Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Princess

2011-05-31T00:45:45Z

LloydR:

A '''princess''' is the title sometimes given to female members of royal or noble houses, often the daughters of a king or queen.

==See also==
*[[Monarchy]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2011-05-28T18:15:44Z

LloydR: /* "The Sandlot" as 1950s America as a time when "every boy had a chance to be great." */ new section

[[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")

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

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== 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)

== "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)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2011-05-25T22:30:50Z

LloydR:

== Six Million Dollar Man ==

The technology could have been developed by private companies under contract with the government.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
:It "could've" been a lot of things, and I would gladly concede the point given any evidence to back up such an assertion. But as I recall, the protagonist was an astronaut who was "put back together" by the OSI (a fictional government agency) and worked in the public service thereafter. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 18:29, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2011-05-25T22:29:46Z

LloydR: /* Six Million Dollar Man */

== Six Million Dollar Man ==

The technology could have been developed by private companies under contract with the government.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
:It "could've" been a lot of things. But as I recall, the protagonist was an astronaut who was "put back together" by the OSI (a fictional government agency) and worked in the public service thereafter. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 18:29, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2011-05-25T19:05:27Z

LloydR: Was Steve Austin not a civil servant? I'm petty sure the "we can rebuild him" folks weren't working for private enterprise.

Here are some of the greatest conservative television shows:
# ''Family Ties'': a [[conservative]] teenager (played by Michael J. Fox) tries to enlighten his [[liberal]], ex-hippie, underachieving<ref>The father would be criticized by the son for working for less money at a public television station, rather than in free enterprise.</ref> parents
# ''The Office'': mockery of liberal [[political correctness]] and corporate [[socialism]] in an office setting.
# ''The Apprentice'': liberals stopped watching when they realized that [[Donald Trump]] might be conservative.
# The ''Six Million Dollar Man'': capitalism at its finest - a government program improving health with technological advances.
# ''The Cosby Show'': promoting good family values
# ''American Idol'': allowing the [[best of the public]] to come to the fore, musically.
# ''24'': Jack Bauer shows us how to beat Islamic terrorists.
# ''Star Trek'': emphasized morality, honor, abiding by a strict code of conduct, and problem solving in a science fiction setting that inspired real world innovations.
# ''The Waltons'': a family struggles in rural America but promotes Christian morality and charity to strangers, and honors military service.
# ''The Lawrence Welk Show'': a clean, family oriented variety show that appealed to Midwestern values.
(please add to list)

== References ==

<references/>

Measles

2011-05-24T23:40:58Z

LloydR:

[[Measles]] is a [[contagious]] viral [[disease]] marked by the eruption of red circular spots on the skin.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#m Centers for Disease Control Glossary]</ref> There were 131 reported cases of measles in the United States in 2008, over three times as many as in 2007. The [[Center for Disease Control]] blames this on an unfounded fears that the [[vaccination]] can be linked to health problems, such as [[autism]]. The CDC says most new cases of measles are in [[home schooling|home schooled]] children who are not required to have the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine, and among children whose parents do not have them vaccinated for religious reasons. <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080822/ap_on_he_me/med_measles_outbreaks Jump in U.S. measles cases linked to vaccination fears]</ref>
In recent years, the number of measles cases in the United States has increased, allegedly due to increased travel to and from countries where vaccination is not widespread. <ref>[http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/24/136618682/u-s-measles-cases-hit-15-year-high?ps=sh_sthdl]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Diseases]]

Measles

2011-05-24T23:37:45Z

LloydR:

[[Measles]] is a [[contagious]] viral [[disease]] marked by the eruption of red circular spots on the skin.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#m Centers for Disease Control Glossary]</ref> There were 131 reported cases of measles in the United States in 2008, over three times as many as in 2007. The [[Center for Disease Control]] blames this on an unfounded fears that the [[vaccination]] can be linked to health problems, such as [[autism]]. The CDC says most new cases of measles are in [[home schooling|home schooled]] children who are not required to have the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine, and among children whose parents do not have them vaccinated for religious reasons. <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080822/ap_on_he_me/med_measles_outbreaks Jump in U.S. measles cases linked to vaccination fears]</ref>
In recent years, the number of measles cases in the United States has increased, allegedly due to increased travel to and from countries where vaccination is not widespread. ,ref[http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/24/136618682/u-s-measles-cases-hit-15-year-high?ps=sh_sthdl]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Diseases]]

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-24T15:02:30Z

LloydR: /* Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio */

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)

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)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-24T13:09:30Z

LloydR: /* Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio */

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)

== ".... 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)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-24T13:06:46Z

LloydR: /* Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio */

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 top 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)

== ".... 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)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-24T02:53:32Z

LloydR: /* Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio */ Name some, and what would their actions have to do with the question at hand?

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)

== ".... 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)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-24T02:23:51Z

LloydR: /* Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio */ You're dodging my point about the 14th.

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)

== ".... 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)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-24T01:50:18Z

LloydR: /* Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio */

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)

== ".... 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)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-24T01:38:46Z

LloydR: /* Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio */

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)
:::::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)

== ".... 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)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-23T17:26:32Z

LloydR: /* Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio */

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)

== ".... 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)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-23T17:26:16Z

LloydR: /* Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio */

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 v-- 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)

== ".... 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)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-23T17:10:49Z

LloydR: /* Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio */ The Constitution and case law is what matters. Show them to us, Andy.

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)

== ".... 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)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-23T15:09:41Z

LloydR: /* Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio */

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-23T15:07:37Z

LloydR: /* ".... giving him a greater claim to being a natural-born citizen than Obama has." */

Socialism

2011-05-23T15:01:50Z

LloydR: Undo revision 871025 by Faltalis (talk) Restore to Admin's version -- this is a fight you can't win.

[[Image:Hitler.jpg|thumb|250px|right|One of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> ]]
'''Socialism''' is a [[liberal]] [[economics|economic]] system with state ownership or control of the all the major means of production and distribution of goods and services.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Meriam-Webster]</ref> Socialism is the economic system imposed by [[Communism]], but another one of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> Often socialism is a matter of degree and numerous economies in the world are very socialistic such as [[Europe|European]] countries (many of which are facing financial difficulties).<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/european_socialism_is_bleeding.html</ref>

The [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] declares:
{{cquote|The identification of [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of [[Ludwig von Mises]]...

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref>}}

Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the [[United States]] is not a socialistic government. "That definition is confuted by the earliest theoretical writings on socialism. In France, Henri de Saint-Simon, in the first decades of the 1800s, and his pupil and colleague [[Auguste Comte]], in the 1820s and 30s, along with [[Robert Owen]] contemporaneously in England, ''stated that the essential feature of what Owen called socialism is government regulation of the means of production and distribution."'' <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ Thomas E. Brewton; Once Again: What Is Socialism?]</ref>
When the government controls the volume of money and its economic applications, it has the economy in a stranglehold. When government controls education so that nothing other than secular socialism may be taught, as Saint-Simon advocated, it controls the future destiny of a nation.

== Barack Obama and his socialistic and "fascist light" policies ==
[[File:Shepard-Fairey-imgs.JPG|right|thumb|250px|Shepard Fairey, designer of the official Obama hope and change logo, is more known for his anti-American and pro-communist themes. Here a [[Mao Zedong|Maoist]] revolutionary is depicted. <ref>http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&rlz=1I7ACAW_en___US352&tbs=isch:1&q=Shepard+Fairey&sa=N&start=40&ndsp=20</ref> ]]

In April of 2010, [[American]] political consultant [[Dick Morris]] wrote:
{{cquote|When [[Obama]] took office, federal, state and local spending accounted for 30 percent of [[gross domestic product]]. Now it is up to 35 percent, and when health care is fully implemented, it will rise to above 40 percent. But taxes are still below 30 percent. The difference is the deficit, now grown to 10 percent of our GDP.

If our government is to continue spending 40 percent of our GDP, we will morph into the European model of a socialist democracy. But if we can roll the spending back to 30 percent, while holding taxes level, we will retain our free market system.<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2010/04/24/the_silent_killer_obamas_vat_proposal</ref>}}

[[Anita Dunn]], the political strategist and former White House Communications Director, admitted that one of favorite political philosophers, one that she “turns to the most”, is [[Mao Zedong]], the [[communism|communist]] dictator responsible for the starvation, torture, and killing of 70 million Chinese.<ref>http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/10/16/anita-dunn-favorite-philosopher-mao-tse-tung/</ref>
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's socialistic and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies ([[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature).<ref>http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc</ref><ref>http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944</ref> Obamunism can also allude to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm</ref><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref>
=== Larry Summers and Leftist Economics ===

[[Larry Summers]] currently is the Director of the White House's National Economic Council (NEC) for President Barack Obama. George Gerald Reisman, Professor Emeritus of Economics at [[Pepperdine University]] and author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, wrote that Summers socialistic ideas on redistributing wealth demonstrate that [[Larry Summers]] is a "lightweight leftist" who "fails to understand the nature of the most essential feature of capitalism, namely, private ownership of the means of production and the indispensable role it plays in the standard of living of the average person."<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref> Reisman also wrote that Summers is a shallow and ignorant man whose knowledge of economics is minimal and whose evil views qualify him to be the economic advisor to [[Hugo Chavez]] of [[Venezuela]] or [[Robert Mugabe]] of [[Zimbabwe]], but do not qualify him to be an economic advisor to the President of the United States.<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref>
=== Obama administration and land ownership ===
In August of 2010, [[Hot Air]] declared:
{{cquote|The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly [http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343 one of every three acres] in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HGKEAG0.htm private forest land] throughout the [[New England]] region. Agriculture Secretary [[Tom Vilsack]] crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.”

Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It’s paid for primarily with receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages.<ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/14/great-outdoors-initiative-a-federal-land-grab/</ref>}}

== Influence of Russia on socialism ==
Not until the birth of the [[Soviet Union]] after the [[Communist Revolution]] did the idea become generally accepted that socialism meant government seizing ownership of the economy. Experience in 19th and 20th century [[France]], [[England]], and [[Germany]], however, made it clear that regulatory control by government bureaucrats is sufficient to implement socialism. <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ What is Socialism?]</ref>

In [[Communism]] (the primary variant of socialism) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.

In practice the socialist government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer, or at least controls the regulation of production and distribution. The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership or control of the means of production, usually with one party controlling the government on behalf of the working class.

The socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], because it opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government.

Theoretically, socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."

As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.
{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> - Winston Churchill''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}

=Contradictory Goals of Socialism=

Socialism's stated purpose is to eliminate the huge gap between the highest and lowest classes of society. Their bitter complaint has been that the upper class exploits its dominance to gain privileges and wealth, while the lower class must suffer tyranny and poverty.<ref>"all socialists agree that a socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class." [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_an_economic_system] </ref> This obsession with class paradoxically creates a group of people with a vested interest in seeing class differences remain (socialist politicians, [[community organizer]]s, ''etc.''); if by some means the class system actually ''were'' destroyed, these people would be out of a job.

Another essential goal of most socialist thinkers has been to eliminate [[Capitalism]],<ref>"... one of the fundamental goals of the socialist movement throughout history has been the abolition of capitalism" [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_opposition_and_criticisms_of_socialism_arguments_for_and_against A Wisdom Archive on Socialism - Opposition and criticisms of socialism; arguments for and against]</ref>
on the grounds that only "social control" of the economy can prevent abuses such as [[feudalism]], [[monopoly]], [[cartel]]s, etc.

But experiments on both a moderate and a grand scale have shown that socialism's main purpose has been undermined by its unremitting opposition to [[free market]] economics. In its drive to eliminate capitalism, it has overlooked the fact that general prosperity is vouchsafed by [[economic freedom]], and that free market economics improves the lot of the poor much more quickly and permanently than any system of central economic control.

The real aim of socialists is probably personal: why else would socialists want to create programs which encourage Dependency? Well, it fits into their lust for power.
People who want to control others need people who are willing to be controlled.
Independent, proactive people do not fit into the socialist Power Model. That is why the first thing [[Karl Marx|Marx]] wanted to remove from the economy was the [[Profit]] Motive: it gives people an incentive to make their own decisions!

=Types of Socialism=

There are three main kinds of Socialism, all of them are built on the premise of government control of the means of production.

==Leninism==
[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Russian caption reads, "Long live the great unbeatable flag of [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]]!"]]

Marxist Socialism, or '''Leninism''', as revised by [[Vladimir Lenin]] and practiced in the pre-[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] Soviet Union, was the Socialistic theory developed by Vladimir Lenin during his rise to power. Lenin defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.<ref>"In striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism", Lenin, State and Revolution, Selected Works, Progress publishers, Moscow, 1968, p. 320. (End of chapter four)</ref> Leninism is totalitarian, with no [[democracy]] and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Lenin saw the Communist Party as an "elite" that was committed to ending capitalism and instituting socialism in its place and attaining the power by any means possible, including revolution. Lenin was quite mild on the belief, believing that, though controlling of resources was important, the people's will comes first.

Though [[Bolshevik]] Russia was somewhat more prosperous than its former [[Russian Empire|Tsardom]], Lenin's death in 1924 sparked the overthrow of his Marxist-Leninism and the imposition of [[Stalinism]], the violent, totalitarian belief that went against some of Lenin's ideas (many of Lenin's works were censored by Stalin post-1924).

=="Democratic" Socialism==
The second form of Socialism (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was inspired by [[Socialism]] and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.

The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have sometimes dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted "Controlled Capitalism". However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth.

Within the [[European Union]], a form of [[democratic socialism]] was initially viewed as successful, but eventually lead to lowered social equity and a downward spiraling economy, as well as general discontent. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degree of success. Beginning in 2010 many European countries were racked with rioting and social unrest as governments began to back away from out-of-control entitlements that began bankrupting them and lead to a world financial crisis because of unrestrained debt. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439732358241708.html WSJ; "Obstacle to Deficit Cutting: A Nation on Entitlements"]</ref> <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_austerity_protests_10 Anti-austerity protests sweep across Europe]</ref> <ref>[http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-policy-bailouts/14758032-1.html "Debt crisis pushes Europe toward economic reforms"]</ref>

==Communal Socialism==
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.

==Controversy==
''This section confuses "interpretation" with "debate".''

The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.

However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].

==Key elements==

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.
===Welfare state===
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.

State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].

===Religion===
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism.

During the chaos sparked by the advent of the Reformation in Europe, several sects with radical new interpretations of Christianity sprung up, many of them Anabaptists (believers in adult baptism). Under the leadership of the reformer Thomas Muntzer the peasants of south-west Germany rose up in arms against the clergy and nobility, establishing anarcho-communes in their wake. Though they were massacred to a man, ten years later a group of radical Anabaptists under the leadership of Jan Matthys seized control of the north-western Germany city of Munster from the Prince-Archbishop there and established a Christian-Communist state. True to the spirit of applied communism, Mathys took twelve wives, held lavish feasts for himself and his most loyal followers and had himself crowned King of the World as the city starved, besieged by an alliance of Protestant and Catholic forces keen to see them exterminated. Mathys and all his followers were all tortured and killed when the Prince-Archbishop returned with professional troops to sack the city and reassert his authority, effectively wiping out all non-pacifistic Anabaptists in north-western Germany. Only Baptists as we know them today survived the following persecution.

See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

====New Testament socialism====
The earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with basic aims of socialism, albeit with critical requirements and distinctions from its secularist expressions. Luke 14:33 requires the forsaking of all one has if one will be a disciple of Christ, and while this is not shown to necessarily always require the literally forsaking of all,<ref>Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13</ref> Acts 2:44 states that the communal believers "had all things common". Acts 4:32-5:11 also describes community redistribution of property, and details the Divine punishment of a husband and wife for hypocrisy, in keeping proceeds from the sale of a piece of property while openly pretending that they gave it all, as others voluntarily did.<ref>Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 5:1-11)</ref>

However, forsaking all is shown to be that of first surrendering oneself and life to the God of the Bible, and placing all at His disposal,<ref>Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714), ''Commentary on the Whole Bible'', Lk. 14:25-35</ref><ref>Archibald Thomas Robertson, ''WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT'', Lk. 14:33</ref> with literal giving as a result being as He directs, and voluntary. (2Cor. 8,9)
{{cquote|Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (2 Corinthians 9:7-8)}}

While the early organic community provides a noble model of communal life, and of a "seminary" type experience, it was also soon dispersed by persecution (thus greatly expanding the church: Acts 8:1-5; 11:19), and it is later indicated that believers retained ownership of property after conversion. (Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13) Rich Christians are evidenced to have been part of the early church, but were not mandated by the church itself to give all they had away, but to be lowly in mind, and to be ready and willing to distribute, in faith and surrender to God. (1Tim. 6:17-19)

Moreover, in both Testaments capitalism is clearly supported,<ref>Gary North, ''Capitalism and the Bible''</ref> and indolence is not subsidized, but penalized by poverty, while diligence in work is rewarded by its fruits. (Prov. 6:6-11; 13:4; 20:4; 2 Thes. 3:10-12; 1 Tim. 5:17-18) Although holy widows over 60 years old who were without familial support were taken in by the church, a man is clearly required to provide for his own family, if able. (1Tim. 5:2ff)

While the success of the early church as an organic community is often invoked in support of modern socialism, and many communes of the 1960s evoked the Bible, the early organic church was a result of the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit among believers, while the "administrators" were humble servants who were examples of self-sacrifice, and who worked with their own hands as needed, (1Cor. 4:9-16) and whose authority was established by manifest Divine attestation, including the pro-active exercise of church discipline being only by supernatural or otherwise spiritual means, not carnal force.<ref>Acts 2:43; 5:5,9,10; 1Cor. 4:19-21; 2Cor. 13:2,3; 2Thes. 3:14,15; 2Tim. 4:2</ref>

In addition other distinctions, without the unique changes and influence resulting from faith and full surrender to Christ from all the community, and His anointing upon the work, attempts to mimic the communal life of Christians have failed.

As one critic of modern-day socialism states:
<blockquote>Socialism, unfortunately, completely disregards Biblical teaching about the fallen nature of human beings and assumes that human beings will act in a morally upright fashion if their basic needs are met. This is at the heart of why socialistic systems never work: because human nature does not work in this fashion.<ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/capitalism-and-socialism-in-light-of-the-bible Bob Ellis, ''Capitalism and Socialism in Light of the Bible''] Dakota Voice, June 23rd, 2009</ref></blockquote>

== Britain, the Labour Party and Socialism ==

At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British system of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain, and it remains so today.

In the 1980s under Conservative Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] most of the nationalized industries were returned to the private sector, and public housing has been sold to the residents. These conservative decisions were endorsed by the "New Labour" of Tony Blair, to the annoyance of elderly radicals who fondly remember the poverty and inefficiencies of the old system.

== Criticism of socialism ==

[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.

Svetlana Kunin, who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 explains how the system worked:
<blockquote>
Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures....Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West. The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise....These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party...
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=512665 ''The Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant''], ''Investors Business Daily,'' 09/10/2009 </ref>
</blockquote>

A government which adheres to economic socialistic principles also tends to have cultures which prize unmerited equality among citizen and criminal alike, and through extension of socialistic welfare policies, between the chronically employed and the chronically unemployed, by ensuring both groups receive income though only one group works for income. This enables people otherwise healthy to not seek gainful employment because they will receive income no matter their actions, thus providing no incentive to produce. The economies of socialistic governments are thus weak and riddled with flaws, such as expecting increased production from a reduced workforce, and when engendered with a progressive culture, which simply means people who do are the same as people who do not, eventually fall under the weight of their own poorly managed and over-extended public welfare institutions. Public welfare also decreases personal charity, thus making the people dependent on the aid of the government since charitable aid, such as from a church, is discouraged by the secular nature of socialistic nations.

==Past Socialist Countries==
===Chile===
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.

==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==
===[[Cuba]]===
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)

===North Korea===

North Korea's form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref>

===Venezuela===

The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref>

==Quotes==
Some quotes on socialism by historical figures and great thinkers.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

-- [[Winston Churchill]]

"I've always doubted that the socialists had a leg to stand on intellectually"

-- [[Friedrich Hayek]]

"The trouble is with socialism, which resembles a form of mental illness more than it does a philosophy"

-- L. Neil Smith

"Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State."

-- [[Margaret Thatcher]]

== See also ==

*[[Nazism and socialism]]
*[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills‎]]

==External links==
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433.
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==Bibliography==
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category: Anti-American]]

Talk:New Democratic Party

2011-05-23T14:54:13Z

LloydR: "making them the official opposition, though still in the minority"

== "making them the official opposition, though still in the minority" ==

That's redundant. All opposition parties are in a minority position: if they weren't a minority, they would be a majority, and if they were a majority, of course, they would form the government, not the official opposition. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 10:54, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-23T14:46:59Z

LloydR: /* ".... giving him a greater claim to being a natural-born citizen than Obama has." */ new section

Talk:Evolution

2011-05-22T02:05:08Z

LloydR: /* "Articles and comedy relating to atheists and evolutionists fat cats" */ new section

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

==Student Panel's Decision==
After much debate, the Conservapedia Panel has finished reviewing the Theory of Evolution page. We have determined that the article will remain protected indefinitely, to protect it from inevitable vandalism. We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution. Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review. We also realize the article is in need of revisions to areas containing problems with grammar and style and appreciate your help correcting this. The Panel apologizes for the long delay in this decision. Thank you for your patience. Please submit any further issues to the panel at [[User talk:CPanel]], and we will do our best to resolve them.

Sincerely, 
The Conservapedia Student Panel --[[User:CPanel]]

The Panel regarding a concise definition of the theory of evolution:

:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== "Articles and comedy relating to atheists and evolutionists fat cats" ==

In regards to the above-mentioned section in the Flying Kitty article, there is a typo in the title of that section of the Flying Kitty article -- there should be no "s" at the end of "evolutionist." [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:05, 21 May 2011 (EDT)

Top Conservative news websites

2011-05-22T00:23:16Z

LloydR:

''Conservapedia'' is in a unique position to rank other information sources of all types. Please see our nominations below the table, and fill in others as you like.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Rank
!Information Source
!Comments
|-
|1
|[http://www.wnd.com/ WorldNetDaily]
|has reporters at conservative events; moves to number 1 with its candid and courageous reporting about the [[homosexual agenda]] and also the proposed Arizona law requiring proof of qualifications by presidential candidates; gives writers good leeway; [[Donald Trump]] has used its information to jump to #1 in the polls for [[Republican]] candidates for president.
|-
|2
|[http://patriotupdate.com Patriot Update]
|Founded in 2009, [[Patriot Update]] is a leading [[conservative]] news source for the everyday American.
|-
|3
|[http://www.cnsnews.com/home Cybercast News]
|uniquely informative news across all issues, including social ones; a top quality news site in every respect
|-
|4
|[http://newsbusters.org/ Newsbusters]
|insightful, original, and good across all issues; exposes liberal deceit well
|-
|5
|[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ LifeSiteNews]
|terrific focus on [[pro-life]] and other moral issues; savvy and original ... and doesn't suffer fools lightly
|-
|6
|[http://www.onenewsnow.com OneNewsNow]
|a division of the American Family News Network, reporting on general news with liberal selection bias
|-
|7
|[http://hotair.com/ Hotair]
|witty, insightful and timely; superb links; but often [[neoconservative]] rather than socially conservative
|-
|8
|[http://www.breitbart.com/ Breitbart]
|breaks some big stories and exposes [[liberal deceit]] well
|-
|9
|[http://www.lifenews.com/ Lifenews]
|overemphasizes meaningless claims of [[pro-life]] victories while under-reporting how abortions are increasing even in states where the politicians claim to be pro-life
|-
|10
|[http://www.redstate.com/ RedState]
|timely and good volume, with focus on economic, government and election issues
|-
|11
|''[[Washington Times]]''
|a conservative news source from the nation's capital
|-
|12
|''[[Fox News]]''
|high volume of info, but censors many [[conservative]]s<ref>Conservatives censored (or disparaged) by Fox News include [[Ron Paul]], [[Rand Paul]], [[Pat Buchanan]], Tom Pauken, Rev. Tom Euteneuer, [[Michael Steele]], [[J.D. Hayworth]], [[Steve Lonegan]] and [[Tom Coburn]]; [[Sharron Angle]] has been rarely on Fox News, far less than [[John McCain]] was, even though Angle's race is far more important than McCain's.</ref> and downplays the social issues (for example, see: [[Fox News and homosexuality]])
|-
|13
|''[[Christian Science Monitor]]''
|refreshing in its lack of [[lamestream media]] liberal bias
|-
|14
|''[[USA Today]]''
|better than the [[lamestream media]] in its reporting on state-by-state news, and its greater balance; but it has been very [[feminist]] and one-sided in its reporting on [[Title IX]] in college sports
|-
|15
|''Orange County Register''
|the newspaper for the region that once propelled [[Ronald Reagan]] to become the governor of [[California]], and then the [[President]] of the [[United States]]
|-
|16
|''Financial Times''
|more conservative than the [[Wall Street Journal]]
|-
|17
|''Voice of America''
|worth reading from time to time
|-
|18
|[http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com Conservative News and Views]
|relatively new, covers a variety of conservative issues but mostly politics
|-
|19
|[http://www.examiner.com/creationism-in-national/terry-hurlbut Terry Hurlbut]
|CP administrator Terry Hurlbut at the Examiner
|-
|}

== Nominations ==

Tentative placement (high ranking, medium ranking, low ranking) in parentheses, suggestions welcome:

*americanthinker.com (medium-to-low, not much on social issues)
*biggovernment.com
*bighollywood.com
*bigjournalism.com
*bigpeace.com
*breitbart.com (low, much of it repeating liberal news sources; political coverage dominated by foreign policy issues)
*breitbart.tv
*canadafreepress.com
*catholicedition.com (has lots of quantity not allowed by [[lamestream media]])
*climateaudit.org (medium, but high quality on global warming issues)
*cnsnews.com (high, especially for news censored by [[lamestream media]], but it does not update news as frequently as other top sites)
*examiner.com (high)
*[[Fox News]] (low, but high volume)
*http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com
*[http://www.youtube.com/user/GeraldCelenteChannel Gerald Celente YouTube channel] (respects US Constitution, anti-[[Federal Reserve]], limited government, against bailouts and stimulus, pro-capitalism, predicted [[Tea Party Movement]] and the Great Recession, against USA being entangled in wars capriciously)
*frontpagemag.com
*hotair.com (medium)
*humanevents.com
*intellectualconservative.com
*lifenews.com (high quality, high volume; reports on social issues better than anyone)
*mediaite.com
*michellemalkin.com (high or medium)
*moonbattery.com
*[[NewsBusters]] (medium)
*newsmax.com (medium)
*pajamasmedia.com
*politico.com (medium)
*politicsdaily.com
*rasmussenreports.com (high or medium, but high quality poll statistics)
*redstate.com (medium)
*rightwingnews.com (low due to crass and vulgar style)
*rushlimbaugh.com (medium or low, but high volume/quality conservative radio transcripts)
*sepp.org (medium, but high quality on global warming issues)
*spectator.com
*thedailycaller.com
*[[thehill.com]]
*Wall Street Journal
*Weekly Standard
*wnd.com (Worldnet Daily) (medium. good op-ed writers, but suffers from sales gimmicks interspersed in headlines)

Other sources:

*Realclearpolitics (detailed polling about upcoming congressional elections)

== Criteria ==

*substantive
*educational
*includes social issues
*does not play favorites among individuals
*does not waste time and energy on [[gossip]]
*factual accuracy<ref>"Factual accuracy," per [[Conservapedia|Conservapedia's]] [[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#Citing_Sources_and_Using_Footnotes|Manual of Style]]: ''"The party affiliation of a news source should be irrelevant. All that matters is whether the source has a record of telling the truth."''</ref>
*does not rely on offensive, non-family-friendly material to boost traffic
*informs as well as attracting interest
*original content

(add more)
== See also ==

* [[Conservative links]] and [[Conservative resources]]

* [[Conservative video]]

* [[Conservative columnists]]

* [[Conservative blogs]]

* [[Major conservative organizations]]

* [[Conservative humor and satire resources]]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays]][[Category:Lists]]

Top Conservative news websites

2011-05-22T00:22:28Z

LloydR: Add Examiner columnist Terry H.

