate to remove the non-declared candidates to a new table? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 09:04, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

: No, I don't think so. Whether someone has declared or not is only one factor -- and not the most significant factor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

:: Nevertheless, don't you think it would make this table clearer? Perhaps the easiest thing would simply be to add a 'Declared?' column that has an 'X' or something in it - because even though it's not the only factor, it is a very important one? This is certainly the case as time marches on? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 17:29, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

::Do you think it is a good idea to explicitly state what the factors are / what criteria is used to rank the candidates? Even if the ranking is just based on the sum of "pros" vs. the sum of "cons," I would think that some issues receive heavier weighting than others, and it might be helpful to readers if this were made clear. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 12:04, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

:::Obvious factors would include:

:::*a political base
:::*a principled stance on issues
:::*ability to distinguish oneself from other candidates
:::*ability to obtain financial backing for a presidential campaign
:::*articulate
:::*ability to handle the hostile press
:::*proven electoral success

:::Perhaps others can add or reorder the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, I think we could add a few more columns to the table. Right now, each candidate has just two very general paragraphs about their pros/cons, but most of this information is opinionated and while I think the rankings are fairly accurate, I think we could increase the precision of the rankings (or just further justify what we already have) by being much more specific as to examples of each candidate's abilities in each area. Perhaps, like Aschlafly said, we could have a column for "X Candidate's ability to handle the press" and give links or examples of when they successfully managed a hostile situation with the media. That way we're not just throwing out opinions.

::::Also, forgive my boldness, but should Jeb Bush really still be second on the list? I do believe that with his name recognition and history in politics he could have a good chance at winning if he were to run, but since he has not declared I think the liklihood that he wins the nomination is decreasing quickly. There is a fast-moving trend in the media to say "Okay, this is our field. Let's work with what we have." And so if Jeb Bush is going to run, the longer he delays now the more he is going to hurt his own campaign. I would suggest keeping him in the Top Five or Top Seven, but moving him out of the second spot, just because he hasn't declared. Texas Governor Rick Perry should probably be moved up a little since the common stance is that he will be running, but I wouldn't put him in the second spot. Maybe move Bachmann up after her excellent performance in the debate? And then Gingrich in third? [[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 10:48, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: You make good points and feel free to add information as long as it does not obscure with less significant complexity. Note, however, that this is not merely a mirror of the [[lamestream media]]. [[Jeb Bush]] would objectively be the second most likely to win the nomination, whether he's running now or not. I don't see anyone else at this time (other than Romney) who has a higher likelihood, although obviously that will change as the deadlines for candidates to formally file election papers approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:27, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

== Democrats ==

Why are those other than Obama included? It is highly unlikely that there will be a primary challenge to Obama. If no one opposes I say this section be removed. [[User:TheoCaldwell|TheoCaldwell]] 23:32, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

:At this early stage, it makes sense to include many possible candidates. There is time to trim the list of candidates as primaries approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

== Huntsman ==

I would like to move Huntsman up. Somewhere around number ten. Does anyone mind? I don't think it makes any sense to have him at number twenty-nine (assuming I counted correctly) behind Dick Cheney. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:30, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

== Bump paper tiger RHINO Romney from #1, replace him with Bachmann ==

Conservative populism is on the rise. Bump the paper tiger RHINO Mitt Romney from the #1 position and replace him with Michele Bachmann. Plus, setting aside whether it is right or wrong, a significant number of Christian evangelical Republicans in Iowa, the South, the Midwest and elsewhere are less favorable to Romney because he is a Mormon (about 30%).[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-23/romney-gets-59-favorable-rating-from-republicans-in-presidential-poll.html] It's probably going to be a horse race and in horseraces, winner often win by a nose so that 30% could make a difference. Plus, on the very important likability factor (I like Ike, Reagan, etc.), Bachmann wins hands down.[http://www.nationaljournal.com/dailyfray/it-39-s-mr-no-comment-versus-ms-accessible-20110702]P Also, she did very well in the debate and is surging in the polls.[http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/romney-vs-bachmann-iowa-6013232] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:32, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
:I must agree here. Though Romney isn't exactly a liberal, he's definitely not a true conservative either. Here at conservapedia, we like real conservatives. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:36, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

::The observations above are astute but we strive for objectivity here and it seems Romney is still in first place, though obviously rankings will change weekly or even daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't think Republicans as a whole are very happy about the present field. The either have to know more about the existing candidates (Bachmann) or they want better choices (Perry/Christie). I also don't think Romney will be able to handle conservative political punches when they come his way and it will be a repeat of 2008. Hard to predict what is going to happen. Usually for Republicans, by now things are a lot more settled in terms of who is going to win. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:31, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush/John Huntsman/Rand Paul ==

I'm new here, so I just wanted to give individuals a chance to object before I made these changes. In light of Jeb Bush's own son endorsing John Huntsman today it seems appropriate to move Jeb Bush down the rankings list, and it seems to make sense to move Huntsman up as well, I would suggest either right before or after Sarah Palin's current position. In addition, as Rand Paul has been actively campaigning for his father, and has been unequivocal in stating he will not run against his father, I propose he be moved farther down the list.
--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 16:27, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:I have made the changes, if any objections emerge, I am more than open to discussing them.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 17:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::You're welcome to make changes - the entry, like other entries here, is a work-in-progress benefiting from the [[best of the public]]. But I think you've moved [[Jeb Bush]] far too low. While candidates listed above him struggle to get 50%, Jeb increasingly looks like he could be the star player who enters late in the game to win it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I moved Jeb Bush up a couple more spots in light of your suggestion. I placed him just above Chris Christie, another candidate who could be a star player if he entered late in the game. While I agree that if he were to enter Jeb Bush would be a major contender for the nomination, I believe this needs to be balanced against the actual likelihood that a candidate will enter the race. Jeb Bush has not expressed any willingness to run in this election, and his son's endorsement, and now position with the Huntsman campaign, seems to be another indicator that Jeb Bush will not be entering the race. It is possible that others believe Jeb Bush is more likely to enter, and if that is the case, as you suggest, they are welcome to move him up accordingly. I apologize for how long this is, I just want to make sure a change on an article such as this is acceptable.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 18:25, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I welcome your edits and comments, but honestly I just don't see Huntsman or even Perry having a greater chance of winning the nomination than Jeb. Note that Perry, like Jeb, has not announced yet either.