''Conservapedia'' is in a unique position to rank other information sources of all types. Please see our nominations below the table, and fill in others as you like.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Rank
!Information Source
!Comments
|-
|1
|[http://www.wnd.com/ WorldNetDaily]
|has reporters at conservative events; moves to number 1 with its candid and courageous reporting about the [[homosexual agenda]] and also the proposed Arizona law requiring proof of qualifications by presidential candidates; gives writers good leeway; [[Donald Trump]] has used its information to jump to #1 in the polls for [[Republican]] candidates for president.
|-
|2
|[http://patriotupdate.com Patriot Update]
|Founded in 2009, [[Patriot Update]] is a leading [[conservative]] news source for the everyday American.
|-
|3
|[http://www.cnsnews.com/home Cybercast News]
|uniquely informative news across all issues, including social ones; a top quality news site in every respect
|-
|4
|[http://newsbusters.org/ Newsbusters]
|insightful, original, and good across all issues; exposes liberal deceit well
|-
|5
|[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ LifeSiteNews]
|terrific focus on [[pro-life]] and other moral issues; savvy and original ... and doesn't suffer fools lightly
|-
|6
|[http://www.onenewsnow.com OneNewsNow]
|a division of the American Family News Network, reporting on general news with liberal selection bias
|-
|7
|[http://hotair.com/ Hotair]
|witty, insightful and timely; superb links; but often [[neoconservative]] rather than socially conservative
|-
|8
|[http://www.breitbart.com/ Breitbart]
|breaks some big stories and exposes [[liberal deceit]] well
|-
|9
|[http://www.lifenews.com/ Lifenews]
|overemphasizes meaningless claims of [[pro-life]] victories while under-reporting how abortions are increasing even in states where the politicians claim to be pro-life
|-
|10
|[http://www.redstate.com/ RedState]
|timely and good volume, with focus on economic, government and election issues
|-
|11
|''[[Washington Times]]''
|a conservative news source from the nation's capital
|-
|12
|''[[Fox News]]''
|high volume of info, but censors many [[conservative]]s<ref>Conservatives censored (or disparaged) by Fox News include [[Ron Paul]], [[Rand Paul]], [[Pat Buchanan]], Tom Pauken, Rev. Tom Euteneuer, [[Michael Steele]], [[J.D. Hayworth]], [[Steve Lonegan]] and [[Tom Coburn]]; [[Sharron Angle]] has been rarely on Fox News, far less than [[John McCain]] was, even though Angle's race is far more important than McCain's.</ref> and downplays the social issues (for example, see: [[Fox News and homosexuality]])
|-
|13
|''[[Christian Science Monitor]]''
|refreshing in its lack of [[lamestream media]] liberal bias
|-
|14
|''[[USA Today]]''
|better than the [[lamestream media]] in its reporting on state-by-state news, and its greater balance; but it has been very [[feminist]] and one-sided in its reporting on [[Title IX]] in college sports
|-
|15
|''Orange County Register''
|the newspaper for the region that once propelled [[Ronald Reagan]] to become the governor of [[California]], and then the [[President]] of the [[United States]]
|-
|16
|''Financial Times''
|more conservative than the [[Wall Street Journal]]
|-
|17
|''Voice of America''
|worth reading from time to time
|-
|18
|[http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com Conservative News and Views]
|relatively new, covers a variety of conservative issues but mostly politics
|-
|19
[http://www.examiner.com/creationism-in-national/terry-hurlbut Terry Hurlbut]
|CP administrator Terry Hurlbut at the Examiner
|-
|}

== Nominations ==

Tentative placement (high ranking, medium ranking, low ranking) in parentheses, suggestions welcome:

*americanthinker.com (medium-to-low, not much on social issues)
*biggovernment.com
*bighollywood.com
*bigjournalism.com
*bigpeace.com
*breitbart.com (low, much of it repeating liberal news sources; political coverage dominated by foreign policy issues)
*breitbart.tv
*canadafreepress.com
*catholicedition.com (has lots of quantity not allowed by [[lamestream media]])
*climateaudit.org (medium, but high quality on global warming issues)
*cnsnews.com (high, especially for news censored by [[lamestream media]], but it does not update news as frequently as other top sites)
*examiner.com (high)
*[[Fox News]] (low, but high volume)
*http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com
*[http://www.youtube.com/user/GeraldCelenteChannel Gerald Celente YouTube channel] (respects US Constitution, anti-[[Federal Reserve]], limited government, against bailouts and stimulus, pro-capitalism, predicted [[Tea Party Movement]] and the Great Recession, against USA being entangled in wars capriciously)
*frontpagemag.com
*hotair.com (medium)
*humanevents.com
*intellectualconservative.com
*lifenews.com (high quality, high volume; reports on social issues better than anyone)
*mediaite.com
*michellemalkin.com (high or medium)
*moonbattery.com
*[[NewsBusters]] (medium)
*newsmax.com (medium)
*pajamasmedia.com
*politico.com (medium)
*politicsdaily.com
*rasmussenreports.com (high or medium, but high quality poll statistics)
*redstate.com (medium)
*rightwingnews.com (low due to crass and vulgar style)
*rushlimbaugh.com (medium or low, but high volume/quality conservative radio transcripts)
*sepp.org (medium, but high quality on global warming issues)
*spectator.com
*thedailycaller.com
*[[thehill.com]]
*Wall Street Journal
*Weekly Standard
*wnd.com (Worldnet Daily) (medium. good op-ed writers, but suffers from sales gimmicks interspersed in headlines)

Other sources:

*Realclearpolitics (detailed polling about upcoming congressional elections)

== Criteria ==

*substantive
*educational
*includes social issues
*does not play favorites among individuals
*does not waste time and energy on [[gossip]]
*factual accuracy<ref>"Factual accuracy," per [[Conservapedia|Conservapedia's]] [[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#Citing_Sources_and_Using_Footnotes|Manual of Style]]: ''"The party affiliation of a news source should be irrelevant. All that matters is whether the source has a record of telling the truth."''</ref>
*does not rely on offensive, non-family-friendly material to boost traffic
*informs as well as attracting interest
*original content

(add more)
== See also ==

* [[Conservative links]] and [[Conservative resources]]

* [[Conservative video]]

* [[Conservative columnists]]

* [[Conservative blogs]]

* [[Major conservative organizations]]

* [[Conservative humor and satire resources]]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays]][[Category:Lists]]

Talk:Essay: President's speech after the defeat of two tyrants

2011-05-19T04:08:00Z

LloydR:

==Speech==
Anybody listen to Obama's speech? Trying to find out if he said Pok-i-stan. 2012 can't come soon enough. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:31, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that '''the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden''', the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on '''the American people''' in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into '''our national memory''' -- hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where '''the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction'''.
And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, '''leaving a gaping hole in our hearts'''.
On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, '''the American people came together'''. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.
W'''e were also united in our resolve to protect our nation''' and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda -- an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.
Over the last 10 years,''' thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort'''. '''We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks''' and strengthened '''our homeland defense'''. In Afghanistan, '''we removed the Taliban government''', which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, '''we worked with our friends and allies''' to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.
Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of''' our war''' against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as w'''e developed more information''' about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.
For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against o'''ur country and our friends and allies'''. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in '''our nation’s effort''' to defeat al Qaeda.
Yet his death does not mark the end of '''our effort'''. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue '''attacks against us'''. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad.
As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.
Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that '''we would take action''' within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is '''what we’ve done'''. But it’s important to note that '''our counterterrorism cooperation''' with Pakistan helped '''lead us to bin Laden''' and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.
Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.
'''The American people''' did not choose this fight. It came to '''our shores''', and started with the senseless slaughter of '''our citizens'''. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, '''we know well the costs of war'''. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to ''' a family that has lost a loved one''', or look into the eyes of '''a service member who’s been gravely wounded.'''
So '''Americans understand the costs of war'''. Yet a'''s a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened''', nor stand idly by when '''our people have been killed'''. '''We will be relentless''' in d'''efense of our citizens and our friends''' and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.
Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. '''The American people''' do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.
'''We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation''', for '''they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country.''' And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.
Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that '''we have never forgotten your loss,''' nor wavered in '''our commitment''' to see that '''we do whatever it takes''' to prevent another attack on our shores.
And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today’s achievement is a testament to '''the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people'''.
The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of '''our history''', whether it’s '''the pursuit of prosperity for our people''', or the struggle for equality for '''all our citizens'''; our commitment to stand up for '''our values''' abroad, and '''our sacrifices''' to make the world a safer place.
Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but''' because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'''
Thank you. '''May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.'''

[[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 23:49, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

:"Maybe if you read the whole speech"- well that's not an excerpt now is it? How come you're so eager to defend Obama? Could it be that Bush irks you? You might want to include the whole Bush speech as well, if you can stand praising the man. Did he say Pok-i-stan?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:04, 19 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Well, it seemed interesting to me that you drew attention to Bush's thanks to the troops, and left out this sentence from Obama: "We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day." Caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and the best you can do is worry about how a proper noun is pronounced? Classic. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 00:08, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: President's speech after the defeat of two tyrants

2011-05-19T03:50:48Z

LloydR:

Talk:Essay: President's speech after the defeat of two tyrants

2011-05-19T03:49:59Z

LloydR: Maybe if you read the whole speech...

==Speech==
Anybody listen to Obama's speech? Trying to find out if he said Pok-i-stan. 2012 can't come soon enough. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:31, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that '''the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden''', the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on '''the American people''' in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into '''our national memory''' -- hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where '''the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction'''.
And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, '''leaving a gaping hole in our hearts'''.
On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, '''the American people came together'''. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.
W'''e were also united in our resolve to protect our nation''' and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda -- an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.
Over the last 10 years,''' thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort'''. '''We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks''' and strengthened '''our homeland defense'''. In Afghanistan, '''we removed the Taliban government''', which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, '''we worked with our friends and allies''' to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.
Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of''' our war''' against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as w'''e developed more information''' about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.
For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against o'''ur country and our friends and allies'''. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in [[our nation’s effort]] to defeat al Qaeda.
Yet his death does not mark the end of '''our effort'''. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue '''attacks against us'''. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad.
As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.
Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that '''we would take action''' within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is '''what we’ve done'''. But it’s important to note that '''our counterterrorism cooperation''' with Pakistan helped '''lead us to bin Laden''' and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.
Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.
'''The American people''' did not choose this fight. It came to '''our shores''', and started with the senseless slaughter of '''our citizens'''. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, '''we know well the costs of war'''. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to ''' a family that has lost a loved one''', or look into the eyes of '''a service member who’s been gravely wounded.'''
So '''Americans understand the costs of war'''. Yet a'''s a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened''', nor stand idly by when '''our people have been killed'''. '''We will be relentless''' in d'''efense of our citizens and our friends''' and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.
Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. '''The American people''' do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.
'''We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation''', for '''they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country.''' And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.
Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that '''we have never forgotten your loss,''' nor wavered in '''our commitment''' to see that '''we do whatever it takes''' to prevent another attack on our shores.
And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today’s achievement is a testament to '''the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people'''.
The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of '''our history''', whether it’s '''the pursuit of prosperity for our people''', or the struggle for equality for '''all our citizens'''; our commitment to stand up for '''our values''' abroad, and '''our sacrifices''' to make the world a safer place.
Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but''' because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'''
Thank you. '''May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.'''

[[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 23:49, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-16T19:13:40Z

LloydR:

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, when the [[United States]] elects a president. Candidates are expected to file formal papers indicating their interest by July 2011; many were quietly lining up support throughout 2010. The key early primaries are [[Iowa]] ([[caucus]]es), [[New Hampshire]], [[Nevada]] ([[caucus]]es), [[South Carolina]].<ref>The order of the early primaries is not yet finally determined as of the end of 2010. For estimated dates, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> [[Barack Obama approval ratings|
Obama's declining popularity]] has made it more difficult for him to win reelection. [[Liberal]] [[Mike Bloomberg]] might run as an independent, splitting votes with [[Obama]].

For the Republican nomination, a sophisticated set of "[[stalking horse]]" candidates and endorsers are being used, as in 2008 when [[Fred Thompson]] and [[Mike Huckabee]] prevented [[Mitt Romney]] from winning. This time Mitt Romney has [[Rick Santorum]], [[Chris Christie]] and probably [[Tim Pawlenty]] on his side ("[[Team Mitt]]"), while [[Newt Gingrich]] will likely have on his side [[Sarah Palin]] and some pro-life groups, [[neoconservatives]], the [[Fox News Channel]] and [[WSJ]]; [[Mike Huckabee]] will likely endorse Newt also ("[[Team Newt]]").
__NOTOC__
== Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[Fox News]] Exposure
|-
|[[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, polling at 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], credited for helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Likely to be endorsed by [[Chris Christie]], [[Trent Lott]], [[Rick Santorum]], [[Marsha Blackburn]], [[Jim Talent]], etc. 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>
|Once supported [[abortion]] rights and [[civil unions]], criticized by the [[Tea Party Express]] chairwoman and others due to his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which included mandatory insurance and taxpayer-funded abortion; struggles in Iowa and won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising, likely to obtain endorsement of older "right to life" groups against Mitt;<ref name="April%2525202010%252520Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref> has one-sided promotion by the [[Fox News Channel]] and the potential [[stalking horses]] of [[Mitch Daniels]] and [[Sarah Palin]] to help him win the nomination.
|Struggled to win reelections in his own congressional district; voted to establish the federal Department of Education as a freshman Congressman, has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]; resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a women 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office; Sarah Palin is suggesting that she may not pull out and this would prevent Newt from defeating Mitt.
|Promoted almost daily by Fox
|-
|[[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 increasingly 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.
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; she's said she's not running for president this soon<ref name="Bachmann"/> and pulled out of the "Values Voter Summit" ([[Family Research Council]] convention) straw poll in September 2010; has never won statewide office; not picking up strong [[Tea Party]] support, as [[Ron Paul]] did not support her for a House leadership position and did not join her [[Tea Party]] caucus.
|Rarely on Fox anymore, which prefers Palin and especially Newt
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Bush-adviser [[Dick Cheney]] predicts that a Republican will become president in 2012, which would force Jeb to wait until 2020 if he doesn't run now; Jeb is giving interviews as though he were a candidate and can enter the race late and still win the nomination; [[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; Jeb is less likely to wait for 2016 as [[Obama]]'s approval ratings fall and a Republican victory seems likely in 2012; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]], and sure to win pivotal [[Florida]]; 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>
|Polls 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, when he could still be tagged with negatives via George; not liked by many Tea Partiers; might wait to run when Hillary runs.
|Rarely appears on Fox
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; has a popular television series and book tour that emphasizes the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality.
|It's difficult to take someone who relies so heavily on [[Facebook]] seriously; even [[liberal]] [[Hollywood]] preferred ''The King's Speech'' at the [[Oscars]]. 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; could merely be a [[stalking horse]] for [[Newt Gingrich]]; lags in fundraising despite publicity,<ref name="April%2525202010%252520Fundraising"/> came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Favorability rating is only 22%, compared to a 48% unfavorable rating.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43265.html</ref> Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and recently many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her.<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"/>
|Promoted heavily by Fox
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|The Republican Party will want this freshman [[U.S. Senator]] in the primary debates, which he's then likely to win because of his charisma, stronger stance on social issues, and [[Tea Party]] appeal; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats.
|Will face the liberal [[double standard]]: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. Some Republican voters may think he's really running to be selected as Vice President.
|Did not seek Palin endorsement; sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[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 has strong momentum now from his landslide victory, but his dad will likely run again in 2012 while Rand pursues his Senate career. Rand could first campaign for his dad and then become the candidate if voters think he has a better opportunity to win, but time is running our for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Other stations have him on more than Fox does
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]] (but never won with more than 50% of the vote)
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base or any appeal that would attract support away from the front-runners; 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; an ex-Catholic and that may not play well with Catholic swing voters.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Leads [[Barack Obama]] in Zogby's polling (January 2011), takes on the [[public school]] teachers' unions and is a fiscal reformer who puts liberals in their place, has an unscripted style and appearance that is a refreshing alternative to the Teleprompter President.
|Picked a [[pro-abortion]] running mate when he ran for governor, and has little experience with national issues; repeatedly says he is not running; campaigned for [[RINO]] [[Mike Castle]] in [[Delaware]] who was then defeated; neither added [[New Jersey]] to one of the lawsuits against [[ObamaCare]] nor joined an [[amicus brief]] against it; ''will probably support [[Mitt Romney]]''.
|Promoted heavily by Fox
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Former Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem, and apparently is running. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/06/herman-cain-2012-exploratory-committee-could-come-soon/ Herman Cain: 2012 exploratory committee could come soon, DailyCaller, December 6, 2010]</ref>
|Not well known outside the conservative sphere of influence.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Won the [[CPAC]] poll, is strong in national polls, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; opposed Bachmann for a leadership position; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office.
|Excluded by Fox because he opposes the war
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|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 against a popular opponent, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has a stellar jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states like [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[New York]]
|More conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried to force all schoolgirls to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and responded to a reporter's question on Dec. 24, 2010 that he's definitely not running.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|[[Rust Belt]] Governor, effective critic of the Obama administration, being promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], unknown nationally, criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue
|Promoted by Fox; featured first on its "12 for 2012" series.
|-
|[[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% without any way to gain broader support needed to win; could be a [[stalking horse]] for Newt; also supporter of big government, as governor raised taxes and increased state spending, released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; might decide to sit this one out;<ref>CBS: [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20044329-503544.html Signs mount that Huckabee won't enter 2012 race]</ref> 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>
|Promoted by Fox with his own show
|-
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Tied for number 1 in [[Gallup Poll]];<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> forced Obama's to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and is also willing to criticize liberal media; has business savvy and resources as a billionaire; 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. Not a career politician helps his cause.
|Not running for office. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/</ref>Criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. Needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine, <ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> and is starting to look one-dimensional. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[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, 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.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[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.
|Excluded by Fox
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, and Santorum endorsed Romney for President in 2008; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney
|Promoted on Fox
|-
|[[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.
|On Fox because he's been so newsworthy
|-
|[[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>
|Often on Fox
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010
|Not well known yet; says he's not running for president.
|Promoted somewhat by Fox`
|-
|[[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
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Not well known yet
|Rarely allowed on Fox`
|-
|[[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; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|-
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|Former [[libertarian]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], he has been recommended by [[Ron Paul]] if Dr. Paul does not run for president; Johnson is a strong advocate of less government.
|Like other libertarians but unlike most Republicans, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given the likelihood that Ron Paul will run, there is very little potential support for Gary Johnson in this election cycle.
|Excluded by Fox, which opposes libertarians
|-
|[[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
|Frequently on Fox
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Has been on Fox; daughter is a commentator for Fox
|-
|[[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
|Frequently on Fox; both focus on foreign policy
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience.
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticised 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; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|
|-
|[[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.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[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]]
|Has been on Fox
|-
|[[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.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[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
|Rarely on Fox, but featured in a cover story by the ''Weekly Standard''
|-
|[[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
|Was often on Fox during 2010 due to Arizona lawsuit
|-
|[[Fred Karger]]
|Wealth of experience in the private sector, much more than Obama ever had. His homosexuality may which may attract some right-leaning liberals.
|Openly gay, which will not play well the majority of the Republican Party. Supports Gay Marriage.
|}

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

====Short form====

The short-form analysis is that 2012 will be a replay of 2008 with Newt Gingrich trying to play the role of John McCain. Also, Sarah Palin may run along with Mike Huckabee to contest for early primaries before dropping out and endorsing Newt.

The challenge for social conservatives is to run a candidate, such as Marco Rubio, who can capture the large Tea Party and evangelical voting blocs despite the stalking horse candidacies of Palin and Huckabee.

====Long form====
There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It's a chess game for Mitt and Newt to try to emerge from those three as the leader.

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-business, 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 endearing support from the media.
|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. She has the highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</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.
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[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 physicians 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>
|-
|[[Ralph Nader]]
|An experienced [[community organizer]], Nader has not foreclosed the possibility of a challenge. [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/132835--nader-i-am-looking-for-someone-to-challenge-obama-in-2012] Accuses Obama of betraying progressive liberals and being "a con man." [http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/09/ralph-nader-predicts-obama-will-face-democratic-primary-challeng/]
|Could mount Third Party challenge if liberals continue to lose ground in the Democratic party.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[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.
|-
|[[Mike Gravel]]
|Former Alaska Senator who attacks his own party.
|Controversial liberal that supports socialist healthcare, gay marriage and called the war in Iraq lost. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/09/gravel-considering-obama-primary-challenge-calls-for-new-911-investigation/ Gravel considering Obama primary challenge, calls for new 9/11 investigation, The Daily Caller, December 9, 2010]</ref>
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacy by Mike Bloomberg ==

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 he 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. The more likely result is the he would split the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee.

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

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

United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-16T19:05:56Z

LloydR: /* Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination */ dude's not running.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, when the [[United States]] elects a president. Candidates are expected to file formal papers indicating their interest by July 2011; many were quietly lining up support throughout 2010. The key early primaries are [[Iowa]] ([[caucus]]es), [[New Hampshire]], [[Nevada]] ([[caucus]]es), [[South Carolina]].<ref>The order of the early primaries is not yet finally determined as of the end of 2010. For estimated dates, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> [[Barack Obama approval ratings|
Obama's declining popularity]] has made it more difficult for him to win reelection. [[Liberal]] [[Mike Bloomberg]] might run as an independent, splitting votes with [[Obama]].