::::The endorsement by Jeb's son of Huntsman looks like an obvious attempt to keep Romney from winning the nomination at Jeb's expense. Jeb's son will surely endorse his dad once Huntsman gives up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== Given recent Gallup poll of Republican voters, it is time to remove Romney from front runner status ==

Given recent Gallup poll of Republican voters, it is time to remove Romney from front runner status: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149180/Perry-Zooms-Front-Pack-2012-GOP-Nomination.aspx The spread is significant, plus Gov Rick Perry's state has grown jobs and people don't like Romney's history when it comes to important issues to Republicans: healthcare, etc. Perry appears to be the front runner unless a scandal breaks or the electorate becomes significantly more conservative and moves towards Michelle Bachmann. I do think the biggest concern to voters is jobs and Perry seems to have the strongest public perception of strength on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:15, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

:Perry has been impressive so far, but he needs to take more questions and provide good answers before he can surpass the top candidates as the likely nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::I certainly didn't foresee Perry snatching defeat from the jaws of victory [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44675117/ns/politics-decision_2012/t/how-immigration-blew-rick-perry/#.TobRQnJfQZ4 vis a vis an unpopular immigration related policy statement] during a time of high unemployment. I thought he was enough of a political veteran to avoid that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:40, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== Not running ==

With the field appearing mostly set (excepting the possible inclusion of Palin) shouldn't those who are not running or have made no indication that they will run be removed from the list? As of now it's a mess to navigate and I have no idea how you can even rank those near the bottom of the chart. I propose that the table be drastically trimmed to include only Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul, Johnson, Huntsman, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and the possible candidates of Palin and Giuliani. Those who have given absolutely no indication that they will run, like Peter King (for example) should not be in the grid. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 21:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:Well, since no one has voiced their objection I'm going to go ahead and reduce the Republican list to the 10 mentioned above. I hope this is OK with everyone. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 11:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::Also, the list of possible Democratic candidates...it's evident that Barack Obama will be the 2012 nominee. There has not been a word from any of these people about a primary challenge, only MSM speculation. I'm going to remove them too. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 11:30, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

This is a list of the likelihood of someone winning, not a list of who has announced or not announced. Rick Perry was in the top ten before he announced, for example, and rightly so. Others could still announce in the future as well. The conventions that actually nominate the candidates are still about a year in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:But how can you even organize the bottom of the list? How can one intelligently say, for example, that Ken Cuccinelli is more or less likely to win than Mitch Daniels, when '''both are not running?''' That is why my list removed all of those who clearly are not going to be nominated, and kept in Giuliani and Palin, who both have not announced but may in the near future. Plus, the last time the presumptive nominee of either party was not finalized before the convention was 1968, a political lifetime ago, and the last time a dark horse took the nomination was Wendell Willkie in 1940. The convention is a formality in modern politics. If anyone other than the candidates I kept in my revised list is the Presidential nominee in 2012 I'll eat my hat. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:01, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::I don't think the Ford-Reagan contest in 1976 was truly finalized until the convention, or the Taft-Eisenhower contest in 1952. So that would be 4 times out out of the last ten or so contested primaries when the convention picked the nominee. That 40% chance of the convention picking the nominee is very significant, particularly when none of the front-runners seems able at this time to win the support of a broad spectrum of Republican voters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:10, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:::But that was before the maturity of the current primary system. 1952 is ancient history as far as primaries are concerned, and I will grant you 1976 but it is clear that Gerald Ford had the advantage of incumbency, and there were only 29 primaries. Since the current primary system has reached maturity, (the 80's), no convention has gone down to the wire. I, and an extremely large majority of election-watchers, just can't foresee the nominee being anyone not on my revised table. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:15, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::The primary system is certainly changing, but perhaps back towards the old model, when a challenger party picks its nominee '''''as late as possible'''''. Hence the surprising delays already seen in the campaign season for the Republicans, which hardly any expert predicted. Those delays may continue until the latest possible time: the convention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I disagree. The primary system has been remarkably stable for the past 30 years. Also, I'm surprised you are OK with the convetion picking the candidate, as in all likelihood the delegates would not pick a Tea Party-friendly candidate. The delegates are party insiders, and are most likely closest politically to Mitt Romney. There is just a complete lack of evidence that anyone not on my revised list will be the nominee, and absent entirely unforeseen circumstances, I don't see how it is possible for the majority of delegates, which in 2012 will total around 1200, to cast their votes for someone who did not run in the primaries and not expect a complete disaster of a convention. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:33, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

@Aschlafly- Back on the original topic of my edit, would you at least agree that the table needs some trimming? By my count there are '''37''' Republican candidates listed. If someone came to the article page for information on the election and candidates, would you expect them to read about all 37? Again, I propose trimming it back to the list I had of 11 or 12 viable, declared (or possible, like Palin and Giuliani) candidates. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 18:21, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