For the Republican nomination, a sophisticated set of "[[stalking horse]]" candidates and endorsers are being used, as in 2008 when [[Fred Thompson]] and [[Mike Huckabee]] prevented [[Mitt Romney]] from winning. This time Mitt Romney has [[Rick Santorum]], [[Chris Christie]] and probably [[Tim Pawlenty]] on his side ("[[Team Mitt]]"), while [[Newt Gingrich]] will likely have on his side [[Sarah Palin]] and some pro-life groups, [[neoconservatives]], the [[Fox News Channel]] and [[WSJ]]; [[Mike Huckabee]] will likely endorse Newt also ("[[Team Newt]]").
__NOTOC__
== Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[Fox News]] Exposure
|-
|[[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, polling at 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], credited for helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Likely to be endorsed by [[Chris Christie]], [[Trent Lott]], [[Rick Santorum]], [[Marsha Blackburn]], [[Jim Talent]], etc. 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>
|Once supported [[abortion]] rights and [[civil unions]], criticized by the [[Tea Party Express]] chairwoman and others due to his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which included mandatory insurance and taxpayer-funded abortion; struggles in Iowa and won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising, likely to obtain endorsement of older "right to life" groups against Mitt;<ref name="April%2525202010%252520Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref> has one-sided promotion by the [[Fox News Channel]] and the potential [[stalking horses]] of [[Mitch Daniels]] and [[Sarah Palin]] to help him win the nomination.
|Struggled to win reelections in his own congressional district; voted to establish the federal Department of Education as a freshman Congressman, has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]; resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a women 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office; Sarah Palin is suggesting that she may not pull out and this would prevent Newt from defeating Mitt.
|Promoted almost daily by Fox
|-
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Tied for number 1 in [[Gallup Poll]];<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> forced Obama's to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and is also willing to criticize liberal media; has business savvy and resources as a billionaire; 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. Not a career politician helps his cause.
|Not running for office <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/</ref>Criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. Needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine, <ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> and is starting to look one-dimensional. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[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 increasingly 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.
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; she's said she's not running for president this soon<ref name="Bachmann"/> and pulled out of the "Values Voter Summit" ([[Family Research Council]] convention) straw poll in September 2010; has never won statewide office; not picking up strong [[Tea Party]] support, as [[Ron Paul]] did not support her for a House leadership position and did not join her [[Tea Party]] caucus.
|Rarely on Fox anymore, which prefers Palin and especially Newt
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Bush-adviser [[Dick Cheney]] predicts that a Republican will become president in 2012, which would force Jeb to wait until 2020 if he doesn't run now; Jeb is giving interviews as though he were a candidate and can enter the race late and still win the nomination; [[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; Jeb is less likely to wait for 2016 as [[Obama]]'s approval ratings fall and a Republican victory seems likely in 2012; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]], and sure to win pivotal [[Florida]]; 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>
|Polls 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, when he could still be tagged with negatives via George; not liked by many Tea Partiers; might wait to run when Hillary runs.
|Rarely appears on Fox
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; has a popular television series and book tour that emphasizes the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality.
|It's difficult to take someone who relies so heavily on [[Facebook]] seriously; even [[liberal]] [[Hollywood]] preferred ''The King's Speech'' at the [[Oscars]]. 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; could merely be a [[stalking horse]] for [[Newt Gingrich]]; lags in fundraising despite publicity,<ref name="April%2525202010%252520Fundraising"/> came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Favorability rating is only 22%, compared to a 48% unfavorable rating.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43265.html</ref> Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and recently many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her.<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"/>
|Promoted heavily by Fox
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|The Republican Party will want this freshman [[U.S. Senator]] in the primary debates, which he's then likely to win because of his charisma, stronger stance on social issues, and [[Tea Party]] appeal; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats.
|Will face the liberal [[double standard]]: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. Some Republican voters may think he's really running to be selected as Vice President.
|Did not seek Palin endorsement; sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[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 has strong momentum now from his landslide victory, but his dad will likely run again in 2012 while Rand pursues his Senate career. Rand could first campaign for his dad and then become the candidate if voters think he has a better opportunity to win, but time is running our for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Other stations have him on more than Fox does
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]] (but never won with more than 50% of the vote)
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base or any appeal that would attract support away from the front-runners; 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; an ex-Catholic and that may not play well with Catholic swing voters.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Leads [[Barack Obama]] in Zogby's polling (January 2011), takes on the [[public school]] teachers' unions and is a fiscal reformer who puts liberals in their place, has an unscripted style and appearance that is a refreshing alternative to the Teleprompter President.
|Picked a [[pro-abortion]] running mate when he ran for governor, and has little experience with national issues; repeatedly says he is not running; campaigned for [[RINO]] [[Mike Castle]] in [[Delaware]] who was then defeated; neither added [[New Jersey]] to one of the lawsuits against [[ObamaCare]] nor joined an [[amicus brief]] against it; ''will probably support [[Mitt Romney]]''.
|Promoted heavily by Fox
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Former Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem, and apparently is running. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/06/herman-cain-2012-exploratory-committee-could-come-soon/ Herman Cain: 2012 exploratory committee could come soon, DailyCaller, December 6, 2010]</ref>
|Not well known outside the conservative sphere of influence.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Won the [[CPAC]] poll, is strong in national polls, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; opposed Bachmann for a leadership position; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office.
|Excluded by Fox because he opposes the war
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|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 against a popular opponent, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has a stellar jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states like [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[New York]]
|More conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried to force all schoolgirls to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and responded to a reporter's question on Dec. 24, 2010 that he's definitely not running.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|[[Rust Belt]] Governor, effective critic of the Obama administration, being promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], unknown nationally, criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue
|Promoted by Fox; featured first on its "12 for 2012" series.
|-
|[[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% without any way to gain broader support needed to win; could be a [[stalking horse]] for Newt; also supporter of big government, as governor raised taxes and increased state spending, released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; might decide to sit this one out;<ref>CBS: [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20044329-503544.html Signs mount that Huckabee won't enter 2012 race]</ref> 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>
|Promoted by Fox with his own show
|-
|[[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, 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.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[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.
|Excluded by Fox
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, and Santorum endorsed Romney for President in 2008; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney
|Promoted on Fox
|-
|[[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.
|On Fox because he's been so newsworthy
|-
|[[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>
|Often on Fox
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010
|Not well known yet; says he's not running for president.
|Promoted somewhat by Fox`
|-
|[[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
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Not well known yet
|Rarely allowed on Fox`
|-
|[[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; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|-
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|Former [[libertarian]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], he has been recommended by [[Ron Paul]] if Dr. Paul does not run for president; Johnson is a strong advocate of less government.
|Like other libertarians but unlike most Republicans, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given the likelihood that Ron Paul will run, there is very little potential support for Gary Johnson in this election cycle.
|Excluded by Fox, which opposes libertarians
|-
|[[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
|Frequently on Fox
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Has been on Fox; daughter is a commentator for Fox
|-
|[[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
|Frequently on Fox; both focus on foreign policy
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience.
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticised 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; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|
|-
|[[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.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[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]]
|Has been on Fox
|-
|[[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.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[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
|Rarely on Fox, but featured in a cover story by the ''Weekly Standard''
|-
|[[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
|Was often on Fox during 2010 due to Arizona lawsuit
|-
|[[Fred Karger]]
|Wealth of experience in the private sector, much more than Obama ever had. His homosexuality may which may attract some right-leaning liberals.
|Openly gay, which will not play well the majority of the Republican Party. Supports Gay Marriage.
|}

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

====Short form====

The short-form analysis is that 2012 will be a replay of 2008 with Newt Gingrich trying to play the role of John McCain. Also, Sarah Palin may run along with Mike Huckabee to contest for early primaries before dropping out and endorsing Newt.

The challenge for social conservatives is to run a candidate, such as Marco Rubio, who can capture the large Tea Party and evangelical voting blocs despite the stalking horse candidacies of Palin and Huckabee.

====Long form====
There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It's a chess game for Mitt and Newt to try to emerge from those three as the leader.

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-business, 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 endearing support from the media.
|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. She has the highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</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.
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[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 physicians 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>
|-
|[[Ralph Nader]]
|An experienced [[community organizer]], Nader has not foreclosed the possibility of a challenge. [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/132835--nader-i-am-looking-for-someone-to-challenge-obama-in-2012] Accuses Obama of betraying progressive liberals and being "a con man." [http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/09/ralph-nader-predicts-obama-will-face-democratic-primary-challeng/]
|Could mount Third Party challenge if liberals continue to lose ground in the Democratic party.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[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.
|-
|[[Mike Gravel]]
|Former Alaska Senator who attacks his own party.
|Controversial liberal that supports socialist healthcare, gay marriage and called the war in Iraq lost. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/09/gravel-considering-obama-primary-challenge-calls-for-new-911-investigation/ Gravel considering Obama primary challenge, calls for new 9/11 investigation, The Daily Caller, December 9, 2010]</ref>
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacy by Mike Bloomberg ==

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 he 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. The more likely result is the he would split the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee.

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

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

Talk:Victor Dahdaleh

2011-04-27T14:56:03Z

LloydR: Created page with "Copied from Wikipedia. ~~~~"

Copied from Wikipedia. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 10:56, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Debate: "God vs. Science" story

2011-04-26T19:39:44Z

LloydR:

Have you not checked the relevant databases? The closest that a WorldCat/OCLC search gets to an Einstein-authored book with the keywords "Science" and "Religion" in the title is the following:

:Title: Science and religion.
:Author(s): Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955.
:Publication: [New York, Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion Their Relation to The Democratic Way of Life,
:Year: 1940
:Language: English
:SUBJECT(S)
:Descriptor: Religion and science -- 1900-
:God.
:Note(s): Lecture given at first symposium, in September, 1940, of the Conference on science, philosophy and religion in their relation to the democratic way of life. Each symposium has a distinctive title: no.1-3, Science, philosophy and religion.

Hope this helps.

So this is not an actual book with the "God vs. Science" title, but a lecture or series of lectures given about 1940? Do we have the text of it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:22, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
:There are two libraries in the world with a copy. You can probably ILL it from one of them through your own research library membership.

:From WorldCat/OCLC, again:

:Title: Science and religion Author: Einstein, Albert Accession Number: 42464754
:Libraries with Item: "Science and religion."( Record for Item | Get This Item )
:US,CA GRADUATE THEOL UNION LIBR GTX

:US,PA AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOC LIBR.
[[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 15:29, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

:::Or, [http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm Here]. Scroll down to the second section, titled "Science and Religion." The second part of that section might be at least part of what you're looking for. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 15:39, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Debate: "God vs. Science" story

2011-04-26T19:29:56Z

LloydR:

Talk:Debate: "God vs. Science" story

2011-04-25T21:31:45Z

LloydR: Created page with "Have you not checked the relevant databases? The closest that a WorldCat/OCLC search gets to an Einstein-authored book with the keywords "Science" and "Religion" in the title is ..."

Fidel Castro

2011-04-24T20:11:13Z

LloydR: "Castro" steps down, allegedly.

{{Dictator bio
| image =[[File:young_castro_2.jpg|200px]]
| name =Fidel Castro
| birth =August 13, 1926 Birán, Oriente Province, [[Cuba]]
| parents =Angel Castro y Argiz Lina Ruz González (out of wedlock)
| religion =Atheist
| education =University of Havana
| spouse =Mirta Diaz-Balart (1948–1955)
Dalia Soto del Valle (1980–present)
| children =
| death = 2009(approx.)
| deathmanner = unknown.
| burial =
| country =Cuba
| military =26th of July Movement (guerrilla organization)
| rank =n/a
| polbeliefs =[[Socialism]] [[Communism]]
| party =Communist Party of Cuba
| dictatordate =July, 1959
| war =[[Cuban Revolution]] [[Angola]]n Civil War War in [[Mozambique]] [[Ethiopia]]n Guerilla War Cuban Missile Crisis [[Congo]] Crisis [[El Salvador]]an Guerilla War [[Nicaragua]]n Civil War
| deathnumber =150,000 at home 500-1,000,000 in Angola
}}
'''Fidel Castro''' (born August 13, 1926) was the brutal [[communist]] [[dictator]] of [[Cuba]] from 1959 to 2008.
He reveled in worship of him by the public.

He held the posts of [[Prime Minister|prime minister]] (1959-1976) and president of the Council of State and president of the Council of Ministers (1976-2008).<ref>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html#Govt</ref> His oppressive rule lasted almost 50 years and killed scores of thousands. He has not been seen publicly since July 2006, when he underwent intestinal surgery, and is presumably no longer alive as of December 2009; the communists running Cuba have no incentive to risk challenge to their power by announcing that he passed away. After a long absence from the public eye, he was purportedly shown in photographs in June of 2010, released by the Cuban State News Agency. In August 2010, the Associated Press had a story of a purported Castro speech to the Cuban parliament. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/06/cuba-state-tv-fidel-castro-attend-parliament-meeting-time-years-1415326051/?test=latestnews</ref> ''The fact remains there hasn't been a reputable, independent account of Castro being alive in nearly a year.'' Other authoritarian regimes, such as [[North Korea]] and [[Nazi Germany]] have engaged in "body-doubles" and actor/impersonators to hide the death or incapacitation of despots in the past. <ref>[http://www.mahalo.com/kim-jong-il-body-doubles Kim Jong Il Body Doubles]</ref> <ref>[http://www.blackraiser.com/nredoubt/identity.htm Hitler body-double]</ref> In April 2011, Castro allegedly stepped down as head of the Cuban communist Party, but it has not been confirmed that this was not a ruse. <ref>http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=41125</ref>
{{cquote|'''I think its time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers. Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a business man who had escaped from Castro. And in the midst of one of his stories, my friends turned to the other and said, ‘we don’t know how lucky ''we'' are.’ ''And the Cuban stopped and said, ‘How lucky YOU are, I had some place to escape to.’'' In that sentence he told us the entire story of Cuba, and Castro. -- [[Ronald Reagan]] <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY "A Time for Choosing" by Ronald Reagan]</ref>}} 

== Early years of Castro ==
There is much that is not known of Castro's rural youth. However, it is generally conceded that his father was [[Ángel María Bautista Castro y Argiz]] and his mother [[Lina Ruz González]]. Official biographies are essentially hagiographies and the more extreme of his many detractors portray a wild and irregular life typical of a the worst element of his class. Castro has numerous siblings of various combination of parentage; for instance, it is widely believed that Raul Castro has the same mother but is not a son of Fidel Castro's father. The most accepted biography is that of Geyer 2002 <ref>Geyer, Georgie Anne 2002 Guerrilla Prince. Andrews McMeel Publishing Kansas City ISBN 0740720643</ref> while a new series biographies by Norberto Fuentes (2004, and later),<ref>Fuentes, Norberto 2004 La Autobiografia De Fidel Castro Editorial Planeta, Mexico D.F ISBN 8423336042, ISBN 9707490012</ref> a former propagandist for the Cuban Government, are attracting attention.

During his student years Fidel Castro was deeply involved in lethal violence.<ref>Ros, Enrique 2003 Fidel Castro y El Gatillo Alegre: Sus A~nos Universitarios (Coleccion Cuba y Sus Jueces) Ediciones Universal Miami ISBN 1593880065</ref> This violence also extended overseas to his involvement in the 1948 Colombian Bogotazo.<ref>Bowden, Mark 2002 Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World's Greatest Outlaw. Penguin ISBN-10 0142000957
ISBN-13 978-014200095 e,g Page 4: "... But the event had also attracted critics, leftist agitators, among them a young Cuban student leader named Fidel Castro. To them the fledgling OAS was a sop, a sellout, an alliance with the gringo imperialists of the north. … The young rebels like the twenty-one year old Castro anticipated a decade of revolution ..." Page 7: "... cities. Many policemen, devotees of the slain leader, joined the angry mobs in the streets, as did student revolutionaries like Castro. The leftists donned red armbands and tried to direct the crowd, ..." State Departments reports by William Wieland mention Rafael del Pino but oddly omit mention of Fidel Castro </ref>
<ref>Davis, Jack Posted May 08, 2007 (accessed 6-2-08) The Bogotazo, CIA Archives https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v13i4a07p_0004.htm
Central Intelligence Agency Posted May 08 2007 (accessed 6-2-08) https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v13i4a07p_0004.htm page 4 “There were many foreign radicals in Bogota at the time, to advertise their causes in the publicity extended to the Conference of American States. Fidel Castro, then 22 years old, happened to be one of them. Thorough investigations indicate that he played only a minor role. Castro subsequently reported that he tried to turn the mob into a revolutionary force, but was defeated by the onset of drunkenness and looting. The episode may have influenced his adoption in Cuba in the 1950s of a guerrilla strategy rather than one of revolution through urban disorders.” </ref>
Castro was trained as a lawyer studying at the University of Havana. In 1953 he led the first of many assaults against the ruling military regime of general [[Fulgencio Batista]]. A 1953 attack against military barracks in Santiago de Cuba was a failure,<ref>de la Cova, Antonio Rafael. 2007 The Moncada Attack: Birth of the Cuban Revolution.. University of South Carolina Press ISBN-10: 1570036721 ISBN-13: 978-1570036729
</ref> and Castro, alongside his brother Raul, was captured they, unlike a number of his companions, were spared irregular execution by intervention of Roman Catholic Church members. In a courtroom speech in his defense (heavily edited in published form, and titled "La Historia me absolverá", or "History will absolve me"), Castro outlined his plans for reforms, demanding a return to the 1940 constitution, the ending of corrupt practices and a more equal distribution of land. There was no formal death penalty in Cuba at the time. After three years of incarceration on the Isle of Youth (then Isle of Pines), both Castro brothers were released during an amnesty.

Upon release, the Castro brothers relocated to [[Mexico]] to avoid imminent reprisals from paramilitary groups affiliated with the Batista regime, lead by former communist and long time rival of Castro [[Roland Masferrer]]<ref>Masferrer, Marc, 2006 Rolando Masferrer, the man from Holguín http://marcmasferrer.typepad.com/uncommon_sense/2006/10/rolando_masferr.html and also http://www.cuban-exile.com/menu2/2rolando.html</ref>. In [[Mexico]] Castro organized a group of revolutionaries to return to Cuba and overthrow Batista. They became known as the 26th of July movement. This group included the Argentinian [[Che Guevara]]. In December 1956 Castro and 81 others boarded the Granma yacht, sailed to eastern Cuba, and began the armed struggle against the current regime.

The landing was preceded in Santiago and the rest of Oriente Province by an armed rising of the 26 of July urban Militia, a non-communist organization, lead by [[Frank Pais]].<ref>Alvarez, Jose 2008 Principio y Fin del Mito Fidelista. Trafford Publishing, Victoria, BC Canada ISBN-10 1425154042
ISBN-13: 978-1425154042 http://www.amazon.com/Principio-fin-del-mito-fidelista/dp/1425154042
This is the most up to date description of the crucial role that the non-communist militia of Frank Pais played in the "War Against Batista." Without Frank Pais there would not have been a "Fidel Castro." This book describes in detail and with dispassionate analysis how Frank Pais supported the Castro effort and how he was betrayed, and killed. It is a sad and only too real description of the hijacking of the resistance against Batista by communist activists including Castro himself.</ref> In the mountains the guidance of the bandit [[Cresencio Perez]], and and a few communist [[sleepers]] who had been placed in the Sierra for some time under the direction of stalinist agent [[Fabio Grobart]] was important. Some local [[guajiros]] in the remote Sierra Maestra region joined in to became the nucleus of the critical scouting and picketing force of [[Escopeteros]] who screened the better armed Castro main force. The support and guidance from revolutionary groups in the cities of Santiago, [[Havana]], elsewhere in Cuba and overseas was critical. The support of the U.S. State Department, mediated by [[William Weiland]] (aka Guillermo Arturo Montenegro) was significant from the time of the Bogotazo, through the [[Bay of Pigs]].<ref>Smith, Earl E.T. 1962 (last accessed 9-29-07) The Fourth Floor: An Account of the Castro Communist Revolution Random House ASIN: B000H5CT5M</ref>

By 1958, military attacks against Batista's army were having some success,<ref>Bonachea, Ramon L and Marta San Martin 1974. The Cuban insurrection 1952-1959. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswik, New Jersey ISBN 0878555765</ref> and the revolution was gaining national support. Castro maintained a position of diplomatic neutrality amongst various revolutionary factions, which included upper and middle class liberals, guajiros, and agricultural workers, communists and others, and hence was able to assume the position of director of the revolution. He was also largely successful in courting international support via astute and careful use of the media. Officials within the CIA and the United States government were divided over whether to support Castro. Some believed that Batista had become a liability, and that his overthrow was inevitable. Other officials feared the influence of known communists in Castro's camp including Guevara, though Castro himself repeatedly stressed that he himself was not a communist.

The revolution finally succeeded in late 1958, and on January 1st 1959, Batista left the country. Castro had chosen exiled leaders Manuel Urrutia Lleó and José Miró Cardona, both anti-communist liberals with good relations with the U.S., to head the new government. Castro himself became head of the new armed forces. However, the increasing presence of communists in the decision making process created an early split in the government. Castro and Urrutia both insisted publicly that they had relations with each other, but Urrutia and Miró resigned only months later, and Castro, with support from mass organizations, assumed the position of prime minister. Osvaldo Dorticós Torrado, a former Commodore of the Cienfuegos Yacht Club became president and head of state.

==In Power==

The process of obtaining permanent power was dramatic, traumatic and bloody. From 1959 on, mass killings of dissidents were carried out as a matter of course by the infamous "''firing squads.''" Immediately after the Communist take-over, some 2,500 army officers were rounded up and shot dead.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/4455-the-real-che-guevara.html</ref> [[Che Guevara]] reportedly stayed up late into the night signing death warrants for defenseless "reactionaries." Tens of thousands were sent to concentration camps.<ref>Frank Calzon, Castro’s Gulag (Council for Inter-American Security, 1979).</ref> Desperate crowds of weeping daughters and shrieking mothers were clubbed with rifle butts as they pleaded for their family members to be spared. One of Castro's exiled opponents describes it this way:

''"The Castro regime came to power by deception and terror, resulting in what can only be described as a state of war against the Cuban people. Executions, labor camps, forced re-locations and exile, and the imposition of a repressive military police force to exercise control over civilian society."''<ref>"Ziva" 6-8-08 Human Rights Advocacy and the Role of the Media. Babalublog http://www.babalublog.com/</ref>

As prime minister, and then president from 1976, Castro ruled the country in line with Stalinist policies, seizing [[private property]] and eliminating [[free speech]] and [[free press]]. He was infamous for his overly long speeches, often rambling on for hours, which can be seen as an example of [[Liberal style]].

Castro, who had been in regular contact with the KGB since 1956 and who used Soviet arms during his guerilla war, welcomed the presence of Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba to deter an American attack. This decision precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis, a major confrontation in the Cold War that nearly resulted in the cataclysmic death of millions. According to Guevara: "If the [Soviet nuclear] rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York."<ref>UPI, December 10, 1962.</ref> Nikita Khrushchev wrote
that, according to Castro, "we needed to immediately deliver a nuclear missile strike
against the United States… a proposal that placed the planet on the brink of extinction."<ref>James G. Blight et al., Cuba on the Brink: Castro, the Missile Crisis, and the Soviet Collapse (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), pp29.</ref> Fidel
Castro admitted: "I would have agreed to the use of nuclear weapons."<ref>Ibid, pp. 252</ref> On October 26, 1962, the USS Beale had tracked and dropped signaling depth charges (the size of hand grenades) on the B-59, a Soviet Project 641 (NATO designation Foxtrot) submarine which, unknown to the U.S., was armed with a 15 kiloton nuclear torpedo. Running out of air, the Soviet submarine was surrounded by American warships and desperately needed to surface. Captain Valentin Savitsky ordered his crew to prepare the use of a nuclear torpedo against the Americans, but crew member Vasili Arkhipov stepped in and quite literally saved the world.

In the aftermath of the crisis, the United States maintained a strict embargo on Cuba. As a result, Castro sought close ties with anti-American Communist states, and became dependant on aid from Moscow. He supplied massive amounts of military aid to [[North Korea]] and especially to [[North Vietnam]], where Cuban forces allegedly helped torture American POWs during the [[Vietnam War]].

Ever eager to make trouble, Castro dispatched Che to assist the Chinese-and Soviet-backed "Simbas" of Laurent Kabila in the [[Congo]], who were "murdering, raping and munching (many were cannibals) their way through the defenseless Europeans still left in the recently abandoned Belgian colony."<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/4455-the-real-che-guevara.html</ref> The [[CIA]] fought a proxy war with Communist forces in the Congo, which descended into a complex maze of chaotic maneuverings and betrayals by several major world powers.

Castro, all the while maintaining an "anti-imperialist" political posture, would intervene extensively in the internal affairs of African nations through violence and war. Cuban military intervention to save the communist MPLA dictatorship in [[Angola]] from collapse led to decades of civil war that cost as many as 1 million lives.<ref>Médecins Sans Frontières, “Angola: An Alarming Nutritional Situation,” August 1999</ref> Castro also dispatched Cuban troops to fight on behalf of the Communist dictatorship in [[Ethiopia]], which killed 1.25 million people through massacre and forced starvation.<ref>Washington Post, March 18, 1978 (Ethiopia intervention); New York Times, December 14, 1994 (Ethiopia death toll).</ref>

Soviet and Cuban support for communist violence caused civil wars in [[Nicaragua]], [[El Salvador]], [[Honduras]] and [[Guatemala]].<ref>Alberto R. Coll, “Soviet Arms and Central American Turmoil,” World Affairs, Summer 1985.</ref>

Castro has repeatedly ordered acts of war against the United States. Beyond the missile crisis, Castro maintains a huge electronic espionage complex directed at U.S. shores, conducts research into biological warfare and sponsors international terrorist groups.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/2802-starve-the-castro-regime-help-the-cuban-people</ref> Cuban intelligence had ties with the Communist [[Lee Harvey Oswald]], who later assassinated President [[John F. Kennedy]].<ref>htmlhttp://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28091</ref> In the seventies, Castro deliberately sent dozens of dangerous criminals to US shores;<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/e_exiles.html</ref> he responded to overtures from President [[Bill Clinton]] by ordering a deadly attack on an American plane.<ref>http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/22/bill_clinton_loses_his_cool_in</ref>

On February 23, 1988, the Cuban poet Armando Valladares, who was a prisoner in the Cuban gulag for 22 years, addressed the [[United Nations]] Commission on Human Rights. In his speech, he stated:

<blockquote>
I recall when they kept me in a punishment cell, naked, with several fractures on one leg which never received medical care; today, those bones remain jammed up together and displaced. One of the regular drills among the guards was to stand on the steel mesh ceiling and throw at my face buckets full of urine and excrement.

Mr. Chairman, I know the taste of the urine and the excrement of other men: That practice does not leave marks; marks are left by beatings with steel rods and by bayonet thrusts. My head is still covered with scars and you can feel the cracks.

But, what can inflict more damage to human dignity, the urine and excrements thrown all over your face or a bayonet's blow? Which is the appropriate article for the discussion of this subject? Under which technical point does it fall? Under what batch of papers, numbers, lines and bars should we include this trampling of human dignity?

The violation of human rights was not a matter of reports, of negotiated resolutions, of elegant and diplomatic rhetoric, for us it was a daily suffering.

For me it meant eight thousand days of hunger, of systematic beatings, of hard labor, of solitary confinement, of cells with steel-planked windows and doors, of solitude.