: I do disagree with removing so much information, and disagree with the criterion of whether a candidate says he is running. Note, by the way, that this information is useful in considering who is likely to be picked as the vice presidential nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::Then perhaps there should be a separate table for possible VP candidates. Also, I still stand by all of the edits I have made, although I am more than happy to engage in debate with you. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 21:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, let's debate whether [[Jeb Bush]] might be nominated. Even though hasn't declared his candidacy, he's also refused to rule it out. If no other candidate wins a majority of delegates, then Jeb Bush could easily be a compromise nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Here is an excellent news story that backs up my position that one of my 11 or 12 will be nominated: [[http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:AaronL]]

== Separate section for declared and undeclared ==

I would suggest splitting the names into a list of declared and undeclared, as well as removing those that have declined to run. I would think that (with the exception of former-Governor Palin) there is a considerable jump in likelihood between those declared and those undeclared. Particularly because the only way an undeclared candidate can be nominated is in the nominating convention, when (from my understanding) every nomination in the past 50+ years was decided before the convention because someone achieved enough delegate votes beforehand to secure the nomination. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 08:26, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:This article isn't worth debating over. A few sections up Andy made it very clear that he sees no difference between declared and undeclared candidates, hence why Jeb Bush is ranked #2, '''ahead of 10 people who are actually running'''. And you're mostly correct about conventions being formalities, the only nomination decided at the convention was in 1976 (Republicans nominated Ford over Reagan). If you actually do the work and separate them or eliminate those definitely not running (as I did) it will just be reverted. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 09:01, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::The table is a ranking by likelihood. Whether someone has officially declared or not is only one of many factors affecting likelihood. We had Rick Perry high on the list well before he declared, and rightly so. Likewise, Jeb Bush should remain high on the list because he could still decide to enter the race and would immediately become the frontrunner if he did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:22, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::But the difference is, there were rumblings of Perry running for months before he declared. That has not been the case with Jeb Bush, as it is highly unlikely he will run. You claim that "whether someone has officially declared or not is only one of many factors affecting likelihood"; I would like to see your paramaters for determining this likelihood. Do you have a formula? [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 09:37, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::The introduction and table in the entry explain the factors and reasons, and you're welcome to improve them, while adhering to the concise, informative format of the entry.

::::Politics is like an iceberg: 90% is below the surface. ''Conservapedia'' is not limited to the 10% that occurs above the surface.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:45, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::A few points for Mr. Schlafly...
:::::*A list of 37 when 12 would suffice is hardly concise. And a list of 10 Democrats when 1 would suffice is the opposite of concise. Your speculation on the Democrats dumping Obama is just that, speculation. The mainstream media speculates about hypotheticals like this and you jump on them for it. The fact that Ralph Nader is listed is absolutely laughable, considering that A) he likely tipped the 2000 election to Bush, and B) he's not even a member of the Democratic Party.
:::::*I still don't understand why you are unwilling to at least remove those who have explicitly stated they are not running, e.g. Thune, Trump (whose reputation is shot), Pawlenty, Pataki, etc.
:::::*Some you have listed will never be nominated by the Republican Party. Dick Cheney is still deeply unpopular within the party; he will '''not''' be the nominee, and wouldn't be even if he was in good health (which he is not). Ken Cuccinelli will not be nominated because he is only a state-level elected official. These are just two.
:::::*You claim that 90% of politics is under the surface. While it is true that there are backdoor machinations and such that the public may not see, this is like claiming that the 90% of the iceberg below the surface is colored like a rainbow and is home to a society of firebreathing elves. Your talk of stalking horses and "Team Newt" (who is holding on for dear life and is having no clear influence on this race) and other nonsense hurts Conservapedia's credibility.
:::::*If you are so confident in your methodology, then please explain to me why, to pick one of many possible examples, Fred Thompson is ''exactly'' 4 spots ahead of Jan Brewer, no more, and no less. I am eager to hear your answer to this and my other points. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 17:25, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::The list should be updated as the race progresses. But the goal is to be over-inclusive rather than overlook a potential contender completely. The full list also serves as a set of prospects for VP, both Republican and Democratic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::You did not address any of the points I made. And the race '''has''' progressed: Pawlenty dropped out, Trump rose and fell, Bachmann tailed off (recently at least) and Perry entered the scene. Your goal of over-inclusiveness is admirable, but you have included every single Republican the average person has heard of as a potential nominee. And no matter what you say, the Democrats will not be naming people like Ralph Nader as VP, and the Republicans won't be naming the Attorney General of Virginia as nominee for anything anytime soon. I'd like to see an explanation of your methodology, and why Fred Thompson is 4 spots ahead of Jan Brewer. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 00:37, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Andy,

I removed many candidates discussed earlier who, by all indications, will not be nominated for President. Since you have deemed yourself in charge of this article you can make a VP table if you would like. I and users should feel no obligation to work on this article if you are going to revert back to your, frankly, pretty awful version. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:36, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

: Your comments your welcome, and your additions would probably be welcome also. But deletions of information are generally disfavored on this site.