Eight thousand days of struggling to prove that I was a human being. Eight thousand days of proving that my spirit could triumph over exhaustion and pain. Eight thousand days of testing my religious convictions, my faith, of fighting the hate my atheist jailers were trying to instill in me with each bayonet thrust, fighting so that hate would not flourish in my heart. Eight thousand days of struggling so that I would not become like them, rejecting torture as a mean to fight, forcing myself to forgive, rejecting the thoughts of revenge, reprisal and cruelty.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/625-torture-in-castro-s-cuba.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Castro's policies imposed poverty and slavery on millions.<ref>Nick Eberstadt, The Poverty of Communism (Transaction Publishers, 1990), pp188, 196-206, 240-6.</ref> In 1959, Cuba was the second richest country in Latin America; today, it is the second poorest.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/5404-castro-s-cuba-at-fifty-no-freedom-no-fish.html</ref> Most pharmacies in Cuba do not even have aspirins.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/4402-aid-from-self-serving-autocrats.html</ref> Cuba is plagued with a humanitarian catastrophe involving massive and widespread malnutrition and lack of basic goods; death, suffering, and misery is the result.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/2538-bad-cuban-medicine.html</ref> The streets are now choked with scenes of starving peasants frantically pleading for food.<ref>Ibid.</ref> In September 2010, Castro admitted that "the Cuban model doesn't even work."<ref>www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel</ref>

Castro has been accused of genocide by ''Genocide Watch.''<ref>http://www.genocidewatch.org/</ref> He has been sued for genocide in [[Belgium]] and [[Spain]].<ref>http://www2.fiu.edu/~fcf/castrosuedgenocide.html</ref>

The estimated number of deaths attributable to the Castro regime varies according to different sources—but not by much. The number of named, documented victims (with 2 or more sources) established by recent scholarship is 86,000, excluding an estimated minimum<ref>http://www.cubaverdad.net/genocide.htm</ref> of 16,282 deaths in war and combat, for a conservative total of 112,000.<ref>http://cubaarchive.org/home/</ref> R.J. Rummel, in his book ''Statistics of Democide'' estimates a range of 35-141,000 killed, which may underestimate the full toll by as much as 50%, since it only covers the years 1959-87.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POSTWWII.HTM</ref> The most comprehensive survey, by Armando Lago, puts the total at 116,730-119,730 killed.<ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat6.htm#Cuba59</ref> The majority (85,000) of these deaths were caused by drowning; the firing squads account for some 30,000. Adding combat deaths to his calculations, we arrive at a total of some 136,000 Cubans killed by the Castro regime. Little effort has been made to calculate boat people deaths in recent years. Cuban exiles claim that as many as 200,000 have been murdered altogether.<ref>http://www.therealcuba.com/</ref> The death toll from Cuban interventions abroad can be numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

In August 2006, health problems lead to his appointment of his younger brother, Raul, as temporarily president and head of the Communist Party in Cuba. Political analyst believe that the appointment marks the beginning of a transition designed to maintain Communist control over Cuba after Castro's death<ref>The Washington Post, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080100647.html For Castro, a First Step In Calculated Transition ]</ref>. Castro's surgery was scheduled to repair a "sharp intestinal crisis with sustained bleeding." <ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/latin_america/july-dec06/castro_08-01.html</ref>

Bonded by their hate for the United States and capitalism, Castro and [[Venezuela]]n dictator [[Hugo Chavez]] created a close relationship. Both socialist countries have worked together on various political ventures.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166355,00.html</ref>.

On May 1, 2007, Castro did not attend Cuba's annual celebration of May Day, leading many to believe that he had died. While Castro allegedly met with Brazilian President [[Lula da Silva|Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva]] on February 25, 2010, <ref>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ghGthxqnYMWcICCnEkjH5ayqPamQD9E356IO1</ref> there is no independent confirmation that this was not in fact a body-double.

On February 18, 2008, Fidel Castro resigned as President of the State Council and Commander in Chief.<ref>http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2008/02/19/nacional/artic10.html</ref> He was succeeded by his brother, [[Raul Castro]].

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==Other Sources==

Alba, Víctor 1968 Politics and the labor movement in Latin America. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. ASIN B0006BNYGK

Álvarez Batista, Gerónimo 1983. III Frente a las puertas de Santiago. Editorial Letras Cubanas, Havana.

Ameringer, Charles D 1995 The Caribbean Legion Patriots, Politicians, Soldiers of Fortune, 1946-1950 Pennsylvania State University Press (December, 1995) (Paperback) ISBN 0271014520

Anderson, Jon Lee 1997. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, Bantam Press, ISBN 0553406647 or Grove Press, ISBN 0-8021-1600-0

Anton, Alex and Roger E. Hernandez 2002 Cubans in America: A Vibrant History of a People in Exile Kensington Publishing Corporation (May, 2002) ISBN 157566593X

Bonachea, Ramon L and Marta San Martin 1974. The Cuban insurrection 1952-1959. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswik, New Jersey ISBN 0878555765

Carrillo, Justo 1985 Cuba 1933: Estudiantes, Yanquis y Soldados. University of Miami Iberian Studies Institute ISBN 0935501002 Transaction Publishers (January 1994) ISBN 1560006900

Castro, Fidel 1972 (editors Bonachea, Rolando E. and Nelson P. Valdéz) Revolutionary Struggle. 1947-1958. MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts and London ISBN 0262020653

de la Cova, Antonio Rafael. 2007 The Moncada Attack: Birth of the Cuban Revolution.. University of South Carolina Press ISBN-10: 1570036721 ISBN-13: 978-1570036729

Duarte Oropesa, José 1989 Historiología Cubana. Ediciones Universal Miami Vol 1. ISBN 0897294904, All volumes ISBN 8439925808

El'Toro, John Demico Chicano 2005 Cuban Secrets: I look like a Jackson Tribunal Publishing Corporation (July, 2005) ISBN 0544235617

Enamorado, Calixto 1917 Tiempos. Heroicos Persecucion. Rambla, Bauza and Company, Havana.

Encinosa, Enrique G. l989 La Guerra Olvidada Un Libro Historico De Los Combatientes Anticastristas En Cuba (1960-1966). Editorial SIBI, Miami

Evans, Walker (Photographer), and [[Andrei Codrescu]] 2001 Walker Evans: Cuba (Hardcover) J. Paul Getty Trust Publications ISBN 0892366176

Fermoselle, Rafael 1992 Cuban leadership after Castro: Biographies of Cuba's top commanders. North-South Center, University of Miami, Research Institute for Cuban Studies; 2nd ed.

[[Humberto Fontova|Fontova, Humberto]] 2005 Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant. Regnery Publishing Company, Washington DC. ISBN 0895260433

Fuentes, Norberto 2004 La Autobiografia De Fidel Castro Editorial Planeta, Mexico D.F ISBN 8423336042, ISBN 9707490012

George, Edward 2005 The Cuban Intervention In Angola, 1965-1991: From Che Guevara To Cuito Cuanavale. Frank Cass Publishers, London & Portland, Oregon ISBN 0415350158

Gonzalez, Servando 2002 The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol. Spooks Books, U.S. ISBN 0971139105 ISBN 0971139113

Greene, Graham 1958 Our Man in Havana: Viking ISBN 067053141 laneta, Mexico D.F ISBN 8423336042, ISBN 9707490012

Guevara, Ernesto “Che” (and Waters, Mary Alice editor) 1996 Episodes of the Cuban Revolutionary War 1956-1958. Pathfinder New York (see reference to “El Viscaíno” on page 186). ISBN 0873488245.

Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara Guerrilla attack on the Barracks de la Plata. In: The Mammoth book of War Stories. Jon. E. Lewis, editor, Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York 1999 Edition Printed and bound in United Kingdom. ISBN 0786706295 pp. 507-512.

Gutiérrez, Pedro Juan 1998 (Translation 2001) Dirty Havana Trilogy, Faber and Faber, London ISBN 0571206263

Geyer, Georgie Anne 2002 Guerrilla Prince. Andrews McMeel Publishing Kansas City ISBN 0740720643

Jimenez Pastrana, Juan 1983. Los Chinos en la Historia de Cuba: 1847-1930. Editorial de Sciencias Sociales, Havana,

Kapcia A. 2002. The Siege of the Hotel Nacional, Cuba, 1933: A Reassessment. Journal of Latin American Studies, 34, 283-309.

Kelshall, Gaylord T. M. 1994 The U-Boat War in the Caribbean United States Naval Institute Annapolis Maryland ISBN 1557504520

Kissinger, Henry 2000 Years of renewal. Simon & Schuster ISBN 0684855720

Kost, William E. 2004 Cuban agriculture: to be or not to be organic. Cuba in Transition 14, 274-281.

Lagas, Jacques 1964 Memorias de un capitán rebelde. Editorial del Pácifico. Santiago, Chile.

Lazo, Mario 1968 Dagger in the heart: American policy failures in Cuba. Twin Circle. NewYork

Lazo, Rodrigo 2005 Writing to Cuba Filibustering and Cuban Exiles in the United States. University of North Carolina Press, ISBN 0807855944

Loiret, F; Ortega, E; Kleiner, D; Ortega-Rodes, P; Rodes, R; Dong, Z 2004 A putative new endophytic nitrogen-fixing bacterium Pantoea sp. from sugarcane J. Appl. Microbiol., 97 (3) 504-511.

López, Juan J. 2003 Democracy Delayed: The Case of Castro's Cuba The Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore Maryland ISBN 0801870461

Lowinger, Rosa and Ofelia Fox 2005 Tropicana Nights. The Life and Times of the Legendary Cuban Nightclub. Harcourt, Orlando, New York, London ISBN 0151012245

Marmol, Jose G. 1993 Donato Marmol, Mayor General en la Revolucion del Separatismo Cubano. Editorial Arenas, Miami, pp. 171-174, 191,193-197, 200, 202, 218, 243 ISBN 0918454964

Márquez, Nicolás 2004 La otra parte de la verdad. Ediciones de Autor ISBN 9874382678

Márquez-Sterling, Carlos and Manuel 1975, Historia de la Isla de Cuba, Regents Publishing Co., NY, ISBN 0-88345-251-0

Márquez-Sterling, Carlos 1969, Historia de Cuba (desde Cristobal Colon a Fidel Castro), Las Americas Publishing Co., NY [revision of 1963 original edition]

Márquez-Sterling, Manuel 2009, Cuba 1952-1959: The True Story of Castro's Rise to Power, Kleiopatria Digital Press, Wintergreen VA, ISBN 0615318568

Marrero, Levi 1981 5th edition "Geografia de Cuba" La Moderna Poesia, Coral Gables Florida.

Marmol, Jose G. 1993 Donato Marmol, Mayor General en la Revolucion del Separatismo Cubano. Editorial Arenas, Miami, pp. 171-174, 191,193-197, 200, 202, 218, 243 ISBN 0918454964

Martin, Lionel 1978 The Early Fidel: Roots of Castro's Communism Lyle Stuart, Secaucus New Jersey; 1st ed edition ISBN 0818402547

Martin, Paul Sidney George L. Quimby and Donald Collier 1947 Indians before Columbus;: Twenty thousand years of North American history revealed by archeology, The University of Chicago press, Chicago Illinois . ASIN B0006AR3AE pp. 40-46.

Matos, Huber, 2002. Como llego la Noche. Tusquet Editores, SA, Barcelona. ISBN 8483109441

Morán Arce, Lucas 1980 La revolución cubana, 1953-1959: Una versión rebelde Imprenta Universitaria, Universidad Católica; ISBN

Orro Fernandez, Roberto 2004 Education and labor skills in Socialist Cuba. Cuba in Transition-ASCE 10, 224-230.

Ortiz, Fernando 1995 edition, (translated from 1947 original by Harriet de Onís) Cuban counterpoint Tobacco and Sugar. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina and London ISBN 08223161161

de Paz-Sánchez, Manuel 1997. Zona Rebelde. La diplomacia Española ante la revolución cubana. Litografía Romero. S.A. Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain ISBN 847926263X

de Paz-Sánchez, Manuel 2001. Zona de Guerra. España ante la Revolución Cubana. Litografía Romero. S.A. Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain ISBN 8479263644

Nuñez Jimenez, Antonio 1959 Geografía de Cuba. Lex. Havana

Phillips, R Hart 1935 Cuban side show. Cuban Press, Havana 2nd edition. ASIN: B000860P60

Phillips, R Hart. 1959 Cuba, Island of Paradox. McDowell Obolensky, New York, NY ASIN: B0007E0OAU

Phillips, R Hart. 1960 Cuba Island of Paradise 1960 Astor-Honor Inc, ISBN 0839250126

Phillips, Ruby Hart 1961- The Tragic Island: How Communism Came to Cuba. Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Phillips, R Hart. 1962 The Cuban dilemma McDowell Obolensky, New York, NY Library of Congress number 6218787

Pirala, Antonio (1895, 1896 and some from 1874) Anales de la Guerra en Cuba. Felipe González Rojas, Madrid

Priestland, Jane (editor) 2003 British Archives on Cuba: Cuba under Castro 1959-1962. Archival Publications International Limited, 2003, London ISBN 1903008204

Puebla, Teté (Brigadier General Cuban Armed Forces) 2003 Marianas in Combat: and the Mariana Grajales Women's Platoon in Cuba's Revolutionary War 1956-58, New York Pathfinder ISBN 0873489578

Ramos, M. G., Villatoro, MAA, Urquiaga, S, Alves, BJR and: Boddey, RM 2001 Quantification of the contribution of biological nitrogen fixation to tropical green manure crops and the residual benefit to a subsequent maize crop using super(15)N-isotope techniques J. Biotechnol. 91 (2-3)105-115

Rodriguez, Felix I. and John Weisman 1989 Shadow Warrior/the CIA Hero of a Hundred Unknown Battles Simon & Schuster, New York ISBN 0671667211

Rojo del Río, Manuel. 1981 La Historia Cambio En La Sierra. Editorial Texto, San José, Costa Rica 2a Ed. Aumentada

Roloff y Mialofsky, Carlos and Gerardo Forrest 1901. Yndice Alfabetico y Difunctiones del Ejercito Libertador de Cuba. Edited under the official direction of Leonard Wood. Printed in Havana by Rambla y Bauza

Ros, Enrique 2003 Fidel Castro y El Gatillo Alegre: Sus A~nos Universitarios (Coleccion Cuba y Sus Jueces) Ediciones Universal Miami ISBN 1593880065

La Rosa Corzo, Gabino (translated by Mary Todd) [1988] 2003 Runaway Slave Settlements in Cuba: Resistance and Repression University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill ISBN 0807828033 ISBN 0807854794

Rowan, Andrew Summers 1896 The island of Cuba; A descriptive and historical account of the "Great Antilla." H. Holt and company, ASIN B00086NGHU

Rowan, Andrew Summers 1922 How I carried the message to Garcia W.D. Harney ASIN B00086V3FW

Rubens, Horatio S. 1932 “Liberty. The Story of Cuba” AMS Press New York, 1970 reprint of 1932 edition. SBN 404-00633-7

Smith, Earl T. 1962 (1990 edition) The fourth floor. Selous Foundation Press, Washington DC. ISBN 09442730682

Spikes, Daniel 1993 Angola and the Politics of Intervention: From Local Bush War to Chronic Crisis in Southern Africa McFarland & Company Jefferson, North Carolina and London ISBN 089950888X

Tejera, Noel; Ortega, Eduardo; Rodes, Rosa; and Lluch, Carmen 2006 Nitrogen compounds in the apoplastic sap of sugarcane stem: Some implications in the association with endophytes. J. Plant Physiology, 163 (1)80-85

Tennant, Gary 1999 Dissident Cuban communism: the case of Trotskyism, 1932-1965 PhD Thesis, University of Bradford, England . http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/central.html

Thomas, Gordon and Max Morgan Witts 1974 Voyage of the Damned Stein and Day Publishers; 1st Edition edition (1974) Stein and Day, Briarcliff Manor, New York ASIN B000BKOCGM

Hugh Thomas Cuba or the Pursuit of Freedom (Paperback) Da Capo Press; Updated edition (April, 1998) ISBN 0306808277

Thomas-Woodward, Tiffany (accessed 1/29/2006) Towards the gates of eternity: Celia Sánchez Manduley and the creation of Cuba’s new woman. Project Muse http://muse.jhu.edu

U.S. State Department 1950-1954. Confidential Central files Cuba 1950-1954 Internal Affairs Decimal Numbers 737, 837 and 937, Foreign Affairs decimal numbers 637 611.37 Microfilm Project University of Publications of America, Inc. http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cuba/Confidential_Files-Nov-1952-July-1953.pdf http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cuba/Confidential_Files-Aug-1953-Oct-1954.pdf

Velazquez, Loreta Janeta 1876 (2003 Editor Andrews, William L.)
The Woman in Battle (The Civil War Narrative of Loreta Janeta Velazques, Cuban Woman and Confederate Soldier). University of Wisconsin Press 2003 ISBN 0299194248

Volkman, Ernest 1995 Our man in Havana. Cuban double agents 1961-1987 Castro stings the CIA in: Espionage: The Greatest Spy Operations of the Twentieth Century Wiley, New York ISBN 0471161578

Wegman ME Infant mortality: some international comparisons. Pediatrics; 98(6 Pt 1):1020-7, 1996 “Comparison of infant mortality rates (IMRs) among the world's countries requires assessment of completeness and accuracy of data. The United Nations Statistical Office classifies as [quot ]C[quot ], complete, meaning at least 90% of events are actually recorded, 1994 data supplied by 80 governments,”

Weiland, C. F. (Carl Ferdinand), (d. 1847) 1855
West Indien. Geographisches Institut (Weimar, Germany) [http://www.davidrumsey.com/maps960006-24795.html]

Zayas y Alfonso, Alfredo 1914. “Lexografía Antillana” El Siglo XX Press, Havana

Zimmerman, Robert 1958 Our Man in Havana: Viking ISBN 067053141 laneta, Mexico D.F ISBN 8423336042, ISBN 9707490012

{{liberalism}}
==External links==
* [http://antifidelblogs.cubanology.com/ Anti-Fidel Blogs]
* [http://cubawatcher.blogspot.com/ Cuba Watcher]
* [http://www.castrodeathwatch.com/ Castro Death Watch]
* [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/president-fidel-castro.htm Fidel Castro - breaking news]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Castro, Fidel}}

[[Category: Communism]]
[[Category:Dictators]]
[[Category:Cuba]]
[[Category: Mass Murderers]]

Great Achievements by Teenagers

2011-04-22T23:50:02Z

LloydR: Rev. Moon writes Crown of Glory @ 16.

Most of the '''great achievements''' throughout history in the fields of art, culture, science and technology have been by '''teenagers'''. This may be because they are able to think in new and innovative ways, or their thinking is not hidebound by discredited nostrums; it may be attributable to great teachers and great schooling - including homeschooling. It may simply be the emergence of God-given talent at an early age, and the natural open-mindedness of young people before they may experience attempts to indoctrinate them towards certain worldviews. Biologically the rate of brain development, and according to some studies [[IQ]], reportedly peak in smart individuals just prior to their teenage years.<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/30/science/sci-brain30</ref>

==Achievements, listed by age at which they were made==

* '''7''' - Yehudi Menuhin gives his first solo violin performance with the San Francisco Symphony in 1923.
* '''8''' - [[Frederic Chopin]] plays his first public piano performance, having already authored two polonaises (G minor and B flat major) at age 7.
* '''10''' - [[Mark]], author of the [[Gospel of Mark]], witnesses the arrest of Jesus and develops the first [[Gospel]].
* '''10''' - Michael Kearney, [[homeschooled]], becomes the world's youngest university graduate.<ref>He earned a bachelor's degree from the University of South Alabama.</ref>At age 17, began a teaching career at college. <ref>[http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080617185918AAum3vj Who is the YOUNGEST person to graduate college?] Yahoo Answers</ref>
* '''10''' - Kathryn Aurora Gray, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, discovered supernova 2010lt.<ref>http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/04/girl-10-becomes-youngest-to-discover-supernova/ CNN</ref>
* '''10''' - Terence Tao, the youngest ever medalist in International Mathematical Olympiad.
* '''11''' - William James Sidis, became the youngest ever student at Harvard College in 1909.
* '''12''' - [[Blaise Pascal]] had secretly worked out the first twenty-three propositions of Euclid by himself.
* '''12''' - [[Jesus]] presents His wisdom in the temple in [[Jerusalem]].
* '''12''' - William "Willie" Johnson earned the [[Medal of Honor]] for his actions during the [[Seven Days Battle]] and on the [[Peninsula Campaign]] during the [[American Civil War]]. [http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/citations_1862_cwh/johnston_willie.html]
* '''12''' - William Rowan Hamilton, by this age had mastered [[Arabic]], [[Hebrew]], [[Persian]], [[Greek]], [[Latin]], Syriac, and Sanskrit among other [[languages]].
* '''13''' - [[Jonathan Krohn]] homeschooled, actor, internet radio host, guest speaker at [[CPAC]], author of ''Defining Conservatism''.
* '''13''' - [[John]] wrote the first draft of the [[Gospel of John]], the greatest written work of all time.<ref>[[Mystery:Was John a Child?]]</ref>
* '''13''' - [[Joan of Arc]] was inspired and led [[France]] five years later to victory over the English in the [[Hundred Years War]]; was martyred at age 19.<ref>http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/History/Joan_of_Arc.shtml</ref>
* '''13''' - [[Anne Frank]] began writing her diary, later published as "Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl."
* '''14''' - [[David]] slays [[Goliath]].
* '''14''' - Ismail founded the Safavid dynasty and became its "shah" (military and spiritual ruler)
* '''14''' - [[Bobby Fischer]] became an International [[Chess]] Grandmaster.
* '''14''' - [[Mozart]] wrote the opera, "Mitridate Rè di Ponto."
* '''14''' - [[Nadia Comaneci]] "achieved in her sport what no [[Olympian]], male or female, ever had before: perfection."<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/events/1996/olympics/daily/july25/flashback.html</ref>
* '''14''' - [[St. Theresa of Lisieux]] rejected by Bishop Hugonin, pleads with Pope Leo XIII so she may enter the Carmelites. Became Carmelite nun at age 15.
* '''14''' - Bernadette Soubirous (St Bernadette of Lourdes) has a vision of the Virgin Mary
* '''15''' - [[Louis Braille]] invented the [[Braille]] system.
* '''15''' - [[Christopher Paolini]] writes the first draft of his [[Eragon]] trilogy which is published when he is 19.
* '''16''' - Jean-François Champollion, can speak a dozen languages and delivers a paper on the Coptic language to the Grenoble Academy. By 20, he can speak another 13 languages and at 32 he deciphers the [[Rosetta Stone]].
* '''16''' - Boy sailor Jack Cornwall, of HMS Chester, is awarded a [[posthumous]] [[VC]] for gallantry at the [[Battle of Jutland]].
* '''16''' - the average age of 58 [[homeschooled]] teenagers who founded Conservapedia, so that the light of truth would continue to shine and darkness would not overcome it.
* '''16''' - [[Sun Myung Moon]] writes [[Crown of Glory]].
* '''17''' - Cassie Bernall defended her [[faith]] in front of an [[atheistic]] gunman at the [[Columbine massacre]], and was martyred for it<ref>Two witnesses, Craig Scott and Joshua Lapp, confirmed a question-and-answer confrontation; others said Cassie was praying when murdered.[http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm]</ref>
* '''17*''' - [[Mary]] accepts [[God]]'s will to conceive [[Jesus]] by the [[Holy Spirit]], and gives birth nine months later.<ref>Mary's exact age is not known, but she was old enough to marry under Jewish law and was almost certainly a teenager.[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm]</ref>
* '''17''' - Shawn Fanning develops the first large-scale peer-to-peer file sharing program, Napster
* '''17''' - Private 1st Class Jacklyn H. Lucas, [[United States Marine Corps]], earned the [[Medal of Honor]] five days after his 17th birthday during the [[Iwo Jima]] battle in [[World War II]]; he was a Marine for ''three years''. [http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/citations_living/ii_mc_lucas.html]
* '''18''' - Lila Rose, a [[UCLA]] student who had been [[homeschooled]], goes undercover and does a stinging expose of an [[abortion]] clinic.<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/may/07051504</ref>
* '''18''' - Shawn Goldsmith from Long Island has earned all 121 merit badges offered by the Boy Scouts. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473964,00.html Boy Scout Earns All 121 Merit Badges] AP, December 30, 2008</ref>
* '''18''' - [[Mary Shelley]] writes Frankenstein (The Modern Prometheus), later published when she was 21.
* '''18''' - [[Gary Kasparov]], considered the greatest [[chess]] player ever, won the [[U.S.S.R.]] championship.
* '''19''' - Captain Albert Ball, [[VC]], MC, DSO & 2 bars, commences his career as a fighter pilot. By the time he is killed, aged 20, in 1917, he has become one of the [[First World War]]'s greatest air aces, accounting for at least 44 [[German]] aircraft.
* '''19''' - was the average age of front-line [[US]] service personnel fighting to defend democracy in [[Indochina]] during the [[Vietnam War]].
* '''19''' - [[Evariste Galois]] applies [[group theory]] to the unsolvability of polynomial equations, before his death in a duel at age 20.
* '''19''' - [[John D. Rockefeller]] starts a new company, turning an enormous profit in its first year, and became the most influential businessman in history.<ref>http://www.notablebiographies.com/Pu-Ro/Rockefeller-John-D.html</ref>
* '''19''' - [[Steve Jobs]] begins collaborating in electronics with Steve Wozniak<ref>http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/jobs.htm</ref> in electronics, and developed the personal computer within two years.
* '''19''' - [[Mark Zuckerberg]] commercializes [[Facebook]], which later became the leading social networking system on the [[internet]].
* '''19''' - Jim Ryun broke the world record for running the mile.
* '''20''' - Carl Friedrich Gauss makes his first mathematical discoveries, which will lead to the completion of "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae", his magnum opus, at the age of 21.
* '''20''' - Willis Carrier invents air conditioning.
* '''20''' - Trevor Bayne, who had been [[homeschooled]], became the youngest driver to win a Daytona 500 race.
(add more, sorted by age and then alphabetically)

== See also ==

*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]
*[[Gallery of British Heroes]]

==External Links==
*[http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-child-prodigies/ Top 10 Child Prodigies]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Achievement]]

Fidel Castro

2011-04-22T19:13:51Z

LloydR: "Castro" allegedly steps down.

{{Dictator bio
| image =[[File:young_castro_2.jpg|200px]]
| name =Fidel Castro
| birth =August 13, 1926 Birán, Oriente Province, [[Cuba]]
| parents =Angel Castro y Argiz Lina Ruz González (out of wedlock)
| religion =Atheist
| education =University of Havana
| spouse =Mirta Diaz-Balart (1948–1955)
Dalia Soto del Valle (1980–present)
| children =
| death = 2009(approx.)
| deathmanner = unknown.
| burial =
| country =Cuba
| military =26th of July Movement (guerrilla organization)
| rank =n/a
| polbeliefs =[[Socialism]] [[Communism]]
| party =Communist Party of Cuba
| dictatordate =July, 1959
| war =[[Cuban Revolution]] [[Angola]]n Civil War War in [[Mozambique]] [[Ethiopia]]n Guerilla War Cuban Missile Crisis [[Congo]] Crisis [[El Salvador]]an Guerilla War [[Nicaragua]]n Civil War
| deathnumber =150,000 at home 500-1,000,000 in Angola
}}
'''Fidel Castro''' (born August 13, 1926) was the brutal [[communist]] [[dictator]] of [[Cuba]] from 1959 to 2008.
He reveled in worship of him by the public.