:In response to your question about Fred Thompson and Jan Brewer, Fred Thompson has run before and that gives him an edge over Jan Brewer. Whether someone has run before (or has name recognition due to a family member running before) is a big factor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::You didn't fully answer it. If you ae so confident in your ranking, then please tell me why Fred Thompson is '''exactly''' #31 and Brewer is '''exactly''' #35. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 13:34, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== Ron Paul taken seriously by the media now? ==

I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I contributed the maximum allowable contribution to his presidential campaign this go round and last one. The media does not take him seriously, he is very serious but the media is not. Even FOX treats him like a joke. I apologize for the quality and the fact that it's the Daily show but take a look at this piece right after the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXBz6AGJFM Aimes Iowa straw poll.] --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 16:45, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

==Moving to [[United States Presidential Election 2012]] ?==
Because Presidential Election 2012 may also refer to [[Finnish Presidential Election 2012]], [[French Presidential Election 2012]], [[Indian Presidential Election 2012]], [[Mexican Presidential Election 2012]], [[Russian Presidential Election 2012]], [[Taiwanese Presidential Election 2012]], [[Venezuelan Presidential Election 2012]]--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:57, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::Does anybody care ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:27, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Be Bold! Atleast wikipedia would say that haha. I'd say move this and then make this article a disamb.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:29, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::::ARamis, this isn't Wikipedia. We're not trying to be "globalist". I think people know to which election this entry is referring.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oops, already did it. Revert if you think it is better the other way.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:37, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::By the way, why not trying to be globalist ? What's wrong with it ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:38, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I get what you mean, although if we kept it with the US election the primary,we could give the disamb be its own page, linking to all of them (with a "If your looking for others, go to here") at the top to take you there? Fair compromise.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:42, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In response to ARamis, globalism is counterproductive when it causes more confusion than progress, as illustrated by requiring visitors to click twice in order to find the "Presidential Election 2012" in the U.S. that most will be looking for. Another example of misguided globalism was the failed effort to convert the U.S. to the metric system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Here I created a new page [[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]] with a link in this page.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:07, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush? ==

I'm going to revert BrentH's edit...he should know this article is Mr. Schlafly's domain and any attempt to change it is forbidden. [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 18:53, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since WHEN?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:54, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::Have you observed this article? I have, as a long-time lurker. Andy Schlafly rejects any attempt by any editor to change the article. Another user tried to trim it and Andy refused to consent. It's not a de jure policy, but it most certainly is a de facto one. [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 18:57, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Edits to this and other entries are welcome if they have a logical or factual basis (and comply with the simple [[Conservapedia Commandments]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::::But edits have '''not''' been welcome to it. There have been attempts to remove people who are not running, and they have been rejected. Are you OK with the ranking as of BrentH's last edit, which has Jeb Bush (who is not even running) in 1st ahead of numerous declared candidates? [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 19:01, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== When will Jeb be moved down the list? ==

I think the chances of Jeb running are extremely slim, How long should we wait (with out him making any moves) to move him down? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 21:57, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== Sarah Palin not running ==

She just announced. --[[User:CalebN|CalebN]] 18:45, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

== It's time to downgrade Cain - third woman has come forth accusing him ==

It's time to downgrade Cain - third woman has come forth accusing him of harassment.[http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/11/Herman-Cain-sexual-harassment-accuser--560559/1] I think the voter "three strikes and your out" rule now kicks in. :) I never liked Cain as he is a bankster sympathizer who formerly worked the [[Federal Reserve]]. WorldNetDaily recently had an article declaring the race is now going to be a battle between [[Ron Paul]] and Rommey as they have firm supporters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:50, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== Democrat list ==

Is it time to remove the section on possible Democratic challengers? If someone were going to run against Obama in the primaries they would have announced by now. Seems they're dumb enough to back an obviously losing horse this time. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 09:37, 6 December 2011 (EST)

== Long Form Republican Nomination ==

It says that Mitt Romney can't win Iowa even though he did...this should be updated.

Talk:Project Runway

2012-01-11T02:52:28Z

Jja1:

I don't like the term [[reality show]]. Is there a better name for this category of TV game show? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:42, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

Is it relevant that one of the winners is from the Soviet Union? She can't really help that...

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2011-11-17T02:52:11Z

Jja1:

[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive2|Archive 2]]

== Public Discussion Here ==

(post comments here by clicking "Edit this page")

Okay who keeps mispelling "Mr. Skeffington"? THERE IS A G IN THE NAME see www.imdb.com/title/tt0037094/

The Conservapedia entry for "Gen. George S. Patton" has a great section on the classic 1969 film, "Patton;" why is it not on the list?? A few years back "National Review" listed 100 great conservative films ("A Man for All Seasons" led NR editors' list). Immediately readers (including me) sent in their own nominations and "Patton" came in #1!!!!

CW Miller PhD

:It should be. Would you like to add it? Note, however, that the film was not as conservative as the person it featured!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I think 'Tears of the Sun' should've definitely been on the list. Its extremely pro-military.

:Perhaps, would you like to add it with an explanation of why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

What is the conservative message taught by "The Way We Were"? Just curious.

:Pretty obvious, isn't it? The [[liberal]] rants predictably got too tiresome for the man to put up with, and he inevitably broke off the relationship with the woman in order to find a replacement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
::And in the process of breaking off the relationship, he broke his marriage vows and committed adultery. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:44, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I think The Graduate (1967) needs to be on this list. This is a film about a boy growing up, by facing harsh reality, owning up to his mistakes, and making a decision about his life, thus becoming a man. It's also about how we can overcome sin and corruption by taking control of our lives. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 14:47, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Another film is the 1948 Alfred Hitchcock film Rope, starring James Stewart, John Dall, and Stewart Granger. Based loosely on the Leopold-Loeb killing, Rope is about two Harvard scholars who decide to kill an acquaintance of their simply for the sake of killing, because they believe they are superior to others, all taught from one of their headmasters (James Stewart). This film goes into one of the reasons why we have laws, why we cherish human life, and slightly goes into the immorality taught by ivory tower intellectuals that seems so prevalent today.--[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:00, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Hud (1963), starring Paul Newman, Melvyn Douglas, and Patricia Neal, needs to be in this roster too. At the heart of Conservative Philosophy lies the strength of a man's character and how that character influences others. Hud, played by Newman, is a man who's completely selfish in a way that liberals are. He doesn't care about anyone but himself, and his own ego, and he gives no restraint to his appetites. He doesn't give a damn about anything, because to him the world is full of excrement. And that sooner or later, you're going to have to swim in that muck like everybody else. A great line is said that "The look of the country changes by the people we admire." As you watch this film, things get progressively worse for the ranch that Hud lives on, part and parcel because of his own crass behavior. Hud's willingness both to pass bad beef off onto his neighbors and take the ranch out from his old father indicates the sourness of his character. A brilliant film about human character.--[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:28, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== The Blind Side ==
It's a story about the shortcomings of public education and how the power of private Christian charity helped a young homeless man overcome his disadvantages and play in the NFL.[[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:03, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Brokeback Mountain ==

I was thinking about this topic earlier and had an interesting thought about a seemingly non-conservative movie that, in a way, is actually quite so. I'm going to throw this out there for some (hopefully productive and civil) debate and see what people think.

The movie is Brokeback Mountain. Now hold on to your outrage, people. I have justifications for my point. Please hear me out. (Oh, and spoilers, just in case you planned to see/read it and hadn't)

As you probably know, the movie (and the novella on which its based) is about two men who fall into a homosexual lifestyle. But what struck me as conservative about this film is that it doesn't glorify the lifestyle; the two mens' choice to indulge in homosexuality is a disastrous choice that ends up ruining both their lives. One man's marriage is destroyed and his relationship with his child is forever tainted. The other man's choice actually leads to his violent death (Incidentally, I'm not saying that killing someone for being gay is a conservative value. But the point is that this movie is actually very up-front about acknowledging the catastrophic consequences of a homosexual lifestyle).

Considering all that, my next though was whether this movie might be unintentionally conservative, in which case it certainly doesn't belong on this list. But I don't think it is (haven't seen it since it first came out though, so I could be wrong).

So, there's my point. I would appreciate some discussion. I imagine some CPers will think I'm trolling or just trying to start an argument. Not so. I feel like it's a valid point but that there are probably strong arguments for and against, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 17:11, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

:You are partially right, but I think the homosexuals were meant to be sympathetic and on that basis alone, I don't think that movie belongs on this list. [[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:05, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

: I agree that the movie is anti-homosexuality. Based on the publicity, I expected the movie to be pro-homosexuality, but I was quite surprised by what was actually in the movie. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:This would be true, except that you have to consider the film's intent. It's not necessarily suggesting that what these men did is the result of their choice. It's suggesting that what happens to these men is the result of bigotry, prejudice, and hate on the part of the world around them. That they are blameless, in spite of their choices. A stark contrast, which I think also ought to be listed as a Conservative Film, would be Midnight Cowboy. In Midnight Cowboy, Joe Buck (played by Jon Voight) recognizes that the life he chose, as a male prostitute, and begins to make an effort to change, to get out of New York, with Ratso (Dustin Hoffman). Ratso's death underscored the decadent life they had led in NYC, and how Joe barely escaped with his own. In Brokeback Mountain, you do not see such recognition on the part of Ennis and Jack. They don't really consider what they did as wrong, necessarily. So where Midnight Cowboy underscores the devastation the immoral life can lead, Brokeback Mountain places the responsibility for that devastation on everyone else but the two men most responsible. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 19:56, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== U-571 ==

I deleted U-571 from this list. It portrays the capture of an Enigma machine from a German U-boat by US forces. As pretty much everyone with any interest in WW2 knows, the naval Enigma machine was stolen by Polish forces and decoded by British code-breakers at Bletchley. My Brit friends think U-571 is a joke because it minimises the role of the British ("you arrogant Yankees"). Poles are offended because it cuts out the Polish involvement altogether - including the very brave men who risked their lives to steal an Enigma machine and hand it over to British Intelligence. (BTW, Britain and Poland were allies of ours in WW2 and still are now.) Deceit isn't a conservative virtue - so I crossed U-571 off the list. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 16:51, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

: I'd say it's very questionable whether there's any deceit involved. The movie makes an on-screen written acknowledgment that the the first (and the majority) of enigmas were captured by British sailors. The whole movie is so over-the-top that nobody with a lick of intelligence would believe it's true. American sailors did capture an enigma machine during the war too, so this movie is obviously "inspired by a true story" even if it's not especially true. Most of the movie-going public knows that Hollywood "true" stories are highly fictionalized. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:13, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

==The Lives of Others==

Where on earth is The Lives of Others? it is, surely, the best recent critique of Communism and, for that matter, one of the best films ''of any type'' released in the past five years. It certainly deserves a place ahead of, for example, the obscure Dark Matter. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:13, 28 November 2010 (EST)

: It's in German, right, and about the former [[East Germany]]? I'll add it on your recommendation, but I can't agree it ranks higher than the English-language Dark Matter, which speaks to today and not just the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::Fair enough, Andy. Though I don't quite understand the argument against foreign-language films. If the issue is obscurity, The Lives of Others was seen by far more people in the US than Dark Matter. A glance at Box-Office Mojo confirms that Dark Matter took in a staggeringly tiny $30,591 on its domestic run. The Lives of Others took in $11,286,112 in the US (plus another $66 million in the rest of the world). I am, however, content to abide by your criteria. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 15:40, 28 November 2010 (EST)

:::Oprah Winfrey's daytime talk show rakes in far higher revenues than both, but I'm not sure what that proves. Dark Matter was apparently victimized and downplayed by liberals who finally figured out its conservative message, after it won first place in one of the Sundance Film Festival categories. The liberal backlash against Dark Matter is particularly surprising given that Meryl Streep starred in it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::::P.S. Your suggestion of "The Lives of Others" is a fine addition. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)
http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.png
::::No problem. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 20:47, 28 November 2010 (EST)