He held the posts of [[Prime Minister|prime minister]] (1959-1976) and president of the Council of State and president of the Council of Ministers (1976-2008).<ref>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html#Govt</ref> His oppressive rule lasted almost 50 years and killed scores of thousands. He has not been seen publicly since July 2006, when he underwent intestinal surgery, and is presumably no longer alive as of December 2009; the communists running Cuba have no incentive to risk challenge to their power by announcing that he passed away. After a long absence from the public eye, he was purportedly shown in photographs in June of 2010, released by the Cuban State News Agency. In August 2010, the Associated Press had a story of a purported Castro speech to the Cuban parliament. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/06/cuba-state-tv-fidel-castro-attend-parliament-meeting-time-years-1415326051/?test=latestnews</ref> ''The fact remains there hasn't been a reputable, independent account of Castro being alive in nearly a year.'' Other authoritarian regimes, such as [[North Korea]] and [[Nazi Germany]] have engaged in "body-doubles" and actor/impersonators to hide the death or incapacitation of despots in the past. <ref>[http://www.mahalo.com/kim-jong-il-body-doubles Kim Jong Il Body Doubles]</ref> <ref>[http://www.blackraiser.com/nredoubt/identity.htm Hitler body-double]</ref> In April 2011, Castro allegedly stepped down as head of the Cuban communist Party, but it has not been confirmed that this was not a ruse. <ref.http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=41125</ref>
{{cquote|'''I think its time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers. Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a business man who had escaped from Castro. And in the midst of one of his stories, my friends turned to the other and said, ‘we don’t know how lucky ''we'' are.’ ''And the Cuban stopped and said, ‘How lucky YOU are, I had some place to escape to.’'' In that sentence he told us the entire story of Cuba, and Castro. -- [[Ronald Reagan]] <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY "A Time for Choosing" by Ronald Reagan]</ref>}} 

== Early years of Castro ==
There is much that is not known of Castro's rural youth. However, it is generally conceded that his father was [[Ángel María Bautista Castro y Argiz]] and his mother [[Lina Ruz González]]. Official biographies are essentially hagiographies and the more extreme of his many detractors portray a wild and irregular life typical of a the worst element of his class. Castro has numerous siblings of various combination of parentage; for instance, it is widely believed that Raul Castro has the same mother but is not a son of Fidel Castro's father. The most accepted biography is that of Geyer 2002 <ref>Geyer, Georgie Anne 2002 Guerrilla Prince. Andrews McMeel Publishing Kansas City ISBN 0740720643</ref> while a new series biographies by Norberto Fuentes (2004, and later),<ref>Fuentes, Norberto 2004 La Autobiografia De Fidel Castro Editorial Planeta, Mexico D.F ISBN 8423336042, ISBN 9707490012</ref> a former propagandist for the Cuban Government, are attracting attention.

During his student years Fidel Castro was deeply involved in lethal violence.<ref>Ros, Enrique 2003 Fidel Castro y El Gatillo Alegre: Sus A~nos Universitarios (Coleccion Cuba y Sus Jueces) Ediciones Universal Miami ISBN 1593880065</ref> This violence also extended overseas to his involvement in the 1948 Colombian Bogotazo.<ref>Bowden, Mark 2002 Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World's Greatest Outlaw. Penguin ISBN-10 0142000957
ISBN-13 978-014200095 e,g Page 4: "... But the event had also attracted critics, leftist agitators, among them a young Cuban student leader named Fidel Castro. To them the fledgling OAS was a sop, a sellout, an alliance with the gringo imperialists of the north. … The young rebels like the twenty-one year old Castro anticipated a decade of revolution ..." Page 7: "... cities. Many policemen, devotees of the slain leader, joined the angry mobs in the streets, as did student revolutionaries like Castro. The leftists donned red armbands and tried to direct the crowd, ..." State Departments reports by William Wieland mention Rafael del Pino but oddly omit mention of Fidel Castro </ref>
<ref>Davis, Jack Posted May 08, 2007 (accessed 6-2-08) The Bogotazo, CIA Archives https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v13i4a07p_0004.htm
Central Intelligence Agency Posted May 08 2007 (accessed 6-2-08) https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v13i4a07p_0004.htm page 4 “There were many foreign radicals in Bogota at the time, to advertise their causes in the publicity extended to the Conference of American States. Fidel Castro, then 22 years old, happened to be one of them. Thorough investigations indicate that he played only a minor role. Castro subsequently reported that he tried to turn the mob into a revolutionary force, but was defeated by the onset of drunkenness and looting. The episode may have influenced his adoption in Cuba in the 1950s of a guerrilla strategy rather than one of revolution through urban disorders.” </ref>
Castro was trained as a lawyer studying at the University of Havana. In 1953 he led the first of many assaults against the ruling military regime of general [[Fulgencio Batista]]. A 1953 attack against military barracks in Santiago de Cuba was a failure,<ref>de la Cova, Antonio Rafael. 2007 The Moncada Attack: Birth of the Cuban Revolution.. University of South Carolina Press ISBN-10: 1570036721 ISBN-13: 978-1570036729
</ref> and Castro, alongside his brother Raul, was captured they, unlike a number of his companions, were spared irregular execution by intervention of Roman Catholic Church members. In a courtroom speech in his defense (heavily edited in published form, and titled "La Historia me absolverá", or "History will absolve me"), Castro outlined his plans for reforms, demanding a return to the 1940 constitution, the ending of corrupt practices and a more equal distribution of land. There was no formal death penalty in Cuba at the time. After three years of incarceration on the Isle of Youth (then Isle of Pines), both Castro brothers were released during an amnesty.

Upon release, the Castro brothers relocated to [[Mexico]] to avoid imminent reprisals from paramilitary groups affiliated with the Batista regime, lead by former communist and long time rival of Castro [[Roland Masferrer]]<ref>Masferrer, Marc, 2006 Rolando Masferrer, the man from Holguín http://marcmasferrer.typepad.com/uncommon_sense/2006/10/rolando_masferr.html and also http://www.cuban-exile.com/menu2/2rolando.html</ref>. In [[Mexico]] Castro organized a group of revolutionaries to return to Cuba and overthrow Batista. They became known as the 26th of July movement. This group included the Argentinian [[Che Guevara]]. In December 1956 Castro and 81 others boarded the Granma yacht, sailed to eastern Cuba, and began the armed struggle against the current regime.

The landing was preceded in Santiago and the rest of Oriente Province by an armed rising of the 26 of July urban Militia, a non-communist organization, lead by [[Frank Pais]].<ref>Alvarez, Jose 2008 Principio y Fin del Mito Fidelista. Trafford Publishing, Victoria, BC Canada ISBN-10 1425154042
ISBN-13: 978-1425154042 http://www.amazon.com/Principio-fin-del-mito-fidelista/dp/1425154042
This is the most up to date description of the crucial role that the non-communist militia of Frank Pais played in the "War Against Batista." Without Frank Pais there would not have been a "Fidel Castro." This book describes in detail and with dispassionate analysis how Frank Pais supported the Castro effort and how he was betrayed, and killed. It is a sad and only too real description of the hijacking of the resistance against Batista by communist activists including Castro himself.</ref> In the mountains the guidance of the bandit [[Cresencio Perez]], and and a few communist [[sleepers]] who had been placed in the Sierra for some time under the direction of stalinist agent [[Fabio Grobart]] was important. Some local [[guajiros]] in the remote Sierra Maestra region joined in to became the nucleus of the critical scouting and picketing force of [[Escopeteros]] who screened the better armed Castro main force. The support and guidance from revolutionary groups in the cities of Santiago, [[Havana]], elsewhere in Cuba and overseas was critical. The support of the U.S. State Department, mediated by [[William Weiland]] (aka Guillermo Arturo Montenegro) was significant from the time of the Bogotazo, through the [[Bay of Pigs]].<ref>Smith, Earl E.T. 1962 (last accessed 9-29-07) The Fourth Floor: An Account of the Castro Communist Revolution Random House ASIN: B000H5CT5M</ref>

By 1958, military attacks against Batista's army were having some success,<ref>Bonachea, Ramon L and Marta San Martin 1974. The Cuban insurrection 1952-1959. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswik, New Jersey ISBN 0878555765</ref> and the revolution was gaining national support. Castro maintained a position of diplomatic neutrality amongst various revolutionary factions, which included upper and middle class liberals, guajiros, and agricultural workers, communists and others, and hence was able to assume the position of director of the revolution. He was also largely successful in courting international support via astute and careful use of the media. Officials within the CIA and the United States government were divided over whether to support Castro. Some believed that Batista had become a liability, and that his overthrow was inevitable. Other officials feared the influence of known communists in Castro's camp including Guevara, though Castro himself repeatedly stressed that he himself was not a communist.

The revolution finally succeeded in late 1958, and on January 1st 1959, Batista left the country. Castro had chosen exiled leaders Manuel Urrutia Lleó and José Miró Cardona, both anti-communist liberals with good relations with the U.S., to head the new government. Castro himself became head of the new armed forces. However, the increasing presence of communists in the decision making process created an early split in the government. Castro and Urrutia both insisted publicly that they had relations with each other, but Urrutia and Miró resigned only months later, and Castro, with support from mass organizations, assumed the position of prime minister. Osvaldo Dorticós Torrado, a former Commodore of the Cienfuegos Yacht Club became president and head of state.

==In Power==

The process of obtaining permanent power was dramatic, traumatic and bloody. From 1959 on, mass killings of dissidents were carried out as a matter of course by the infamous "''firing squads.''" Immediately after the Communist take-over, some 2,500 army officers were rounded up and shot dead.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/4455-the-real-che-guevara.html</ref> [[Che Guevara]] reportedly stayed up late into the night signing death warrants for defenseless "reactionaries." Tens of thousands were sent to concentration camps.<ref>Frank Calzon, Castro’s Gulag (Council for Inter-American Security, 1979).</ref> Desperate crowds of weeping daughters and shrieking mothers were clubbed with rifle butts as they pleaded for their family members to be spared. One of Castro's exiled opponents describes it this way:

''"The Castro regime came to power by deception and terror, resulting in what can only be described as a state of war against the Cuban people. Executions, labor camps, forced re-locations and exile, and the imposition of a repressive military police force to exercise control over civilian society."''<ref>"Ziva" 6-8-08 Human Rights Advocacy and the Role of the Media. Babalublog http://www.babalublog.com/</ref>

As prime minister, and then president from 1976, Castro ruled the country in line with Stalinist policies, seizing [[private property]] and eliminating [[free speech]] and [[free press]]. He was infamous for his overly long speeches, often rambling on for hours, which can be seen as an example of [[Liberal style]].

Castro, who had been in regular contact with the KGB since 1956 and who used Soviet arms during his guerilla war, welcomed the presence of Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba to deter an American attack. This decision precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis, a major confrontation in the Cold War that nearly resulted in the cataclysmic death of millions. According to Guevara: "If the [Soviet nuclear] rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York."<ref>UPI, December 10, 1962.</ref> Nikita Khrushchev wrote
that, according to Castro, "we needed to immediately deliver a nuclear missile strike
against the United States… a proposal that placed the planet on the brink of extinction."<ref>James G. Blight et al., Cuba on the Brink: Castro, the Missile Crisis, and the Soviet Collapse (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), pp29.</ref> Fidel
Castro admitted: "I would have agreed to the use of nuclear weapons."<ref>Ibid, pp. 252</ref> On October 26, 1962, the USS Beale had tracked and dropped signaling depth charges (the size of hand grenades) on the B-59, a Soviet Project 641 (NATO designation Foxtrot) submarine which, unknown to the U.S., was armed with a 15 kiloton nuclear torpedo. Running out of air, the Soviet submarine was surrounded by American warships and desperately needed to surface. Captain Valentin Savitsky ordered his crew to prepare the use of a nuclear torpedo against the Americans, but crew member Vasili Arkhipov stepped in and quite literally saved the world.

In the aftermath of the crisis, the United States maintained a strict embargo on Cuba. As a result, Castro sought close ties with anti-American Communist states, and became dependant on aid from Moscow. He supplied massive amounts of military aid to [[North Korea]] and especially to [[North Vietnam]], where Cuban forces allegedly helped torture American POWs during the [[Vietnam War]].

Ever eager to make trouble, Castro dispatched Che to assist the Chinese-and Soviet-backed "Simbas" of Laurent Kabila in the [[Congo]], who were "murdering, raping and munching (many were cannibals) their way through the defenseless Europeans still left in the recently abandoned Belgian colony."<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/4455-the-real-che-guevara.html</ref> The [[CIA]] fought a proxy war with Communist forces in the Congo, which descended into a complex maze of chaotic maneuverings and betrayals by several major world powers.

Castro, all the while maintaining an "anti-imperialist" political posture, would intervene extensively in the internal affairs of African nations through violence and war. Cuban military intervention to save the communist MPLA dictatorship in [[Angola]] from collapse led to decades of civil war that cost as many as 1 million lives.<ref>Médecins Sans Frontières, “Angola: An Alarming Nutritional Situation,” August 1999</ref> Castro also dispatched Cuban troops to fight on behalf of the Communist dictatorship in [[Ethiopia]], which killed 1.25 million people through massacre and forced starvation.<ref>Washington Post, March 18, 1978 (Ethiopia intervention); New York Times, December 14, 1994 (Ethiopia death toll).</ref>

Soviet and Cuban support for communist violence caused civil wars in [[Nicaragua]], [[El Salvador]], [[Honduras]] and [[Guatemala]].<ref>Alberto R. Coll, “Soviet Arms and Central American Turmoil,” World Affairs, Summer 1985.</ref>

Castro has repeatedly ordered acts of war against the United States. Beyond the missile crisis, Castro maintains a huge electronic espionage complex directed at U.S. shores, conducts research into biological warfare and sponsors international terrorist groups.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/2802-starve-the-castro-regime-help-the-cuban-people</ref> Cuban intelligence had ties with the Communist [[Lee Harvey Oswald]], who later assassinated President [[John F. Kennedy]].<ref>htmlhttp://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28091</ref> In the seventies, Castro deliberately sent dozens of dangerous criminals to US shores;<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/e_exiles.html</ref> he responded to overtures from President [[Bill Clinton]] by ordering a deadly attack on an American plane.<ref>http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/22/bill_clinton_loses_his_cool_in</ref>

On February 23, 1988, the Cuban poet Armando Valladares, who was a prisoner in the Cuban gulag for 22 years, addressed the [[United Nations]] Commission on Human Rights. In his speech, he stated:

<blockquote>
I recall when they kept me in a punishment cell, naked, with several fractures on one leg which never received medical care; today, those bones remain jammed up together and displaced. One of the regular drills among the guards was to stand on the steel mesh ceiling and throw at my face buckets full of urine and excrement.

Mr. Chairman, I know the taste of the urine and the excrement of other men: That practice does not leave marks; marks are left by beatings with steel rods and by bayonet thrusts. My head is still covered with scars and you can feel the cracks.

But, what can inflict more damage to human dignity, the urine and excrements thrown all over your face or a bayonet's blow? Which is the appropriate article for the discussion of this subject? Under which technical point does it fall? Under what batch of papers, numbers, lines and bars should we include this trampling of human dignity?

The violation of human rights was not a matter of reports, of negotiated resolutions, of elegant and diplomatic rhetoric, for us it was a daily suffering.

For me it meant eight thousand days of hunger, of systematic beatings, of hard labor, of solitary confinement, of cells with steel-planked windows and doors, of solitude.

Eight thousand days of struggling to prove that I was a human being. Eight thousand days of proving that my spirit could triumph over exhaustion and pain. Eight thousand days of testing my religious convictions, my faith, of fighting the hate my atheist jailers were trying to instill in me with each bayonet thrust, fighting so that hate would not flourish in my heart. Eight thousand days of struggling so that I would not become like them, rejecting torture as a mean to fight, forcing myself to forgive, rejecting the thoughts of revenge, reprisal and cruelty.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/625-torture-in-castro-s-cuba.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Castro's policies imposed poverty and slavery on millions.<ref>Nick Eberstadt, The Poverty of Communism (Transaction Publishers, 1990), pp188, 196-206, 240-6.</ref> In 1959, Cuba was the second richest country in Latin America; today, it is the second poorest.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/5404-castro-s-cuba-at-fifty-no-freedom-no-fish.html</ref> Most pharmacies in Cuba do not even have aspirins.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/4402-aid-from-self-serving-autocrats.html</ref> Cuba is plagued with a humanitarian catastrophe involving massive and widespread malnutrition and lack of basic goods; death, suffering, and misery is the result.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/cuba/2538-bad-cuban-medicine.html</ref> The streets are now choked with scenes of starving peasants frantically pleading for food.<ref>Ibid.</ref> In September 2010, Castro admitted that "the Cuban model doesn't even work."<ref>www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel</ref>

Castro has been accused of genocide by ''Genocide Watch.''<ref>http://www.genocidewatch.org/</ref> He has been sued for genocide in [[Belgium]] and [[Spain]].<ref>http://www2.fiu.edu/~fcf/castrosuedgenocide.html</ref>

The estimated number of deaths attributable to the Castro regime varies according to different sources—but not by much. The number of named, documented victims (with 2 or more sources) established by recent scholarship is 86,000, excluding an estimated minimum<ref>http://www.cubaverdad.net/genocide.htm</ref> of 16,282 deaths in war and combat, for a conservative total of 112,000.<ref>http://cubaarchive.org/home/</ref> R.J. Rummel, in his book ''Statistics of Democide'' estimates a range of 35-141,000 killed, which may underestimate the full toll by as much as 50%, since it only covers the years 1959-87.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POSTWWII.HTM</ref> The most comprehensive survey, by Armando Lago, puts the total at 116,730-119,730 killed.<ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat6.htm#Cuba59</ref> The majority (85,000) of these deaths were caused by drowning; the firing squads account for some 30,000. Adding combat deaths to his calculations, we arrive at a total of some 136,000 Cubans killed by the Castro regime. Little effort has been made to calculate boat people deaths in recent years. Cuban exiles claim that as many as 200,000 have been murdered altogether.<ref>http://www.therealcuba.com/</ref> The death toll from Cuban interventions abroad can be numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

In August 2006, health problems lead to his appointment of his younger brother, Raul, as temporarily president and head of the Communist Party in Cuba. Political analyst believe that the appointment marks the beginning of a transition designed to maintain Communist control over Cuba after Castro's death<ref>The Washington Post, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080100647.html For Castro, a First Step In Calculated Transition ]</ref>. Castro's surgery was scheduled to repair a "sharp intestinal crisis with sustained bleeding." <ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/latin_america/july-dec06/castro_08-01.html</ref>

Bonded by their hate for the United States and capitalism, Castro and [[Venezuela]]n dictator [[Hugo Chavez]] created a close relationship. Both socialist countries have worked together on various political ventures.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166355,00.html</ref>.

On May 1, 2007, Castro did not attend Cuba's annual celebration of May Day, leading many to believe that he had died. While Castro allegedly met with Brazilian President [[Lula da Silva|Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva]] on February 25, 2010, <ref>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ghGthxqnYMWcICCnEkjH5ayqPamQD9E356IO1</ref> there is no independent confirmation that this was not in fact a body-double.

On February 18, 2008, Fidel Castro resigned as President of the State Council and Commander in Chief.<ref>http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2008/02/19/nacional/artic10.html</ref> He was succeeded by his brother, [[Raul Castro]].

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==Other Sources==

Alba, Víctor 1968 Politics and the labor movement in Latin America. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. ASIN B0006BNYGK

Álvarez Batista, Gerónimo 1983. III Frente a las puertas de Santiago. Editorial Letras Cubanas, Havana.

Ameringer, Charles D 1995 The Caribbean Legion Patriots, Politicians, Soldiers of Fortune, 1946-1950 Pennsylvania State University Press (December, 1995) (Paperback) ISBN 0271014520

Anderson, Jon Lee 1997. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, Bantam Press, ISBN 0553406647 or Grove Press, ISBN 0-8021-1600-0

Anton, Alex and Roger E. Hernandez 2002 Cubans in America: A Vibrant History of a People in Exile Kensington Publishing Corporation (May, 2002) ISBN 157566593X

Bonachea, Ramon L and Marta San Martin 1974. The Cuban insurrection 1952-1959. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswik, New Jersey ISBN 0878555765

Carrillo, Justo 1985 Cuba 1933: Estudiantes, Yanquis y Soldados. University of Miami Iberian Studies Institute ISBN 0935501002 Transaction Publishers (January 1994) ISBN 1560006900

Castro, Fidel 1972 (editors Bonachea, Rolando E. and Nelson P. Valdéz) Revolutionary Struggle. 1947-1958. MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts and London ISBN 0262020653

de la Cova, Antonio Rafael. 2007 The Moncada Attack: Birth of the Cuban Revolution.. University of South Carolina Press ISBN-10: 1570036721 ISBN-13: 978-1570036729

Duarte Oropesa, José 1989 Historiología Cubana. Ediciones Universal Miami Vol 1. ISBN 0897294904, All volumes ISBN 8439925808

El'Toro, John Demico Chicano 2005 Cuban Secrets: I look like a Jackson Tribunal Publishing Corporation (July, 2005) ISBN 0544235617

Enamorado, Calixto 1917 Tiempos. Heroicos Persecucion. Rambla, Bauza and Company, Havana.

Encinosa, Enrique G. l989 La Guerra Olvidada Un Libro Historico De Los Combatientes Anticastristas En Cuba (1960-1966). Editorial SIBI, Miami

Evans, Walker (Photographer), and [[Andrei Codrescu]] 2001 Walker Evans: Cuba (Hardcover) J. Paul Getty Trust Publications ISBN 0892366176

Fermoselle, Rafael 1992 Cuban leadership after Castro: Biographies of Cuba's top commanders. North-South Center, University of Miami, Research Institute for Cuban Studies; 2nd ed.

[[Humberto Fontova|Fontova, Humberto]] 2005 Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant. Regnery Publishing Company, Washington DC. ISBN 0895260433

Fuentes, Norberto 2004 La Autobiografia De Fidel Castro Editorial Planeta, Mexico D.F ISBN 8423336042, ISBN 9707490012

George, Edward 2005 The Cuban Intervention In Angola, 1965-1991: From Che Guevara To Cuito Cuanavale. Frank Cass Publishers, London & Portland, Oregon ISBN 0415350158

Gonzalez, Servando 2002 The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol. Spooks Books, U.S. ISBN 0971139105 ISBN 0971139113

Greene, Graham 1958 Our Man in Havana: Viking ISBN 067053141 laneta, Mexico D.F ISBN 8423336042, ISBN 9707490012

Guevara, Ernesto “Che” (and Waters, Mary Alice editor) 1996 Episodes of the Cuban Revolutionary War 1956-1958. Pathfinder New York (see reference to “El Viscaíno” on page 186). ISBN 0873488245.

Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara Guerrilla attack on the Barracks de la Plata. In: The Mammoth book of War Stories. Jon. E. Lewis, editor, Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York 1999 Edition Printed and bound in United Kingdom. ISBN 0786706295 pp. 507-512.

Gutiérrez, Pedro Juan 1998 (Translation 2001) Dirty Havana Trilogy, Faber and Faber, London ISBN 0571206263

Geyer, Georgie Anne 2002 Guerrilla Prince. Andrews McMeel Publishing Kansas City ISBN 0740720643

Jimenez Pastrana, Juan 1983. Los Chinos en la Historia de Cuba: 1847-1930. Editorial de Sciencias Sociales, Havana,

Kapcia A. 2002. The Siege of the Hotel Nacional, Cuba, 1933: A Reassessment. Journal of Latin American Studies, 34, 283-309.

Kelshall, Gaylord T. M. 1994 The U-Boat War in the Caribbean United States Naval Institute Annapolis Maryland ISBN 1557504520

Kissinger, Henry 2000 Years of renewal. Simon & Schuster ISBN 0684855720

Kost, William E. 2004 Cuban agriculture: to be or not to be organic. Cuba in Transition 14, 274-281.

Lagas, Jacques 1964 Memorias de un capitán rebelde. Editorial del Pácifico. Santiago, Chile.

Lazo, Mario 1968 Dagger in the heart: American policy failures in Cuba. Twin Circle. NewYork

Lazo, Rodrigo 2005 Writing to Cuba Filibustering and Cuban Exiles in the United States. University of North Carolina Press, ISBN 0807855944

Loiret, F; Ortega, E; Kleiner, D; Ortega-Rodes, P; Rodes, R; Dong, Z 2004 A putative new endophytic nitrogen-fixing bacterium Pantoea sp. from sugarcane J. Appl. Microbiol., 97 (3) 504-511.

López, Juan J. 2003 Democracy Delayed: The Case of Castro's Cuba The Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore Maryland ISBN 0801870461

Lowinger, Rosa and Ofelia Fox 2005 Tropicana Nights. The Life and Times of the Legendary Cuban Nightclub. Harcourt, Orlando, New York, London ISBN 0151012245

Marmol, Jose G. 1993 Donato Marmol, Mayor General en la Revolucion del Separatismo Cubano. Editorial Arenas, Miami, pp. 171-174, 191,193-197, 200, 202, 218, 243 ISBN 0918454964

Márquez, Nicolás 2004 La otra parte de la verdad. Ediciones de Autor ISBN 9874382678

Márquez-Sterling, Carlos and Manuel 1975, Historia de la Isla de Cuba, Regents Publishing Co., NY, ISBN 0-88345-251-0

Márquez-Sterling, Carlos 1969, Historia de Cuba (desde Cristobal Colon a Fidel Castro), Las Americas Publishing Co., NY [revision of 1963 original edition]

Márquez-Sterling, Manuel 2009, Cuba 1952-1959: The True Story of Castro's Rise to Power, Kleiopatria Digital Press, Wintergreen VA, ISBN 0615318568

Marrero, Levi 1981 5th edition "Geografia de Cuba" La Moderna Poesia, Coral Gables Florida.

Marmol, Jose G. 1993 Donato Marmol, Mayor General en la Revolucion del Separatismo Cubano. Editorial Arenas, Miami, pp. 171-174, 191,193-197, 200, 202, 218, 243 ISBN 0918454964

Martin, Lionel 1978 The Early Fidel: Roots of Castro's Communism Lyle Stuart, Secaucus New Jersey; 1st ed edition ISBN 0818402547

Martin, Paul Sidney George L. Quimby and Donald Collier 1947 Indians before Columbus;: Twenty thousand years of North American history revealed by archeology, The University of Chicago press, Chicago Illinois . ASIN B0006AR3AE pp. 40-46.