== Fiddler on the Roof? ==

A film celebrating the value of community, tradition, family, and faith, all against the historical context of the harm done by the rise of Communism in Russia...worthy of a spot on the list? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Sounds good to me ... please add it as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:I disagree. Look at the overall film/play. This was definitely a counter-culture film thinly disguised as a quaint musical drama. The message was that Tradition is bad, illogical, and keeps people stuck in their ways when they should embrace the new, simply because it's new. When Tevye explains the traditions and why they're there in the beginning, he mentioned that they keep their heads covered and they wear their prayer shawl. He then asks, "How did this tradition get started?," and he responds, "I don't know." This sets up the rest of the show. Because never do they explain why they use a Matchmaker, or why they don't let people arrange their own matches, or why men and women dance separately. They even have the old rabbi getting down with the new changes, never defending what was before. Message: Traditions are stale and old and have no place in the modern world. Relax and just let things happen. Then the film gives us the drama of Chava marrying a Christian, marrying outside of her faith, and that's where Tevye can't abide it. By then, it seems that Tevye's objection is only based on ridiculous emotion, rather than anything objective. All this, in spite of the fact that change is coming, one that cannot be stopped by the traditions these people hold. This is not a Conservative message at all, but one that is quite subversive. If this had been written from a Conservative approach, we would've gone into the reasons behind the traditions, because they're not irrational or unreasonable. The reason for a Matchmaker, the way they dress, and the way they eat, and the dancing, all is meant to preserve their heritage as Jews living in Tsarist Russia. The Matchmaker keeps the Jewish men and women within the community, and within the faith, all the while helping to maintain peace and stability within the community itself. The point I'm making is that Traditions have a purpose, even if we disagree with them. And the notion that happiness comes from something material, as in the case of the marriage between Motel and Tzeital, is a direct message against a person's obligations to his or her duty, both to themselves and their community they live in. No, I'd say Fiddler on the Roof is not a Conservative film. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 20:15, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Gattaca ==

A condemnation of genetic experiments on humans, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely controlled society. No matter how much scientists play to be God, and try to improve the human race by using genetics, there will always be an individual, based on original God design, who, despite his health shortcomings, will triumph over this genetically modified, supposedly perfect human beings.

I don’t immediately put it on the list because the movie is a bit atheist. In the final scene, the hero finally managed to travel to space and cites the phrase: “They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home."

So, I’ll say that the movie has a conservative message, unfortunately diluted with atheist overtones. I’ll wait for someone else opinion before posting this. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:03, 10 March 2011 (EST)

:Feel free to post this with the caveat you mention. Thanks for explaining it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::We talked about this movie at my fellowship a few months ago - pure hokum about a guy who might have been alright on his own but for a disgusting patriarchy forcing human engineering. I'll write this if AlejandroJ doesn't. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:51, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, I posted it. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 15:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

The argument that this film has atheistic overtones actually adds to this film. It shows how we have reduced a person not to his ability but to purely material characteristics, and the effects this has on society. In Gattaca, people are judged not by their ability, not by their merit or accomplishments, but their potential. Gore Vidal, who plays the director of Gattaca, says "No one exceeds their potential." This is, I think, a fundamental statement in the whole movie; that it is the potential that is important, not the action, not the accomplishment. If Vincent became exposed even after he is confirmed to go to Titan, we know what would happen; he would be expelled from Gattaca, and possibly imprisoned for using a "borrowed ladder." Which also points to Eugene's suicide and why he took his own life. Eugene doesn't value his life, but his potential. "Jerome Morrow," he said, "was never meant to be one step lower on the podium." In such an atheistic society that only values the material, the potential, the beautiful, but not the competent or the accomplished, Eugene's suicide underscores this conceit. Eugene could not be anything less than what he felt his potential was. Or, put it another way, he could not be anything less but what others said he should be. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 14:58, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Disney cartoons ==

Most, and perhaps all, of the Disney cartoons for the past 15 or so years have pushed the [[feminist]] ideology. I welcome any counterexamples, but doubt there are any. Hence the reversion of the "Princess and the Frog (2009)" addition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:''The Lion King'', a 1994 Disney movie, is definitely conservative. A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory. I'll add it with your approval. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 15:45, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

::Sounds like a good choice. Please add and if anyone has a different view of the movie, then he can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:26, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Added. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 16:41, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly I would agree with your reversion of my contribution of the Princess and the Frog if that movie were feminist-ideology-promoting (like, for instance Mulan (1998)) but frankly, it is not a feminist movie. I am not a woman, nor a feminist - I am staunchly conservative. The Princess and the Frog promotes monogamous marriage (which feminism does not) as well as the other conservative values I listed (such as saving money, hard work, free enterprise etc). In fact, the main character is so pro-marriage that she changes her licentious friend's behavior from debauchery (which feminism promotes) to monogamy. It is possibly the most conservative-value-laden animated movie I have ever seen.

''The Lion King'' on the other hand promotes re-incarnation with its "Circle of Life" song. Jack, the hero of ''Titanic'' commits fornication and mocks a man reciting the 23rd Psalm; Cal, the main antagonist is depicted as a church-service-attending hypocrite.

You are doubtless correct about the feminist ideology pushed by many Disney animations, but this is not one of them. I respectfully request that you consider returning my contribution of 'The Princess and the Frog'. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 23:17, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:I have to disagree with you about The Lion King. As far as I can interpret, "The Circle of Life" is either about the bond all humans share or the journey from life to death and the afterlife, not reincarnation. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 00:36, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::Spotsbunch, I think you have a valid point about the Lion King, but from what I've heard about the "Princess and the Frog," it's feminist claptrap with the woman wearing the pants and doing everything except having children and homeschooling her kids. It's more Disney tripe about a successful businesswoman towing along an inept man, which is hardly typical in the real world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Arguably, any movie where people turn into frogs, or where in Beauty and the Beast, people have transmogrified into furniture is not "real world". Fantasies they may be, (like many movies listed here) but they are still conservative. I (finally) put it to your kind consideration that if you would watch the Princess and the Frog, you would find it contains less feminism and more conservativism than Beauty and the Beast. Whatever your judgment, I respect your decision and will refrain from further debate, even though I (thus far) disagree. Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 08:43, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Feminism]] is unmistakable: it has women acting like men and vice-versa, contrary to reality. Disney cartoons have been ''heavily'' feminist for at least 15 years. ''Beauty and the Beast'', made 20 years ago, was not feminist in any way. But having a "Princess" act like a businessman and aspire to run a restaurant is feminist. What's next - Cinderella aspires to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Is there any reason a woman can't run a restaurant or a fortune 500 company? No really, Andy, I want to know. Why is it feminist to portray a woman doing anything but cooking, cleaning, and rearing children? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 13:40, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::Who said anything about cooking and cleaning? And, no, there isn't a reason why a woman can't aspire to any field, such as plumbers (almost no women plumbers), gas station attendants (ditto), or professional football players (ditto). The fact is that the vast majority of women ''do not aspire'' to do such activities (or running a restaurant or a Fortune 500 company), and it's false for feminists or feminist movies to repeatedly pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::I apologize for my abrasiveness, it just seemed that you were implying that's all they're supposed to do. I can see where you're coming from. While a woman can do what she wants, feminists are wrong for telling woman that they should only aspire to do things traditionally done by men. Men normally aren't beauty consultants, clothing designers, or nail salon technicians, so why don't we see any men urging more men to do these things? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Feminism]] repeatedly tries to persuade women not to have children and raise them, pretending that aspiring to work in a job is somehow better. I can't think of a single Disney movie in the last 15 years that has been realistic about the homemaker role that most women prefer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Up. A key part of the story is that the old man's wife had given up her dreams of being an explorer as real life concerns around the home took precedence. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 15:03, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::As promised, I will make my petition no further. However, as others have continued this debate, I will contribute to that. The Bible, our ultimate authority, disagrees (as I read it) that "a woman aspiring to run a business" (restaurant or otherwise) is feminist. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes at length "the wife of noble character" to be involved in business by working with eager hands; importing food from merchant ships; providing food for her family; purchasing property for farming; trading profitably; making and selling expensive cloth and having enough money left over to give to the poor. Anyone with a definition of feminism which includes activities like these, who also respects the Bible as God's authoritative Word should reconsider his definition. Respectfully and with kindest regards, [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 19:15, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Not surprisingly, you left out the verse saying "her children wake up, and call her 'blessed,' so does her husband" ([[CBP]] version), as well as several other verses that feminist movies do not include.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Then would it be acceptable to put the Princess and the Frog in the "Debatable Whether Conservative" section of this page? [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:44, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::There are high quality movies in the "Debatable" section. The [[feminist]] "Princess and the Frog" doesn't even come close to that level of quality and arguably conservatism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:46, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

== Titanic ==

The movie ''Titanic'' also shows the rich and privileged getting on the half-empty life boats while the poor and lower class passengers are locked below (which is actually historical). Should it truly be included in this list? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:50, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:No, I disagree. The movie accurately portrays the wealthiest men on the boat (Guggenheim, Astor, etc.) giving up their lives so that poorer women and children could be saved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:53, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

::While I'm ''not'' denying there were individual acts of chivalry and that Guggenheim et al declined seats (although there is historical conflicting testimony about Astor) on the lifeboats (of which there were too few given the number of people on the ship), the numbers show a definite declining survival rate by class. This was also a theme in the movie and not one that should be ignored.

::The movie showed the lower class passengers being locked in the bowels of the ship, blocking escape. There is historical conflicting testimony on this subject as well: several people reported gates between decks being locked and armed guards blocking passageways while one steerage passenger testified that the gates were not locked. Another passenger stated that not only did the staff ''not'' sound an alarm in third class, but that steerage passengers who came up on deck were told to return to their rooms because there was no danger.

::'''First Class''' Women - 4/141 died (97% survival rate)1; Children: 1/7 died2 (86% survival rate); Men - 104/171 died (39% survival rate); Totals: 109/319 died (66% overall survival rate)

::12 of the 4 first class female passengers who died chose to remain with their husbands. *corrected mistype.

::2Lorraine Allison remained on board with her family because they had been separated from her infant brother, who was on a lifeboat with his nurse. The entire family died, with the exception of the baby.

::'''Second Class''' Women: 13/92 died (86% survival rate); Children: 0/25 died (100% survival rate); Men: 135/152 died (11% survival rate); Totals: 148/269 died (45% overall survival rate)

::'''Third Class''' Women: 91/179 died (49% survival rate); Children: 55/80 died (31% survival rate); Men: 381/440 died (13% survival rate); Totals: 527/699 died (25% overall survival rate)

::'''Staff and crew''' Female: 2/22 died (91% survival rate); Male: 701/896 died (22% survival rate); Overall: 703/918 died (23% overall survival rate)