Matos, Huber, 2002. Como llego la Noche. Tusquet Editores, SA, Barcelona. ISBN 8483109441

Morán Arce, Lucas 1980 La revolución cubana, 1953-1959: Una versión rebelde Imprenta Universitaria, Universidad Católica; ISBN

Orro Fernandez, Roberto 2004 Education and labor skills in Socialist Cuba. Cuba in Transition-ASCE 10, 224-230.

Ortiz, Fernando 1995 edition, (translated from 1947 original by Harriet de Onís) Cuban counterpoint Tobacco and Sugar. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina and London ISBN 08223161161

de Paz-Sánchez, Manuel 1997. Zona Rebelde. La diplomacia Española ante la revolución cubana. Litografía Romero. S.A. Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain ISBN 847926263X

de Paz-Sánchez, Manuel 2001. Zona de Guerra. España ante la Revolución Cubana. Litografía Romero. S.A. Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain ISBN 8479263644

Nuñez Jimenez, Antonio 1959 Geografía de Cuba. Lex. Havana

Phillips, R Hart 1935 Cuban side show. Cuban Press, Havana 2nd edition. ASIN: B000860P60

Phillips, R Hart. 1959 Cuba, Island of Paradox. McDowell Obolensky, New York, NY ASIN: B0007E0OAU

Phillips, R Hart. 1960 Cuba Island of Paradise 1960 Astor-Honor Inc, ISBN 0839250126

Phillips, Ruby Hart 1961- The Tragic Island: How Communism Came to Cuba. Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Phillips, R Hart. 1962 The Cuban dilemma McDowell Obolensky, New York, NY Library of Congress number 6218787

Pirala, Antonio (1895, 1896 and some from 1874) Anales de la Guerra en Cuba. Felipe González Rojas, Madrid

Priestland, Jane (editor) 2003 British Archives on Cuba: Cuba under Castro 1959-1962. Archival Publications International Limited, 2003, London ISBN 1903008204

Puebla, Teté (Brigadier General Cuban Armed Forces) 2003 Marianas in Combat: and the Mariana Grajales Women's Platoon in Cuba's Revolutionary War 1956-58, New York Pathfinder ISBN 0873489578

Ramos, M. G., Villatoro, MAA, Urquiaga, S, Alves, BJR and: Boddey, RM 2001 Quantification of the contribution of biological nitrogen fixation to tropical green manure crops and the residual benefit to a subsequent maize crop using super(15)N-isotope techniques J. Biotechnol. 91 (2-3)105-115

Rodriguez, Felix I. and John Weisman 1989 Shadow Warrior/the CIA Hero of a Hundred Unknown Battles Simon & Schuster, New York ISBN 0671667211

Rojo del Río, Manuel. 1981 La Historia Cambio En La Sierra. Editorial Texto, San José, Costa Rica 2a Ed. Aumentada

Roloff y Mialofsky, Carlos and Gerardo Forrest 1901. Yndice Alfabetico y Difunctiones del Ejercito Libertador de Cuba. Edited under the official direction of Leonard Wood. Printed in Havana by Rambla y Bauza

Ros, Enrique 2003 Fidel Castro y El Gatillo Alegre: Sus A~nos Universitarios (Coleccion Cuba y Sus Jueces) Ediciones Universal Miami ISBN 1593880065

La Rosa Corzo, Gabino (translated by Mary Todd) [1988] 2003 Runaway Slave Settlements in Cuba: Resistance and Repression University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill ISBN 0807828033 ISBN 0807854794

Rowan, Andrew Summers 1896 The island of Cuba; A descriptive and historical account of the "Great Antilla." H. Holt and company, ASIN B00086NGHU

Rowan, Andrew Summers 1922 How I carried the message to Garcia W.D. Harney ASIN B00086V3FW

Rubens, Horatio S. 1932 “Liberty. The Story of Cuba” AMS Press New York, 1970 reprint of 1932 edition. SBN 404-00633-7

Smith, Earl T. 1962 (1990 edition) The fourth floor. Selous Foundation Press, Washington DC. ISBN 09442730682

Spikes, Daniel 1993 Angola and the Politics of Intervention: From Local Bush War to Chronic Crisis in Southern Africa McFarland & Company Jefferson, North Carolina and London ISBN 089950888X

Tejera, Noel; Ortega, Eduardo; Rodes, Rosa; and Lluch, Carmen 2006 Nitrogen compounds in the apoplastic sap of sugarcane stem: Some implications in the association with endophytes. J. Plant Physiology, 163 (1)80-85

Tennant, Gary 1999 Dissident Cuban communism: the case of Trotskyism, 1932-1965 PhD Thesis, University of Bradford, England . http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/central.html

Thomas, Gordon and Max Morgan Witts 1974 Voyage of the Damned Stein and Day Publishers; 1st Edition edition (1974) Stein and Day, Briarcliff Manor, New York ASIN B000BKOCGM

Hugh Thomas Cuba or the Pursuit of Freedom (Paperback) Da Capo Press; Updated edition (April, 1998) ISBN 0306808277

Thomas-Woodward, Tiffany (accessed 1/29/2006) Towards the gates of eternity: Celia Sánchez Manduley and the creation of Cuba’s new woman. Project Muse http://muse.jhu.edu

U.S. State Department 1950-1954. Confidential Central files Cuba 1950-1954 Internal Affairs Decimal Numbers 737, 837 and 937, Foreign Affairs decimal numbers 637 611.37 Microfilm Project University of Publications of America, Inc. http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cuba/Confidential_Files-Nov-1952-July-1953.pdf http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cuba/Confidential_Files-Aug-1953-Oct-1954.pdf

Velazquez, Loreta Janeta 1876 (2003 Editor Andrews, William L.)
The Woman in Battle (The Civil War Narrative of Loreta Janeta Velazques, Cuban Woman and Confederate Soldier). University of Wisconsin Press 2003 ISBN 0299194248

Volkman, Ernest 1995 Our man in Havana. Cuban double agents 1961-1987 Castro stings the CIA in: Espionage: The Greatest Spy Operations of the Twentieth Century Wiley, New York ISBN 0471161578

Wegman ME Infant mortality: some international comparisons. Pediatrics; 98(6 Pt 1):1020-7, 1996 “Comparison of infant mortality rates (IMRs) among the world's countries requires assessment of completeness and accuracy of data. The United Nations Statistical Office classifies as [quot ]C[quot ], complete, meaning at least 90% of events are actually recorded, 1994 data supplied by 80 governments,”

Weiland, C. F. (Carl Ferdinand), (d. 1847) 1855
West Indien. Geographisches Institut (Weimar, Germany) [http://www.davidrumsey.com/maps960006-24795.html]

Zayas y Alfonso, Alfredo 1914. “Lexografía Antillana” El Siglo XX Press, Havana

Zimmerman, Robert 1958 Our Man in Havana: Viking ISBN 067053141 laneta, Mexico D.F ISBN 8423336042, ISBN 9707490012

{{liberalism}}
==External links==
* [http://antifidelblogs.cubanology.com/ Anti-Fidel Blogs]
* [http://cubawatcher.blogspot.com/ Cuba Watcher]
* [http://www.castrodeathwatch.com/ Castro Death Watch]
* [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/president-fidel-castro.htm Fidel Castro - breaking news]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Castro, Fidel}}

[[Category: Communism]]
[[Category:Dictators]]
[[Category:Cuba]]
[[Category: Mass Murderers]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2011-04-22T15:03:06Z

LloydR: /* Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination */

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, when the [[United States]] elects a president. Candidates are expected to file formal papers indicating their interest in early 2011; many were quietly lining up support throughout 2010. The key early primaries are [[Iowa]] ([[caucus]]es), [[New Hampshire]], [[Nevada]] ([[caucus]]es), [[South Carolina]].<ref>The order of the early primaries is not yet finally determined as of the end of 2010. For estimated dates, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> [[Barack Obama approval ratings|
Obama's declining popularity]] across all voter demographics has stirred talk he may face a primary challenge. [[Liberal]] [[Mike Bloomberg]] might run as an independent, splitting votes with [[Obama]].

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' features "[[stalking horse]]" candidates in the primary, just as McCain backers used [[Fred Thompson]] in 2008 to prevent [[Mitt Romney]] from winning. Thompson was undeservedly promoted by pro-life groups and the [[Fox News Channel]], and thereby siphoned off [[pro-life]]rs and other [[conservative]]s from Romney. Then Thompson withdrew and endorsed McCain. Mike Huckabee is a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich in 2012. Stalking horses for Mitt Romney are likely Rick Santorum and Chris Christie.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[Fox News]] Exposure
|-
|[[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, polling at 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], credited for helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Likely to be endorsed by [[Chris Christie]], [[Trent Lott]], [[Rick Santorum]], [[Marsha Blackburn]], [[Jim Talent]], etc.
|Once supported [[abortion]] rights and [[civil unions]], criticized by the [[Tea Party Express]] chairwoman and others due to his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which included mandatory insurance and taxpayer-funded abortion; struggles in Iowa and won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Tied for number 1 in [[Gallup Poll]];<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> willing to challenge Obama's refusal to produce his birth certificate, and is also willing to criticize liberal media; has business savvy and resources as a billionaire; 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.
|Criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. Needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine. <ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref>
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising, likely to obtain endorsement of older "right to life" groups against Mitt;<ref name="April%2525202010%252520Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref> has the [[stalking horses]] of [[Mike Huckabee]] and possibly [[Sarah Palin]] to help him win the nomination.
|Struggled to win reelections in his own congressional district; voted to establish the federal Department of Education as a freshman Congressman, has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]; resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a women 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office; Sarah Palin is suggesting that she may not pull out and this would prevent Newt from defeating Mitt.
|Promoted almost daily by Fox
|-
|[[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 increasingly 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.
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; she's said she's not running for president this soon<ref name="Bachmann"/> and pulled out of the "Values Voter Summit" ([[Family Research Council]] convention) straw poll in September 2010; has never won statewide office; not picking up strong [[Tea Party]] support, as [[Ron Paul]] did not support her for a House leadership position and did not join her [[Tea Party]] caucus.
|Rarely on Fox anymore, which prefers Palin and especially Newt
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Bush-adviser [[Dick Cheney]] predicts that a Republican will become president in 2012, which would force Jeb to wait until 2020 if he doesn't run now; Jeb is giving interviews as though he were a candidate and can enter the race late and still win the nomination; [[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; Jeb is less likely to wait for 2016 as [[Obama]]'s approval ratings fall and a Republican victory seems likely in 2012; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]], and sure to win pivotal [[Florida]]; 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>
|Polls 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, when he could still be tagged with negatives via George; not liked by many Tea Partiers; might wait to run when Hillary runs.
|Rarely appears on Fox
|-
|[[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 has strong momentum now from his landslide victory, but his dad will likely run again in 2012 while Rand pursues his Senate career. Rand could first campaign for his dad and then become the candidate if voters think he has a better opportunity to win, but time is running our for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Other stations have him on more than Fox does
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; has a popular television series and book tour that emphasizes the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality.
|Relies heavily on [[Facebook]], but it was crushed by ''The King's Speech'' at the [[Oscars]] - an omen, perhaps? 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; could merely be a [[stalking horse]] for [[Newt Gingrich]]; lags in fundraising despite publicity,<ref name="April%2525202010%252520Fundraising"/> came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Favorability rating is only 22%, compared to a 48% unfavorable rating.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43265.html</ref> Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and recently many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref>
|Promoted heavily by Fox
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|The Republican Party will want this freshman [[U.S. Senator]] in the primary debates, which he's then likely to win because of his charisma, stronger stance on social issues, and [[Tea Party]] appeal; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats.
|Will face the liberal [[double standard]]: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. Some Republican voters may think he's really running to be selected as Vice President.
|Did not seek Palin endorsement; sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[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.
|Rarely seen at conservative conferences, and a Republican from the [[Deep South]] may have trouble attracting independent voters.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]] (but never won with more than 50% of the vote)
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base or any appeal that would attract support away from the front-runners; 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
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Leads [[Barack Obama]] in Zogby's polling (January 2011), takes on the [[public school]] teachers' unions and is a fiscal reformer who puts liberals in their place, has an unscripted style and appearance that is a refreshing alternative to the Teleprompter President.
|Picked a [[pro-abortion]] running mate when he ran for governor, and has little experience with national issues; repeatedly says he is not running; campaigned for [[RINO]] [[Mike Castle]] in [[Delaware]] who was then defeated; neither added [[New Jersey]] to one of the lawsuits against [[ObamaCare]] nor joined an [[amicus brief]] against it; ''will probably support [[Mitt Romney]]''.
|Promoted heavily by Fox
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Former Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem, and apparently is running. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/06/herman-cain-2012-exploratory-committee-could-come-soon/ Herman Cain: 2012 exploratory committee could come soon, DailyCaller, December 6, 2010]</ref>
|Not well known outside the conservative sphere of influence.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Won the [[CPAC]] poll, is strong in national polls, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; opposed Bachmann for a leadership position; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office.
|Excluded by Fox because he opposes the war
|-
|[[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.
|Excluded by Fox
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Stuck at 20-30% without any way to gain broader support needed to win; could be a [[stalking horse]] for Newt; also supporter of big government, as governor raised taxes and increased state spending, released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; might decide to sit this one out;<ref>CBS: [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20044329-503544.html Signs mount that Huckabee won't enter 2012 race]</ref> 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.
|Promoted by Fox with his own show
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|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 against a popular opponent, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has a stellar jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states like [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[New York]]
|More conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried to force all schoolgirls to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and responded to a reporter's question on Dec. 24, 2010 that he's definitely not running.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[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, 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.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[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.
|On Fox because he's been so newsworthy
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, and Santorum endorsed Romney for President in 2008; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney
|Promoted on Fox
|-
|[[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>
|Often on Fox
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010
|Not well known yet; says he's not running for president.
|Promoted somewhat by Fox`
|-
|[[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 apparently to prepare to run for president.
|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
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|[[Rust Belt]] Governor, effective critic of the Obama administration, being promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], unknown nationally, criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue
|Promoted by Fox; featured first on its "12 for 2012" series.
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Not well known yet
|Rarely allowed on Fox`
|-
|[[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; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|-
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|Former [[libertarian]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], he has been recommended by [[Ron Paul]] if Dr. Paul does not run for president; Johnson is a strong advocate of less government.
|Like other libertarians but unlike most Republicans, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given the likelihood that Ron Paul will run, there is very little potential support for Gary Johnson in this election cycle.
|Excluded by Fox, which opposes libertarians
|-
|[[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
|Frequently on Fox
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Has been on Fox; daughter is a commentator for Fox
|-
|[[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
|Frequently on Fox; both focus on foreign policy
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience.
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticised 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.
|Excluded by Fox
|-
|[[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.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[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]]
|Has been on Fox
|-
|[[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
|Rarely on Fox, but featured in a cover story by the ''Weekly Standard''
|-
|[[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
|Was often on Fox during 2010 due to Arizona lawsuit
|}

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

====Short form====

The short-form analysis is that 2012 will be a replay of 2008 with Newt Gingrich trying to play the role of John McCain. Also, Sarah Palin may run along with Mike Huckabee to contest for early primaries before dropping out and endorsing Newt.

The challenge for social conservatives is to run a candidate, such as Marco Rubio, who can capture the large Tea Party and evangelical voting blocs despite the stalking horse candidacies of Palin and Huckabee.

====Long form====
There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It's a chess game for Mitt and Newt to try to emerge from those three as the leader.

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-business, 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>
{| 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 endearing support from the media.
|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. She has the highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</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.
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[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 physicians 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>
|-
|[[Ralph Nader]]
|An experienced [[community organizer]], Nader has not foreclosed the possibility of a challenge. [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/132835--nader-i-am-looking-for-someone-to-challenge-obama-in-2012] Accuses Obama of betraying progressive liberals and being "a con man." [http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/09/ralph-nader-predicts-obama-will-face-democratic-primary-challeng/]
|Could mount Third Party challenge if liberals continue to loose ground in the Democratic party.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[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.
|-
|[[Mike Gravel]]
|Former Alaska Senator who attacks his own party.
|Controversial liberal that supports socialist healthcare, gay marriage and called the war in Iraq lost. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/09/gravel-considering-obama-primary-challenge-calls-for-new-911-investigation/ Gravel considering Obama primary challenge, calls for new 9/11 investigation, The Daily Caller, December 9, 2010]</ref>
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacy by Mike Bloomberg ==

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 he 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. The more likely result is the he would split the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee.

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

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

United States presidential election, 2012

2011-04-22T15:02:04Z

LloydR: /* Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination */

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, when the [[United States]] elects a president. Candidates are expected to file formal papers indicating their interest in early 2011; many were quietly lining up support throughout 2010. The key early primaries are [[Iowa]] ([[caucus]]es), [[New Hampshire]], [[Nevada]] ([[caucus]]es), [[South Carolina]].<ref>The order of the early primaries is not yet finally determined as of the end of 2010. For estimated dates, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> [[Barack Obama approval ratings|
Obama's declining popularity]] across all voter demographics has stirred talk he may face a primary challenge. [[Liberal]] [[Mike Bloomberg]] might run as an independent, splitting votes with [[Obama]].

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' features "[[stalking horse]]" candidates in the primary, just as McCain backers used [[Fred Thompson]] in 2008 to prevent [[Mitt Romney]] from winning. Thompson was undeservedly promoted by pro-life groups and the [[Fox News Channel]], and thereby siphoned off [[pro-life]]rs and other [[conservative]]s from Romney. Then Thompson withdrew and endorsed McCain. Mike Huckabee is a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich in 2012. Stalking horses for Mitt Romney are likely Rick Santorum and Chris Christie.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[Fox News]] Exposure
|-
|[[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, polling at 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], credited for helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Likely to be endorsed by [[Chris Christie]], [[Trent Lott]], [[Rick Santorum]], [[Marsha Blackburn]], [[Jim Talent]], etc.
|Once supported [[abortion]] rights and [[civil unions]], criticized by the [[Tea Party Express]] chairwoman and others due to his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which included mandatory insurance and taxpayer-funded abortion; struggles in Iowa and won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Tied for number 1 in [[Gallup Poll]];<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> willing to challenge Obama's refusal to produce his birth certificate, and is also willing to criticize liberal media; has business savvy and resources as a billionaire; 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.
|Criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. Needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising, likely to obtain endorsement of older "right to life" groups against Mitt;<ref name="April%2525202010%252520Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref> has the [[stalking horses]] of [[Mike Huckabee]] and possibly [[Sarah Palin]] to help him win the nomination.
|Struggled to win reelections in his own congressional district; voted to establish the federal Department of Education as a freshman Congressman, has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]; resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a women 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office; Sarah Palin is suggesting that she may not pull out and this would prevent Newt from defeating Mitt.
|Promoted almost daily by Fox
|-
|[[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 increasingly 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.
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; she's said she's not running for president this soon<ref name="Bachmann"/> and pulled out of the "Values Voter Summit" ([[Family Research Council]] convention) straw poll in September 2010; has never won statewide office; not picking up strong [[Tea Party]] support, as [[Ron Paul]] did not support her for a House leadership position and did not join her [[Tea Party]] caucus.
|Rarely on Fox anymore, which prefers Palin and especially Newt
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Bush-adviser [[Dick Cheney]] predicts that a Republican will become president in 2012, which would force Jeb to wait until 2020 if he doesn't run now; Jeb is giving interviews as though he were a candidate and can enter the race late and still win the nomination; [[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; Jeb is less likely to wait for 2016 as [[Obama]]'s approval ratings fall and a Republican victory seems likely in 2012; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]], and sure to win pivotal [[Florida]]; 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>
|Polls 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, when he could still be tagged with negatives via George; not liked by many Tea Partiers; might wait to run when Hillary runs.
|Rarely appears on Fox
|-
|[[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 has strong momentum now from his landslide victory, but his dad will likely run again in 2012 while Rand pursues his Senate career. Rand could first campaign for his dad and then become the candidate if voters think he has a better opportunity to win, but time is running our for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Other stations have him on more than Fox does
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; has a popular television series and book tour that emphasizes the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality.
|Relies heavily on [[Facebook]], but it was crushed by ''The King's Speech'' at the [[Oscars]] - an omen, perhaps? 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; could merely be a [[stalking horse]] for [[Newt Gingrich]]; lags in fundraising despite publicity,<ref name="April%2525202010%252520Fundraising"/> came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Favorability rating is only 22%, compared to a 48% unfavorable rating.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43265.html</ref> Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and recently many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref>
|Promoted heavily by Fox
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|The Republican Party will want this freshman [[U.S. Senator]] in the primary debates, which he's then likely to win because of his charisma, stronger stance on social issues, and [[Tea Party]] appeal; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats.
|Will face the liberal [[double standard]]: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. Some Republican voters may think he's really running to be selected as Vice President.
|Did not seek Palin endorsement; sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[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.
|Rarely seen at conservative conferences, and a Republican from the [[Deep South]] may have trouble attracting independent voters.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]] (but never won with more than 50% of the vote)
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base or any appeal that would attract support away from the front-runners; 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
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Leads [[Barack Obama]] in Zogby's polling (January 2011), takes on the [[public school]] teachers' unions and is a fiscal reformer who puts liberals in their place, has an unscripted style and appearance that is a refreshing alternative to the Teleprompter President.
|Picked a [[pro-abortion]] running mate when he ran for governor, and has little experience with national issues; repeatedly says he is not running; campaigned for [[RINO]] [[Mike Castle]] in [[Delaware]] who was then defeated; neither added [[New Jersey]] to one of the lawsuits against [[ObamaCare]] nor joined an [[amicus brief]] against it; ''will probably support [[Mitt Romney]]''.
|Promoted heavily by Fox
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Former Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem, and apparently is running. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/06/herman-cain-2012-exploratory-committee-could-come-soon/ Herman Cain: 2012 exploratory committee could come soon, DailyCaller, December 6, 2010]</ref>
|Not well known outside the conservative sphere of influence.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Won the [[CPAC]] poll, is strong in national polls, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; opposed Bachmann for a leadership position; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office.
|Excluded by Fox because he opposes the war
|-
|[[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.
|Excluded by Fox
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Stuck at 20-30% without any way to gain broader support needed to win; could be a [[stalking horse]] for Newt; also supporter of big government, as governor raised taxes and increased state spending, released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; might decide to sit this one out;<ref>CBS: [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20044329-503544.html Signs mount that Huckabee won't enter 2012 race]</ref> 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.
|Promoted by Fox with his own show
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|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 against a popular opponent, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has a stellar jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states like [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[New York]]
|More conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried to force all schoolgirls to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and responded to a reporter's question on Dec. 24, 2010 that he's definitely not running.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[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, 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.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[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.
|On Fox because he's been so newsworthy
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, and Santorum endorsed Romney for President in 2008; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney
|Promoted on Fox
|-
|[[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>
|Often on Fox
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010
|Not well known yet; says he's not running for president.
|Promoted somewhat by Fox`
|-
|[[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 apparently to prepare to run for president.
|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
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|[[Rust Belt]] Governor, effective critic of the Obama administration, being promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], unknown nationally, criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue
|Promoted by Fox; featured first on its "12 for 2012" series.
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Not well known yet
|Rarely allowed on Fox`
|-
|[[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; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|-
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|Former [[libertarian]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], he has been recommended by [[Ron Paul]] if Dr. Paul does not run for president; Johnson is a strong advocate of less government.
|Like other libertarians but unlike most Republicans, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given the likelihood that Ron Paul will run, there is very little potential support for Gary Johnson in this election cycle.
|Excluded by Fox, which opposes libertarians
|-
|[[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
|Frequently on Fox
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Has been on Fox; daughter is a commentator for Fox
|-
|[[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
|Frequently on Fox; both focus on foreign policy
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience.
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticised 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.
|Excluded by Fox
|-
|[[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.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[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]]
|Has been on Fox
|-
|[[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
|Rarely on Fox, but featured in a cover story by the ''Weekly Standard''
|-
|[[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
|Was often on Fox during 2010 due to Arizona lawsuit
|}

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

====Short form====

The short-form analysis is that 2012 will be a replay of 2008 with Newt Gingrich trying to play the role of John McCain. Also, Sarah Palin may run along with Mike Huckabee to contest for early primaries before dropping out and endorsing Newt.

The challenge for social conservatives is to run a candidate, such as Marco Rubio, who can capture the large Tea Party and evangelical voting blocs despite the stalking horse candidacies of Palin and Huckabee.

====Long form====
There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It's a chess game for Mitt and Newt to try to emerge from those three as the leader.

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-business, 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>
{| 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 endearing support from the media.
|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. She has the highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</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.
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[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 physicians 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>
|-
|[[Ralph Nader]]
|An experienced [[community organizer]], Nader has not foreclosed the possibility of a challenge. [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/132835--nader-i-am-looking-for-someone-to-challenge-obama-in-2012] Accuses Obama of betraying progressive liberals and being "a con man." [http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/09/ralph-nader-predicts-obama-will-face-democratic-primary-challeng/]
|Could mount Third Party challenge if liberals continue to loose ground in the Democratic party.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[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.
|-
|[[Mike Gravel]]
|Former Alaska Senator who attacks his own party.
|Controversial liberal that supports socialist healthcare, gay marriage and called the war in Iraq lost. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/09/gravel-considering-obama-primary-challenge-calls-for-new-911-investigation/ Gravel considering Obama primary challenge, calls for new 9/11 investigation, The Daily Caller, December 9, 2010]</ref>
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacy by Mike Bloomberg ==

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 he 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. The more likely result is the he would split the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee.

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

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

Talk:Vampire: the Masquerade

2011-04-20T00:16:28Z

LloydR: /* " It is popular among liberals.[1]" */ new section

This page is currently incomplete; I am aware of this, but it is late and I am tired and will fill in remaining detail (as well as citing sources) at a later date.

:You've certainly put effort into this article. But apart from explaing the game, could you give more information on how the game has relevance in our culture? Even D&D and World of Warcraft do that, and they're more well known. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== " It is popular among liberals.[1]" ==

That may well be, but the supporting reference is a link to the generic FoxNews front page. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 20:16, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Origin of Life

2011-04-19T23:37:03Z

LloydR: /* One, held by creationists, is that life originated supernaturally. */ new section

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
h
ttp://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm

== Grammatical error ==

There are numerous instances in this article where "creationist" (singular) should be "creationists" (plural).
:"athiest" should be "atheist" {{unsigned|NathanG}}
:: Fixed, thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:49, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Bootstrap problem ==

Why no mention thereof?