::There are some servants left out of these numbers due to confusion

::Sorry for the over-long reply, but the ''Titanic'' has been a subject of fascination to me since my teenage years (about a century ago!) so I'm rather verbose about it. 8^) I don't agree with you on the subject, but I won't remove the movie from the list. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:51, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
==Move The Dark Knight To the Debatable category?==
I'm wondering whether of not The Dark Knight should be truly considered conservative-while it does have the message of not giving in to terrorist, it also includes themes of everyone being corruptible and having their limits (like the good public defendant, Harvey Dent, turning into a villain, Two Face) and seems fascinated with darkness and chaos ("Madness is like gravity all you need is a little push"). Given this all, and the fact that Patrick Leahy had a cameo in it, I think this might well be reconsidered. Thoughts?
Armond White, who generally sees through liberal bias and is a more conservative viewer, wrote this about it: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fTJ_tj1IKooJ:www.nypress.com/article-18545-knight-to-remember.html+armond+white+the+dark+knightr&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com]

:Thanks for your comments. I'll move "Dark Knight" to the debatable category as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

::I watched it when it came out, and I didn't notice anything particularly Conservative about it. The only thing really good about it was the citizen response to the terrorist dilemma the arch-villain sets up, whereby two boatloads of passengers "must" each ensure their own survival by blowing up the other's boat; a quick-witted passenger takes the remote control and throws it overboard. But this has nothing to do with Batman.

::The movie shows how vicious bad people can be, and how bullies support (and recruit) other bullies. But that is hardly fodder for the liberal-conservative debate. Both sides claim to despise bullying.

::I daresay the [[Batman]] character of the 1960s comic books had some "[[conservative]]" qualities, such as the ''noblesse oblige'' of the superior man and idea that society can be benefited by the actions of a heroic individual. Both of these run counter to Communist ideas of history. But the Batman movies I've seen are about a different, darker man. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

:Let me help explain why this film needs to be in the list. At the beginning of this film, crime had been quelled enough that when you saw the Bat-Signal a drug dealer, who probably would've made a quick buck and easily got away with it, chose not to make a deal (you see this guy just refuse a deal to some other man in a car). But this didn't mean that the city was totally crime free, or that corruption was gone. Bruce realized that Batman could not change Gotham. He could help, but he was only one man. Gotham needed someone to be the influence Batman could never be. And that man was Harvey Dent. This speaks to how important culture is to a society. There's a great saying from another film, called Hud, which says "The look of the country changes by the people we admire." Meaning, that if you want a good, upstanding, moral society, you back people who are good, upstanding, and moral. You choose good, even if it means your death. I think the best moment in this film is where the Joker has got the two ferries, one loaded with convicts and the other loaded with civilians, each rigged to blow. But it's a convict that understands the problem, and makes a decision not to play Joker's game. What does this mean? I nearly cried when I saw that scene. It meant that someone understood that there's more to life than living. There's more to life than just existing. There's more to life than doing what is expected, rather than doing what is GOOD. Because GOOD has VALUE, which, I believe, is at the heart of the Conservative Philosophy. Liberals believe quite the opposite. Or rather, they believe that there is no Good or Evil, that everything is relative. Just as the Joker believes. It is what we stand for, and are willing to die for, that make us good or evil. This is what Christ said. To take up your Cross, even if it means your death, even if it means the deaths of others, because Life is not predicated strictly on comfort or survival, but on the propagation of Good. That's why The Dark Knight needs to be here. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 22:20, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::He may be darker in the movies, that's not to say he still doesn't have conservative values, and he does whatever he can so other people don't go through what he want through. [[User:Jm920|Jm920]] 19:00, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== "The Sandlot" as 1950s America as a time when "every boy had a chance to be great." ==

I suppose, maybe. It's harder to achieve greatness when one couldn't necessarily ride at the front of the bus/use the same drinking fountain/eat at the same counter/go to the same university as other folks. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 14:15, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

: Your point is valid. Feel free to include your point in the entry itself. I don't think the 1950s were as [[conservative]] as today. In addition to your comment, [[homeschooling]] was prohibited in the 1950s, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:29, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rollerball (1975) ==

Rollerball (1975) is frequently overlooked as one of the great conservative films. A dystopian tale in which a corporate oligarchy maintains control over the peoples of the world by distracting them with a hedonistic culture of sex, drugs, and violent entertainment. Rollerball was designed by the corporations to hypnotize and distract the minions with gladiatorial combat disguised as sport. The world watches these spectacles and subconsciously receives the message their corporate masters are feeding them - that individual achievement is not possible, because every Rollerballer ultimately faces the same gruesome fate. However, when Jonathan E (James Caan) proves dominate and (more importantly) invincible in the sport - the corporations attempt to force him to retire through an ever horriflying series of rule changes designed to bring about his death or capitulation.
Jonathan E's defiance is a captivating and uplifting example of a man asserting the freedom of the individual in the face
of totalitarianism. JFarren 17:38, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

== Indiana Jones ==

I am very surprised that the Indiana Jones films are not included in here, when they are certainly conservative. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Would you like to add them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuilt ==
I've rewritten the page as a table. Everything is sortable now. The gross is the US gross value, not worldwide (with one referenced exception). Everything else is the same. Films listed with NA - TV means that they were a TV program, and thus did not have a gross. NA - DVD means that they were released straight to DVD. None of the values are adjusted for inflation. While that would be interesting to do, I don't think wikis support computed columns, and it seems like a waste of time to update every number here. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Well done. Your format is better, and your additional information about revenues is interesting, although not of great significance due to (1) inflation and (2) popularity typically doesn't mean much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

==Space Jam is not a "Great" film==
Conservative or not, Space Jam sucks! It must be removed.

== Two Thoughts ==

1. What about "Fiddler on the Roof"? About the important role of tradition in societies.

2. Also, the caption for "Hilary: The Movie" is awkward if not misleading. It didn't result in the McCain-Feingold Act being overturned so much as it was the impetus for the lawsuit. The current description seems to imply that it was a crucial piece of evidence or something similar.

Would anyone be opposed to these changes? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 14:17, 1 November 2011 (EDT)