== Scientific American ==

*Scientific American isn't really a journal. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 15:03, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
**Fixed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:26, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

== Essay ==

This does not meet our standards for an article, but is an essay. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:46, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

Would anyone mind if I reformat the links in the references section? And not to involve myself in any controversy, but while the article is well-sourced, the anti-naturalistic origin quotes do seem a little densely packed at the moment... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:23, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

==And while we're at it, the [[Mystery of Life Video Clips]] is an internal, not an external one==

And while we're at it, the [[Mystery of Life Video Clips]] is an internal, not an external one, and therefore belongs in the ''See Also'' section. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 20:00, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
:Fixed, but could you try and keep your headings shorter? Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks, I was trying to use a similar style to attract the attention of Conservative [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 21:23, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Heh. There are some people whose examples you should follow, and some you should not! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Rebuttals of problems ==

1. Chicken or the Egg problem regarding DNA and proteins: Numerous theories exist as to how either RNA or proteins could have first arisen, but more prosaically, the fact that we do not know exactly how this may have happened does not mean it did not happen. We don't know how gravity works either, but nobody's claiming it doesn't. Also, see #4

2. Complexity of the cell: The complexity of the cell has nothing to do with abiogenesis, as abiogenesis doesn't concern itself with the evolution of the cell, just the genesis of the most basic forms of life.

3. Catch 22 problem regarding oxygen and the early earth: Jason Dwarkin et al. discovered during experiments simulating conditions on early earth that surprising resulted in the formation of fluorescent bubbles capable of absorbing enough UV and converting it to visible light to protect organic molecules. [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/3/815]

4. Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis. Altman and Cech won the Nobel Prize in 1989 for proving that RNA could act as a biocatalyst (like an enzyme) and sequence itself without proteins, proving the RNA world hypothesis plausible. [http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1989/press.html]

5. Chirality problem: much like #1 there are a number of competing theories. Example: Toxvaerd [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=5C0DD80C6FEE2ACD15DF6A7DDB86B8CD.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=335346]

6. Polymerization problem: like #1 again, numerous theories. example: Oro and Stephen-Sherwood [http://www.springerlink.com/content/p805621h4774p6gt/]

[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 11:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:Your answers basically amount to ''faith'' that the naturalistic view will one day find evidence to support your point of view. Yes, the fact that we don't know how it happened doesn't mean that it didn't, but the article doesn't put it that way. It merely refers to them as "problems", not "impossibilities". And there's a difference between trying to explain the mechanism of something that's been observed (gravity) and something that has not been observed and which people ''do'' claim never happened. That scientists sometimes find some tiny piece of the puzzle (such as RNA acting like an enzyme in very limited ways) does not mean that the puzzle has been solved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:02, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::No, my answers are to the effect that these particular examples are not considered ''problems'' by biologists at all, they're simply unresolved issues with a number of competing plausible theories that continue to be tested. As for the gravity example, well, we know that gravity exists because we observe its effects, and we know that life originated (and the rough timescale) through observation of its effects, mainly fossils and living creatures. The precise method by which the origin of terrestrial occured is scientifically better understood than the precise method by which gravity occurs. And yes, there are people who [http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/gravity.html deny the existence of gravity]. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 16:53, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Then your answers were ''wrong'', because there ''are'' biologists who consider these to be problems. In any case, "unresolved issues with a number of competing plausible theories" is a euphemism for "unresolved ''problem''".
::: Yes, we know gravity exists because we observe its effects, and we know life originated because it exists and could not always have existed, but we ''don't'' know that it originated naturalistically, because that was not observed nor is that logically deducible, unless you first start with the ''assumption'' of naturalism. Neither is even the rough timescale (the one you are referring to) known, for the same reason. No, the precise method by which terrestrial life occurred is ''not'' scientifically better understood, because scientists have nothing but explanations that don't fit what we do know. If you want to get pedantic about people claiming that gravity doesn't exist, then no, you have not shown that, because ''one person'' (singular) is not ''people'' (plural). If you don't want to be pedantic, then I'm not talking about the odd crackpot that rejects abiogenesis, but millions of people and thousands or tens of thousands of scientists.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:: The "chicken or egg" problem has been solved for some time now. The answer is neither: RNA. This was shown with the [http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Spiegelman-Monster Spiegelman Monster]. [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 23:06, 29 December 2008 (EST)
::: Actually, it's never been a problem. It's been known for about 6,000 years now that God created chickens, not eggs. As for Spiegelman's monster, what does some intelligently-designed replication solve when the organism gradually fades away? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::: Yes, I realize that God created chickens 6,000 years ago. By putting "chicken or egg" in parentheses I was referencing where the article spoke of whether DNA or proteins came first. The current leading theory that naturalists (those who believe life began without God) have is RNA. The only problem I have with the article is that the stance that naturalists take is being misrepresented. Were their viewpoints to be represented, it would be much more effective when their arguments were taken down. [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 09:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::::: I realise that you were referring to that puzzle, but just as you were answering that it's "neither", I was also answering that, by obliquely pointing out that God created life fully-functioning, so there is no question as to which came first. The RNA hypothesis is really a case of grasping at straws, because of the implausibility of DNA or proteins, they go for the simpler RNA, but have the problem that RNA needs living things in order to reproduce, another so-called "chicken and egg" problem.
::::: How does the article misrepresent the naturalistic viewpoint?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::::::In the modern day, RNA needs living things to reproduce, but in the naturalist 3.5 billion years ago earth, it was able to naturally. The Spiegleman Monster showed that RNA can reproduce on its own if placed in a RNA nucleotide solution ''without'' proteins or living organisms. As you pointed out, it did not actually solve anything as it never grows more complex.
::::::On how the naturalist view is misrepresented, I should have said that it is not ''presented''. The article mentions abiogenesis and panspermia, but does not explain them. The article jumps directly to disproving the hypotheses without showing what they are. It would be more effective to put down each of the origin of life theories and explain them separately. Abiogenesis, Panspermia, and Intelligent Design should have sections within the article.
::::::Should we start this under a new header in the talk page? We have deviated somewhat from the original question.
::::::[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 10:17, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...in the naturalist 3.5 billion years ago earth, it was able to [reproduce] naturally.''": That's your ''faith'' talking; we don't have evidence of that (unless you forgot the word "view" after "naturalist" or something like that).
::::::: The Spiegleman Monster ''appears'' to have shown that RNA can reproduce without an existing living thing being involved, except that an existing living thing ''was'' involved: Spiegleman! You may think that to be a silly response, but my point is that Spiegleman provided special conditions that do not occur naturally, so it could not have occurred without him (or an equivalent) being involved, so cannot explain the origin of life.
::::::: As for not presenting the naturalistic view, you are correct, and that is a problem that many articles suffer from. Start another section if you want to discuss it further, or just directly edit the article. But please keep in mind that Conservapedia doesn't allow the naturalistic POV to be presented as fact (see my first comment in this post).
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:12, 31 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: By saying ''naturalist'', I was implying (or, trying to imply) that I was making a hypothetical statement. Had I been supporting their view, I would have simply put ''in the 3.5 billion years ago earth''. The word "view" would have made the sentence sound redundant to me.
:::::::: You are correct in your rebuttal of the Spiegleman experiment. I am saying that we should include an explanation of such experiments (and reasoning) '''and''' their rebuttals. (continued further down)
:::::::: [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 10:28, 31 December 2008 (EST)

==Superfluous link==

It would probably be a good idea to remove the wikilink to "Origin of Life" in the final paragraph. It doesn't make much sense to link to an article from within the article:)--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 16:24, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
: Done, thanks, and in the previous section also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== Naturalist Views ==

It would make sense to include a clear explanation of each of the naturalist theories. Separated from the explanations can be a section that rebuts them. If we present the theories in a ''calm'' unbiased manner and rebut them logically, the article will have a greater chance of having an effect on people. The article needs to be presented in such a way that any person with an open mind will easily be able to see the truth rather than a way that makes us look like uneducated mules who do not even understand what they are arguing against.

To do this, we need to make sure that we understand exactly what the naturalist views are. The more we know about their views, the easier it will be to find counter-evidence and counter-arguments. Also, the more clearly that we present the naturalist views, the easier it will be to show visitors to this site the fallacies and other problems with naturalist views.
[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 10:35, 31 December 2008 (EST)

: I see no problem with that in principle. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:09, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== Claims of "Self-Replicating" Chemicals ==

Evolutionists CLAIM to have used reverse engineered RNA sequences to create what they call "life 2.0"<ref>http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/replicatingrna.html</ref>

They've basically isolated some cell components, put them in a nutrient bath and claimed they're now self replicating. This bit of Frankenstein science is in reality little different than keeping an organ alive for a few months in a nutrient bath, but some people are claiming this proves spontaneous generation theories of life.<ref>http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/index.php/topic,17125.0/topicseen.html</ref>

I think Conservapedia can nip this in the bud the way it did with the claims of bacteria evolving. A good article addressing the flawed science behind the claims would be a great way to at the very least let people read some truth instead of the humanist drivel being spewed by the leftist media. I lack the science know how to do this myself.

<references/>

{{unsigned|AlexC}}

:Well, Alex, I have the know how, however I can verify this is true. Self replicating molecules are quiet common; it is a basic chemical principle that relies on lowest energy states for a molecule. RNA is a self replicator due to RNA replicase, in fact many biochemical processes rely on going from a higher energy state to a lower more stable state (which are more order in the environment of the cell). The Spiegelman Monster is another great example of self replication at a higher level. A great experiment with lots of information can be found [http://www.mpibpc.mpg.de/groups/biebricher/evolution_in_vitro.html here]. I am sorry but this topic has been around and tested quiet thoroughly, to the point that we know exactly what atom bonds where to allow for the replication. Chance of RNA replicase forming naturally from just nucleotides is 1 out of 7.9*10^29, seems like a lot but when you place it in perspective of time this is very feasible due to bonding rate of nucleotides being in nanoseconds. Now there have not been any successes with creating an artificial cell that replicates. The Spiegelman Monster was a virus, not a full cell. Perhaps that might be an area to look? Hope this helps.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:13, 12 January 2009 (EST)
::So it's not even remotely similar to life, it's more like a burning fire or rusting metal. How then can these people get away with running around claiming it's "life 2.0" when it's nothing more than a basic chemical reaction that continues as long as they feed it raw materials? --[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 10:30, 13 January 2009 (EST)
::: Neither is it the result of random processes, per evolution, but the result of intelligent design: "''And now so can a set of custom-designed chemicals.''". But the evolutionists somehow claim it to be a win for evolution! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::I would not consider it evolution, just that it shows a possible way that life could have started. There are many different models of how life started, this is just one. I would not go as far as saying it is intelligent design Philip since everything used for a similar experiment occured naturaly. Consider what is the difference between glucose created in the lab and glcose created from the body? The physical properties are the same. In the case of a similar Spiegelman Monster experiment, the base RNA code mutated over several generations (due to a lack of replication control enzymes) showing that many types of sequences could be formed from one base sequence with RNA.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 07:19, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::: Yes, in principle, if you are talking about a scientist simply replicating conditions that would have occurred "naturally" (I'll get back to that in a moment), then the fact that the scientist's intelligence was involved does not make an argument for intelligent design.
::::: But we are talking here about the origin of life, so if the materials that he uses are ones that only occur ''as the result of living things'', then they do not occur "naturally", in the sense of being in existence before life started. Glucose is the product of living things (which I would argue requires a designer). Similarly, I believe that both RNA and RNA replicase do not occur "naturally" (without the existence of living things). Is this correct?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:01, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Glucose does require life to make it outside of the lab, that we know of. RNA does occur naturally as well as RNA replicase, both molecules are not and should not be considered life (some prions are nothing more than a small strand of RNA with replicase or reverse transcriptase contained in a glob of lipids, would not be considered a protocell). DNA does occur outside of the cell as well, if the conditions are right (very rare), and is much more stable than RNA. However, it is a huge leap from these molecules to life. The whole reason why self replication and self formation of these molecules is possible is that the sum has a more stable energy state than the parts. When the parts of these molecules are found in solution at a neutral pH they react (due to the [[zwitterion]]ic forms of the bases). The chemistry involved for this is not difficult, if you would like I can go into further detail.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 19:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)
: I know that RNA (and RNA replicase) are not life; my point was that they require living things to make them. You say that they occur naturally—do you mean in the absence of living things or other RNA? If so, can you please provide evidence of that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::Yes, RNA and RNA replicase do occur in the absence of living things, they are just molecules. What kind of evidence would you like? How these molecules can form without a host cell? Evidence of these molecules in nature? I gave an example (prions) of RNA found in nature (some prions can catalyze the formation of RNA particles by just being in a solution with the bases and ribose). Prions are not alive, however they are organic. You can detect RNA everywhere but it would be almost impossible to tell if the fragment came from a living source or not, so you will find very little published information on that. The point is, RNA can form on its own (RNA is a lower energy state than its parts, this has been observed in the lab) and is the only known macromolecule that can both encode genetic information and also act as a biocatalyst (cellular ribosomes, where proteins are made, are mostly RNA), both points very important when talking of self replication. Here is a list of some resources if you would like to read more about it.
::* Eigen, M., Gardiner, W., Schuster, P. & Winkler-Oswatitsch, The origin of genetic information. R. Sci. Am. 244, 88 (1981).
::* Westheimer, F.H. Polyribonucleic acids as enzymes. Nature 319, 534 (1986).
::* Guerrier-Takada, C., Gardiner, K., Marsh, T., Pace, N. & Altman, S. The RNA moiety of ribonuclease P is the catalytic subunit of the enzyme. Cell 35, 849 (1983).
::* Guerrier-Takada, C. & Altman, S. Catalytic activity of an RNA molecule prepared by transcription in vitro. Science 223, 285 (1984).
::* Kruger, K. et al. Self-splicing RNA: autoexcision and autocyclization of the ribosomal RNA intervening sequence of Tetrahymena. Cell 31, 147 (1982).
::* Cech, T.R. Self-splicing RNA: implications for evolution. Int. Rev. Cytol. 93, 3 (1985).
::* Zaug, A.J. & Cech, T.R. The intervening sequence RNA of Tetrahymena is an enzyme. Science 231, 470 (1986).
::* Sharp, P.A. On the origin of RNA splicing and introns. Cell 42, 397 (1985).
::* White, H.B. III, Coenzymes as fossils of an earlier metabolic state. J. molec. Evol. 7, 101 (1976).
::* K. S. Huang, N. Carrasco, E. Pfund, and S. A. Strobel. Transition State Chirality and Role of the Vicinal Hydroxyl in the Ribosomal Peptidyl Transferase Reaction. Biochemistry 47, 8822-8827(2008)
::* S. A. Strobel. Ribonucleic general acid. Nature Chem. Biol. 1, 5-6 (2005)
::* J. Cochrane, R. Batey and S.A. Strobel. Quantitation of free energy profiles in RNA-ligand interactions by nucleotide analog interference mapping. RNA. 10, 1282-1289 (2003)
:: If you would like I can provide a energy state diagram showing the states for each part and then for the total and provide the mechanisms that the molecules go through to achieve the final formation, all of which are progressively lower in energy therefore allowing for the formation of RNA to be a highly favorable chemical reaction.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:58, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::: I would like the evidence to be on-line, so that I can easily check it. Or perhaps you could just explain the evidence to me in more detail; that might be enought to convince me. For example, you ask if I want to see evidence of it in nature, but then say that evidence in nature is not conclusive because one can't determine if it came from a living thing or not. So what evidence does exist? Laboratory experiments? (In which case I would want to be convinced that they did replicate natural conditions and didn't rely on living things or intelligent input.) ''Observations'' of RNA occuring naturally? Calculations that show that it should be possible?
::: Also, could you restructure your post to simply have a list of sources at the end, without using the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> and <nowiki><references/></nowiki> tags? As you have it now, you have introduced a new top-level heading into the thread (with table of contents entry), and if anybody else puts references on this talk page they will end up in your references list.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:03, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Good morning Philip. All of the references I gave are online. You may view the abstracts at pubmed but you have to go to the journals for the full paper. Consider though, they are old publications and you may find newer research than what I posted (I would suggest biochemistry sources for this topic, molecular bio sources will just lead you to signal transduction work). As for your questions we first have to discuss inference. There is no way to tell the absolute source of an RNA particle unless it encodes for something (that is even a stretch). It is common to find RNA particles consisting of 4 to 10 bases on most surfaces (which are too small to encode anything). Now here is the inference part, if you place the parts needed for forming RNA in a vessel and supplied the right environment, RNA will form on its own. Now why we can infer that RNA occurs naturally is that all the parts of RNA form under the same types of conditions common in nature, all of which occur without influence by living organisms. Now keep in mind I am not suggesting that anything can be done with the RNA that forms, just that it does form. I can give you calculations of the energy states and why it is possible for RNA to form naturally, it will take a little time since I would be doing it by hand (I do not believe there is an easy source online for it). To make sure it makes sense to you, I need to understand how much you know about physical chemistry? You will need to understand a little about free energy and chemical equilibrium of biological molecules (basic chemical thermodynamics) and acid-base equilibria for any of the work to make sense. I can email you the finished diagram (with the equations), since I do not have upload, and you can upload it here if you wish. I have to admit I was looking forward to you asking for calculations; I have not worked on stuff like this since grad school. I am sorry about that formatting and will not use the reference tag on talk pages.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:25, 16 January 2009 (EST)

: I should have said that I'd like the evidence to be ''readily available'' online, not requiring a payment or subscription. I did try looking for the first one, but although I found a reference, I didn't find an abstract. Perhaps I didn't look far enough.
: I don't understand the physical chemistry enough for your explanation. But we don't need to go that far.
: You didn't give a clear answer, but I still gather that you are saying that RNA found in nature does ''not'' constitute evidence of RNA occurring without the benefit of living things. So unless I gather incorrectly, let's drop that one.
: Your latest answer seems to be saying that we know that RNA can form naturally without living things because it can be produced in a laboratory in an environment that would mimic the supposed pre-life Earth. Okay, if that is truly the case, then I will accept that. However, I still have some questions and concerns.
: You appear to be saying that RNA ''could be'' created in a laboratory. Is this just theoretical, or has this actually been done?
: You say that if you "place the parts needed for forming RNA in a vessel and supplied the right environment, RNA will form on its own". What are these "parts"? Are they themselves parts that are ''known'' to form without the benefit of living things? I want an assurance that these "parts" are not themselves partially-broken-down RNA, for example. Similarly, what is the "right environment"? Does that include molecules that are formed by living things? Or does it include only molecules that might be found, for example, on lifeless Mars?
: Then there's the important question of coding, and the question of definitions. Perhaps the molecules you are talking about match the appearance of RNA, and perhaps they are therefore classified as RNA, but if RNA is supposed to be the first ''code'' of life, and these molecules don't ''code'' for anything, then they aren't really a ''code'' for life then, are they?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== One, held by creationists, is that life originated supernaturally. ==

"Divinely" would be a better word. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 19:37, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Liberal

2011-04-19T02:18:18Z

LloydR: Undo revision 862449 by 1q2w3e4r (talk)

[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg|thumb|470px|top|<center>A [[satire|satirical]] conception of the liberal brain.</center>]]

A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.<ref>As one liberal website candidly observes, "Obama is a shallow narcissist, not a believer in any cause higher than himself. Every American president has had a healthy ego, but none has ever been as purely motivated by vanity as the childishly self-loving [[Barack Obama]]."[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Barack-Obama-s-ego-driven-by-Christopher-Calder-091210-804.html]</ref> Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly [[statist]] and, as in Europe, [[socialist]]ic. Liberalism has changed over the years and degenerated into corruption. For example, FDR, one of the few great democratic Presidents, firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, democrats and liberals are almost in bed with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the re-election campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

According to current dictionaries and their own beliefs, a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets".<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref>, or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties" <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>. In practice, however, liberals are often the most intolerant of people, and frequently are on the side of disorder, chaos, anarchy, and lawbreaking. According to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary - and matched by current observation - liberals are '''"unchecked by a sense of the decorous, the fitting, or the polite...lacking significant moral restraints"''' or '''"...an emancipation from convention, tradition, or dogma that extends from a belief in altering institutions to fit altering conditions to a preference for lawlessness"'''<ref>''Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged'', Volume II; Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. Chicago, 1986. (pg. 1303, column 1)</ref> Polling data over several decades has consistently shown more Americans identifiy themselves as conservative than liberal, by a ratio of 2-1.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref>

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* Government-rationed medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of inherent [[gender differences]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* Tax and spend
* Trying to impede the freedoms of others
* Implementation of [[affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]]
* Support of [[labor union]]s
* Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from sex.<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]], for example.</ref>
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the [[Bible]] and God.
* Opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]]. The theory of [[evolution]] is a key component of [[atheistic]] ideologies in the [[Western World]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Barack Obama]]).
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]].
* Withholds support to our armed forces fighting overseas to protect their freedoms.
* Promote arrogance through what they consider superior lifestyles.
* Tolerance of wrongheaded ideas and lifestyles.
* "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."<ref> [http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0605bt.html Dupes by Bruce S. Thornton], City Journal - 5 June 2009</ref>
*Support of leftist ideologies such as [[socialism]] and nazism

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ==
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] and the article exposed the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his charitable giving]].
== Nazism and socialism ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Nazism and socialism]]

[[Image:Hitler.jpg|thumb|250px|right|One of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was [[socialism|socialistic]] was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> ]]
The [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] declares:
{{cquote|The identification of [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] as a [[socialism|socialist]] state was one of the many great contributions of [[Ludwig von Mises]]...

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref>}}

== Liberal atheists, pederasty and NAMBLA ==

''see also:'' [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]] and [[Teenage homosexuality]] and [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]

[[Image:Harry Hay.jpg|thumbnail|150px|Many consider [[Harry Hay]] to be the founder of the American [[homosexuality|homosexual]] movement.]]
Some of the well known [[atheism|atheist]] advocates of the [[North American Man-Boy Love Association]] (NAMBLA) are:

1. The atheist, political activist and [[homosexuality|homosexual]] [[David Thorstad]] was a founding member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association.<ref>http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100822</ref>

2. '''[[Harry Hay]]''' (1912 - 2002) was a liberal atheist advocate of [[statutory rape]] and the widely acknowledged founder and progenitor of the activist [[homosexual agenda]] in the [[United States]].<ref>http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_politics0010_01_07.asp</ref><ref>The American Spectator Special Report, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10450 When Nancy Met Harry], Jeffrey Lord, 10/5/2006.</ref><ref>http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_politics0010_01_07.asp</ref> Hay joined the [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) in 1934. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> He was a vociferous advocate of man/boy love. <ref>The American Spectator Special Report, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10450 When Nancy Met Harry], Jeffrey Lord, 10/5/2006.</ref><ref>http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_politics0010_01_07.asp</ref> In 1986, Hay marched in a [[homosexual|gay]] parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words "[[NAMBLA]] walks with me."<ref>http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf</ref>

3. The writer [[Samuel R. Delaney]] is an atheist and a [[homosexuality|homosexual]].<ref>Samuel R. Delaney, ''About writing: seven essays, four letters, and five interviews'', page 36</ref><ref>http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-literary-criticism/delany-samuel-r</ref> Dalaney has served as a professor at several universities. Delaney said he was a supporter of NAMBLA.<ref>Delany, Samuel R.; Freedman, Carl (2009). Conversations with Samuel R. Delany. Univ. Press of Mississippi, page 143</ref>

=== John Maynard Keynes and pederasty ===

''see also:'' [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty]] and [[Teenage homosexuality]]

[[John Maynard Keynes]] was the founder of [[Keynesian economics]]. Lytton Strachey, his male bed partner, wrote that Keynes was a “A liberal and a [[homosexuality|sodomite]], An atheist and a statistician.”<ref>http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html</ref> Keynes and his friends made numerous trips to the resorts surrounding the Mediterranean. At the resorts, little boys were sold by their families to bordellos which catered to homosexuals.<ref>http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html</ref> Keynes was a [[bisexual]] who married Lydia Lopokova. In his work ''The Cambridge Apostles, 1820-1914: Liberalism, Imagination, and Friendship in British Intellectual and Professional Life'', William C. Lubenow expresses the opinion that Keynes was an [[agnosticism|agnostic]].<ref>The Cambridge Apostles, 1820-1914: Liberalism, Imagination, and Friendship in British Intellectual and Professional Life, 1998, Cambridge University Press, page 402</ref>

=== Sam Harris claims atheist is right next to child molester as a designation ===

see also: [[Views on Atheists]]

Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in North America Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly [[liberal]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: ''SIN''. Liberals (1) '''S'''hift the subject, they (2) '''I'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''N'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "''mixed''" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]

{{cquote|'''There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

*[[Joseph Stalin]] was an [[atheism|atheist]], [[communism|communist]], and [[evolution|evolutionist]] dictator who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.

* [[Mao Tse Tung]] - atheist and communist dictator responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberalism and art]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

User talk:Lollipop

2011-04-19T01:55:17Z

LloydR:

D'un canadien a un autre, bienvenue! Comment ca va dans le grand nord? Apres avoir passé plusieurs annés aux E-U, le Canada me manque énormement!. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 21:45, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
:Canadians speak English too. --[[User:Lollipop|Lollipop]] 21:52, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
::One of the great things about the country -- it's so easy to master two languages from an early age. Really gives us an edge in the international job market, n'est-ce-pas? Bonne visite!!! [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 21:55, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

==Hello!==
I'm not an administrator. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is the founder and owner of Conservapedia (and an admin). [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop This] should list the other admins too. I still might be able to answer questions you have, though. [[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 21:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
{{welcome|sig=[[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 21:54, 18 April 2011 (EDT)}}

User talk:Lollipop

2011-04-19T01:45:28Z

LloydR: Created page with "D'un canadien a un autre, bienvenue! Comment ca va dans le grand nord? Apres avoir passé plusieurs annés aux E-U, le Canada me manque énormement!. ~~~~"

D'un canadien a un autre, bienvenue! Comment ca va dans le grand nord? Apres avoir passé plusieurs annés aux E-U, le Canada me manque énormement!. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 21:45, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

User talk:Tiffanys110

2011-04-18T02:11:57Z

LloydR: spam, spam. eggs and spam.

International Cricket Council

2011-04-18T00:30:59Z

LloydR:

'''The International Cricket Council''' (ICC) is the body responsible for the regulation of cricket throughout the world. Its membership consists of the 10 test playing nations as full members and a number of associate members.

Bowling for Columbine

2011-04-17T22:44:18Z

LloydR:

'''Bowling for Columbine''' is a 2002 [[schlockumentary]] directed by and starring leftist [[propaganda|propagandist]] [[Michael Moore]]. It is a pro-[[gun control]] film, and distorts facts in favor of gun control. The film's title comes from the fact that the [[Columbine High School]] killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were thought to have attended a bowling class before the murder spree (this turned out to be incorrect).

The film, due to its liberal nature, won best documentary at the 2003 [[Academy Awards]].

[[Category: Gun control]]
[[Category: Schlockumentary]]

Alberta

2011-04-17T15:35:23Z

LloydR: return to pre-vandalism version.

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Alberta-Flag.jpg|250px]]
Alberta Flag
|-
|
|-
|}

'''Alberta''' is a prairie province in [[Canada]]; its capital is [[Edmonton]]. Alberta's motto is "Fortis et liber" (Strong and free), and its official flower is the [[Wild Rose]]. Alberta was explored in 1754 by [[Anthony Henday]], who was sent by the [[Hudson's Bay Company]], and it entered Confederation in 1905.<ref>[Readers Digest Atlas of Canada 1995, pg50]</ref> Alberta is often called "the [[Texas]] of Canada" because of its oil, cattle, and pioneer "can-do" culture.<ref>http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/texas/entry/texas_of_canada_alberta_province_nickname/</ref>

The population of Alberta in 2001 was 2,974,807, representing 9.91% of the Canadian population. <ref>[http://www.canadainfolink.ca/charttwo.htm Canada Infolink]</ref> The median family income in 2000 was $60,142. <ref>[http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/inc/provs.cfm StatsCan]</ref> Alberta's GDP was $215.9 billion dollars (Canadian) in 2005. <ref>[http://www.alberta-canada.com/export/ Alberta Advantage]</ref>

[[Image:Alberta C.jpg|left]]
The largest city in Alberta is [[Calgary]], with a population of 988,193; [[Edmonton]], Alberta's capital has a population of 730,372.<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2007/03/13/calgary-census.html CBC, Alberta Census]</ref> Alberta is also home to the town of [[Vulcan, Alberta|Vulcan]], which hosts an impressive [[Star Trek]]/Sci-Fi convention every year.<ref>[http://www.town.vulcan.ab.ca/events/galaxyfest.html Galaxyfest]</ref>

Alberta has a thriving economy and is a great environment to do business in. It has the best job market in Canada.

Some Albertans feel such a pride and sense of distinction for their province that they have considered Alberta separatism, the idea that Alberta should be it's own [[sovereign]] state or a part of the [[United States of America]].<ref>http://www.separationalberta.com/</ref> Alberta has its own public radio network,[http://www.ckua.org/ CKUA].

Alberta has a rich culture,<ref>[http://www.head-smashed-in.com/ Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump]</ref> <ref>[http://www.cd.gov.ab.ca/enjoying_alberta/parks/featured/fishcreek/ Fish Creek Park]</ref> <ref>[http://www.heritagepark.ca/home.htm/ Heritage Park]</ref> <ref>[http://www.cd.gov.ab.ca/enjoying_alberta/parks/featured/kananaskis/flashindex.asp/ Kananaskis Country]</ref> <ref>[http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/nt/woodbuffalo/index_E.asp/ Waterton Lakes et al]</ref> possesses a vibrant arts scene, <ref>[http://meltingpotgallery.ca/ The Melting Pot]</ref> <ref>[http://www.artgallerycalgary.org/indextwo.htm/ Art Gallery of Calgary]</ref> eduction facilities, <ref>[http://www.tyrrellmuseum.com/ Royal Tyrrell Museum]</ref> <ref>[http://www.sait.ab.ca/ SAIT]</ref>, and an active entertainment community.<ref>[http://www.virtuallydrumheller.com/tour/badlands.htm Passion Play]</ref> <ref>[http://www.theatrecalgary.com/ Theatre Calgary]</ref>

Alberta is the richest and most politically conservative of the provinces of Canada.
==History==
Alberta prehistory extends back thousands of years.
The modern Canadian province was first opened in the 19th century.
===Prehistory===

===Settlement===
After 1890 settlers began to pour into Alberta. About half came from Ontario and Anglophone Canada, one quarrter from the U.S., and one quarter from Europe.

The closing of the American frontier around 1890 led 600,000 Americans to move to Saskatchewan and Alberta, where the farming frontier flourished 1897-1914.<ref> Karel Denis Bicha, "The Plains Farmer and the Prairie Province Frontier, 1897-1914." ''Journal of Economic History'' 1965 25(2): 263-270. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2116150 in JSTOR]</ref>

The railways developed town sites six to ten miles apart and lumber companies and speculators loaned money to encourage building on the lots. Immigrants faced an unfamiliar, harsh environment. Building a home, clearing and cultivating thirty acres, and fencing the entire property, all of which were requirements of homesteaders seeking title to their new land, were difficult tasks in the glacier-carved valleys.
====Ethnics====
Initially, the government preferred English-speaking settlers from Eastern Canada or Great Britain, and to a lesser extent, the United States. However, in order to speed up the rate of settlement, the government under the direction of [[Minister of the Interior]] [[Clifford Sifton]] soon began advertising to attract settlers from continental Europe. Large numbers of [[German Canadian|Germans]], [[Ukrainian Canadians|Ukrainians]], and Scandinavians moved in, among others, often coalescing into distinct [[block settlement|ethnic settlement blocks]], giving parts of Alberta unique ethnic cultures.

One typical settlement involved Norwegians from Minnesota. In 1894, Norwegian farmers from Minnesota's Red River Valley, originally from Bardo, Norway, resettled on Amisk Creek south of Beaverhill Lake, Alberta, naming their new settlement Bardo, after their homeland. Since the Land Act of 1872, Canada had eagerly sought to establish planned single-nationality immigrant colonies in the Western Provinces. The settlement at Bardo grew steadily, and from 1900 on most settlers came directly from Bardo, Norway, joining family and former neighbors. While somewhat primitive living conditions were the norm for many years into the 20th century, the settlers quickly established institutions and social outlets, including a Lutheran congregation, a school, the Bardo Ladies' Aid Society, a literary society, a youth choir, and a brass band.<ref> Odd S. Lovoll, "Canada Fever: The Odyssey Of Minnesota's Bardo Norwegians." ''Minnesota History'' 2001 57(7): 356-367. 0026-5497 </ref>
====Wales====
In July 1897 the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) began work on a railway passing through Crow's Nest Pass, Alberta. To attract a thousand workers from Wales who would eventually settle in Canada, the British government offered workers $1.50 a day and land through the homestead process. Publicized by shipping companies and newspapers, the scheme drew many workers from Bangor, Wales, where quarrymen had been on strike for nearly a year. However, the transport costs alone were more than many Welsh workers could afford, and this limited the number of people responding to the offer to under 150. By November letters began to arrive in Wales complaining about the living and working conditions in the CPR camps. Government officials, seeking to populate the Canadian prairies, began to downplay the criticisms and present more positive views. Although some of the immigrants eventually found prosperity in Canada, the immigration scheme envisioned by government and railroad officials was canceled in 1898.<ref> Wayne K. D. Davies, "'Send A Thousand Welsh Farm Labourers To Canada!' The Crow's Nest Pass Work Scheme And Damage Control." ''Welsh History Review'' 2001 20(3): 466-494. 0043-2431 </ref>
====Mormons====
In the 1890s about 3200 Mormons arrived from Utah, where their practice of polygamy had been outlawed. They were very community oriented, setting up 17 farm settlements; they pioneered in irrigation techniques. They flourished and in 1923 opened the [[Cardston Alberta Temple]] in their center of [[Cardston, Alberta|Cardston]]. In the 21st century about 50,000 Mormons live in Alberta.<ref> L. A. Rosenvall, "The Transfer of Mormon Culture to Alberta." ''American Review of Canadian Studies'' 1982 12(2): 51-63.</ref> The government in Ottawa refused to officially approve of polygamy, and the new settlers kept quiet about their family structure. No Mormon was prosecuted for polygamy in Canada.

==Drive to provincehood==
In 1900 Alberta was simply a district of the North-West Territories. Local leaders lobbied hard for provincial status, led by the premier of the territories, Sir Frederick Haultain.

Prime minister Sir [[Wilfrid Laurier]] did not want to concentrate too much power in one gigantic prairie province, which might grow to rival Quebec and Ontario, but neither did he think three small provinces were viable, and so opted for the two-province plan. Alberta became a province along with her twin sister Saskatchewan on September 1, 1905. Haultain, a Conservative, was passed over for premier in favor of Liberal Alexander Rutherford, a weak leader.

Frank Oliver started Edmonton's influential newspaper the ''Edmonton Bulletin'' in 1880. He promoted Conservative party causes and disliked anyone who did not speak English, especially the French and Ukrainians. Elected to the national Parliament, Oliver became Minister of the Interior and reduced support for European immigration.
===Early 20th century===
The new province of Alberta had a population of 78,000 but apart from the Canadian Pacific railway it lacked infrastructure. The people were farmers and they lacked schools and medical facilities. Ottawa retained control of its natural resources until 1930, making economic development difficult and complicating federal-provincial relations. Indeed, battles over oil poisoned relations with the federal government, especially after 1970.
====Politics====
The Liberals formed the first government of Alberta and remained in office until 1921. After the election of 1905, Premier Rutherford's Liberal party government started work on the governmental infrastructure, especially regarding legal and municipal affairs. Rutherford, a gentleman of the old school, was a weak leader, but did aid education. Calgary was annoyed when Edmonton was chosen as the capital,<ref> Alexander Bruce Kilpatrick, "A Lesson in Boosterism: The Contest for the Alberta Provincial Capital, 1904-1906," ''Urban History Review'' 1980 8(3): 47-109. </ref> and outraged in 1908 when the University of Alberta was given to Strathcona (a suburb that soon was annexed into Edmonton). Talented Conservatives sought their political fortune in national rather than provincial politics, most notably [[R. B. Bennett]], who became Prime Minister in 1930.

Communication was enhanced when a telephone system was set up for the towns and cities. Long-term economic growth was stimulated by the construction through Edmonton of two additional transcontinental railroads, which later became part of the Canadian National Railway. Their main role was to ship people in, and wheat out. Drawn by cheap farm land and high wheat prices, immigration reached record levels, and the population reached 470,000 by 1914.

====Farm movements====
Feeling abused by the railroads and the grain elevators, militant farm organizations appeared, notably the left-wing [[United Farmers of Alberta]] (UFA), formed in 1909. Guided by the ideas of William Irvine and later by Henry Wise Wood, the UFA was intended to represent economic interests rather than to act as another political party. But the farmers' dissatisfaction with Liberal provincial policies and Conservative federal policies, combined with falling wheat prices and a railroad scandal, produced an overwhelming UFA landslide in the provincial legislature in 1921. Alberta also gave strong support to the [[Progressive Party of Canada]], a national farm organization, which held a bloc of seats in the federal parliament

John E. Brownlee led the UFA to a second majority government in the 1926 election. It repealed prohibition, passed a Debt Adjustment Act to help indebted farmers, and aided workers. It abolished the provincial police, leaving law enforcement to the RCMP. The government bailed-out the bankrupt Alberta Wheat Pool in 1929. The high point of Brownlee's administration came after long negotiations with the federal government concerning Alberta's natural resources. In 1930, control of these resources was turned over to the province. Riding a wave of popularity, Brownlee led the UFA to a third majority government in the 1930 election. As he moved to the right, alienating socialists and labour groups.

In 1934 the UFA collapsed politically, and returned to being a cooperative. Its defeat was in part due to a tawdry sex scandal and in part due to the government's inability to raise wheat prices or otherwise mitigate the Great Depression in Canada. A prolonged drought in the southern two thirds of the province forced the abandonment of thousands of farms, and cut grain output at a time prices were falling in half.<ref> Carl F. Betke, "The United Farmers of Alberta, 1921-1935." in ''Society and Politics in Alberta,'' edited by Carlo Caldarola. (1979). pp 14-32. </ref>

===Medical care and nursing===
The first homesteaders relied on themselves for medical services. Poverty and geographic isolation empowered women to learn and practice medical care with the herbs, roots, and berries that worked for their mothers. They prayed for divine intervention but also practiced supernatural magic that provided as much psychological as physical relief. The reliance on homeopathic remedies continued as trained nurses and doctors and how-to manuals slowly reached the homesteaders in the early 20th century.<ref>Anne Woywitka, "Pioneers In Sickness and in Health." ''Alberta History'' 2001 49(1): 16-20. </ref>

After 1900 medicine and especially nursing modernized and became well organized.

The Lethbridge Nursing Mission in Alberta was a representative Canadian voluntary mission. It was founded, independent of the Victorian Order of Nurses, in 1909 by Jessie Turnbull Robinson. A former nurse, Robinson was elected as president of the Lethbridge Relief Society and began district nursing services aimed at poor women and children. The mission was governed by a volunteer board of women directors and began by raising money for its first year of service through charitable donations and payments from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The mission also blended social work with nursing, becoming the dispenser of unemployment relief.<ref> Sharon Richardson, "Women's Enterprise: Establishing The Lethbridge Nursing Mission, 1909-1919." ''Nursing History Review'' 1997 5: 105-130. 1062-8061 </ref>

Richardson (1998) examines the social, political, economic, class, and professional factors that contributed to ideological and practical differences between leaders of the Alberta Association of Graduate Nurses (AAGN), established in 1916, and the United Farm Women of Alberta (UFWA), founded in 1915, regarding the promotion and acceptance of midwifery as a recognized subspecialty of registered nurses. Accusing the AAGN of ignoring the medical needs of rural Alberta women, the leaders of the UFWA worked to improve economic and living conditions of women farmers. Irene Parlby, the UFWA's first president, lobbied for the establishment of a provincial Department of Public Health, government-provided hospitals and doctors, and passage of a law to permit nurses to qualify as registered midwives. The AAGN leadership opposed midwife certification, arguing that nursing curricula left no room for midwife study, and thus nurses were not qualified to participate in home births. In 1919 the AAGN compromised with the UFWA, and they worked together for the passage of the Public Health Nurses Act that allowed nurses to serve as midwives in regions without doctors. Thus, Alberta's District Nursing Service, created in 1919 to coordinate the province's women's health resources, resulted chiefly from the organized, persistent political activism of UFWA members and only minimally from the actions of professional nursing groups clearly disinterested in rural Canadians' medical needs.<ref> Sharon Richardson, "Political Women, Professional Nurses, and the Creation of Alberta's District Nursing Service, 1919-1925." ''Nursing History Review'' 1998 6: 25-50. 1062-8061 </ref>

The Alberta District Nursing Service administered health care in the predominantly rural and impoverished areas of Alberta in the first half of the 20th century. Founded in 1919 to meet maternal and emergency medical needs by the United Farm Women of Alberta (UFWA), the Nursing Service treated prairie settlers living in primitive areas lacking doctors and hospitals. Nurses provided prenatal care, worked as midwives, performed minor surgery, conducted medical inspections of schoolchildren, and sponsored immunization programs. The post-World War II discovery of large oil and gas reserves resulted in economic prosperity and the expansion of local medical services. The passage of provincial health and universal hospital insurance in 1957 precipitated the eventual phasing out of the obsolete District Nursing Service in 1976.<ref> Sharon Richardson, "Frontier Health Care: Alberta's District and Municipal Nursing Services, 1919 to 1976." ''Alberta History'' 1998 46(1): 2-9. </ref>

====First Nations====
Because health care was not provided by treaty with the Canadian government, First Nations reserve residents in the early 20th century usually received this service from private groups. The Anglican Church Missionary Society ran hospitals for the Blackfoot bands of southern Alberta during this time. In the 1920s the Canadian government authorized funds for building hospitals on both the Blackfoot and Blood reserves. They emphasized the treatment of tuberculosis through long-term care.<ref>Laurie Meijer Drees, Reserve Hospitals In Southern Alberta, 1890 To 1930. Native Studies Review 1993-94 9(1): 93-110. 0831-585X </ref>

There was a strong link between federal Indian health care and the ideology of social reform operating in Canada between the 1890s and 1930. Between the 1890s and 1930 the Department of Indian Affairs became increasingly involved in Indian health. With the aim of revealing aspects of the department's Indian health administration in this early period, this article describes the creation and workings of two hospitals on Indian reserves in southern Alberta. The federal government took two main steps in dealing with Indian peoples' health: it built hospitals on reserves, and it created a system of medical officers to staff these facilities. Before World War II, the health care system had a number of characteristics: it was a system initially operated by missionaries and later taken over by the Department of Indian Affairs, it was an extensive and decentralized system, the health care services delivered by the system were firmly rooted in Canadian middle-class reformist values and represented an attempt to have these values applied to Indian communities, and, apparently, the system served peoples who were reluctant to use the facilities and services made available to them. Contrary to the idea that prior to World War II the federal government refused to take responsibility for Indian health in Canada, the development of an Indian health policy and system had already taken place gradually.<ref> Laurie Meijer Drees, "Reserve Hospitals and Medical Officers: Health Care And Indian Peoples In Southern Alberta, 1890s-1930." ''Prairie Forum'' 1996 21(2): 149-176. 0317-6282 </ref>

===Religion, Ethnicity===
====Canadianization====
Assimilation into Canadian culture was the norm for nearly all European immigrants. An important indicator was language, as the children of all immigrant groups showed a strong preference in favour of speaking English. From 1900 to 1930, the government faced the formidable task of transforming the ethnically and linguistically diverse immigrant population into loyal and true Canadians. Many believed language assimilation to be the key to this process of Canadianization, aimed primarily at children. Major difficulties ensued initially from the Direct Method of second-language teaching with resistance emanating from both immigrants and some sectors of English-speaking society. Games frequently provided the most effective vehicle for language and citizenship instruction and were used as a method of socialization. The elementary schools of rural Alberta played a very significant role in the acculturation of the immigrant and his children, providing a community character that created a distinctive feature of Canadian schools glaringly missing in the European school tradition.<ref> Manfred Prokop, "Canadianization Of Immigrant Children: Role of the Rural Elementary School in Alberta, 1900-1930." ''Alberta History'' 1989 37(2): 1-10. </ref>
====Protestants====
During the interwar period the various components of the Alberta Woman's Missionary Societies worked tirelessly to maintain traditional Anglo-Protestant family and moral values. Comprising a number of mainstream denominational groups and at one time numbering over five thousand members, the societies actively sought to "Christianize and Canadianize" the substantial numbers of Ukrainian immigrants who settled in the province. A particular focus was child education, with music activities used as a recruiting tool. Some chapters admitted male members. The movement faded as general society shifted away from religious activities and the conservative fundamentalist movement gained strength.<ref> Gayle Thrift, "'Women of Prayer are Women of Power': Woman's Missionary Societies in Alberta, 1918-1939." ''Alberta History'' 1999 47(2): 10-17. </ref>

Methodist revivalism in early-20th-century Calgary promoted progress and bourgeois respectability as much as spiritual renewal. In 1908, the Central Methodist Church hosted American evangelicals H. L. Gale and J. W. Hatch. They drew big crowds, but the message was mild and the audience calm and well dressed. Few became church members after the revival was over, however. Working-class attendees probably experienced discomfort among their better-dressed and better-behaved neighbors, and the church leadership maintained strong ties to local business interests but did little to reach out to the lower classes. The cottage meetings that followed the revival typically took place in middle-class homes.<ref> Eric Crouse, "'The Great Revival': Evangelical Revivalism, Methodism, and Bourgeois Order in Early Calgary." ''Alberta History'' 1999 47(1): 18-23. </ref>
====Catholics====
The Catholic archbishop of Edmonton, Henry Joseph O'Leary had a considerable impact on the city's Catholic sectors, and his efforts reflect many of the challenges facing the Catholic Church at that time. During the 1920s, O'Leary favored his fellow Irish and drastically reduced the influence of French Catholic clergy in his archdiocese and replaced them with Anglophone priests. He helped to assimilate Ukrainian Catholic immigrants into the stricter Roman Catholic traditions, extended the viability of Edmonton's separate Catholic school system, and established both a Catholic college at the University of Alberta and a seminary in Edmonton.<ref> Peter McGuigan, "Edmonton, Archbishop Henry O'Leary and the Roaring Twenties." ''Alberta History'' 1996 44(4): 6-14. </ref>
====Francophone ====
In 1892 Alberta adopted the Ontario schools model, emphasizing state-run institutions that glorified not only the English language but English history and customs as well. Predominantly francophone communities in Alberta maintained some control of local schools by electing trustees sympathetic to French language and culture. Such groups as the Association Canadienne-Française de l'Alberta expected trustees to implement their own cultural agenda. An additional problem francophone communities faced was the constant shortage of qualified francophone teachers during 1908-35; the majority of those hired left their positions after only a few years of service. After 1940 school consolidation largely ignored the language and culture issues of francophones.<ref> Yvette T. M. Mahé, "Bilingual School District Trustees and Cultural Transmission: The Alberta Experience, 1892-1939." ''Historical Studies in Education'' 1997 9 (1): 65-82. 0843-5057 </ref>
====Ukrainians====
A key controversy concerning the linguistic rights of ethnic minorities in western Canada was the 1913 Ruthenian School Revolt in the Edmonton, Alberta, area. Ukrainian immigrants, called "Galicians" or "Ruthenians" by Anglo-Celtic Canadians, settled in the vicinity of Edmonton. The attempts by the Ukrainian community to use the Liberal Party to garner political power in districts that were predominantly Ukrainian and introduce bilingual education in those areas, were quashed by party leaders, who blamed a group of teachers for the initiative. As a reprisal, these teachers were labeled "unqualified." The various rebellious actions by Ukrainian residents of the Bukowina school district did not prevent the dismissal of Ukrainian teachers. By 1915 it was clear that bilingual education would not be tolerated in early-20th-century Alberta.<ref> Angela Gauthier, Nick Kach, and Kas Mazurek, "The Ruthenian School Revolt of 1913: Linguistic and Cultural Conflict in Alberta." ''Historical Studies in Education'' 1996 8 (2): 199-210. 0843-5057 </ref>
====Italians====
Italians arrived in two waves, the first from 1900 to 1914, the second after the Second World War. The first arrivals came as temporary and seasonal workers, often returning to southern Italy after a few years. Other became permanent urban dwellers, especially when the First World War prevented international travel. From the outset they began to have an impact on the cultural and commercial life of the area. As "Little Italy" grew it started to provide essential services for its members, such as a consul and the Order of the Sons of Italy, and an active fascist party provided a means of social organization. Initially the Italians coexisted peacefully with their neighbors, but during World War II they were the victims of prejudice and discrimination to the point that even today Italians in Calgary feel that Canadian society does not reward those who maintain their ethnicity.<ref> Antonella Fanella, "Italians In Calgary". ''Alberta History'' 1994 42(2): 3-9. </ref>

===Rural life===
An economic crisis engulfed much of rural Alberta in the early 1920s, as wheat prices plunged from their wartime highs and farmers found themselves deep in debt.

====Farms====
[[Image:Palliser.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Palliser's Triangle.]]
Wheat was the dominant crop and the tall grain elevator alongside the railway tracks became a crucial element of the Albertan grain trade after 1890. It boosted "King Wheat" to regional dominance by integrating the province's economy with the rest of Canada. Used to efficiently load grain into railroad cars, grain elevators came to be clustered in "lines" and their ownership tended to concentrate in the hands of increasingly fewer companies, many controlled by Americans. The main commercial entities involved in the trade were the Canadian Pacific Railroad and the powerful grain syndicates. Dramatic changes in the Albertan grain trade took place in the 1940s, notably the amalgamation of grain elevator companies.<ref> John Everitt, "The Line Elevator in Alberta." ''Alberta History'' 1992 40(4): 16-22; 1993 41(1): 20-26. </ref>

Recklessness, greed, and overoptimism played a part in the early-20th-century financial crisis on the Canadian wheat frontier. Beginning in 1916, the [[Palliser Triangle]], a semiarid region in Alberta and Saskatchewan, suffered a decade of dry years and crop failures that culminated in financial ruin for many of the region's wheat farmers. Overconfidence on the part of farmers, financiers, the [[Canadian Pacific Railway]], and the Canadian government led to land investments and development in the Palliser on an unprecedented and dangerous scale. A large share of this expansion was funded by mortgage and loan companies in Britain eager to make overseas investments. British money managers were driven by a complex set of global economic forces including a decline in British investment opportunities, excess capital, and massive investment expansion on the Canadian frontier. Reduced grain production in Europe and increased grain production in the Prairie Provinces also encouraged the export of capital from London. The mythical image of the Palliser as an abundant region, coupled with a growing confidence in technology, created a false sense of security and stability. Between 1908 and 1913 British firms lent vast sums to Canadian farmers to plant their wheat crops; only when the drought began in 1916 did it become clear that far too much credit had been extended.<Ref> John Feldberg, and Warren M. Elofson, "Financing The Palliser Triangle, 1908-1913." ''Great Plains Quarterly'' 1998 18(3): 257-268. 0275-7664 </Ref>

====Ranches and mixed farming====
The term "mixed farming" better applies to southern Alberta agricultural practices during 1881-1914 than does "ranching." "Pure ranching" involves cowboys working predominantly from horseback; it was the norm when huge ranches were formed in 1881. Quickly practices were modified. Hay was planted and cut in summer to provide winter cattle feed; fences were built and repaired to contain winter herds; and dairy cows and barnyard animals were maintained for personal consumption and secondarily for market. Mixed farming was clearly predominant in southern Alberta by 1900.<Ref> W. M. Elofson, "Not Just A Cowboy: The Practice Of Ranching in Southern Alberta, 1881-1914."
''Canadian Papers In Rural History'' 1996 10: 205-216. </ref>
Captain Charles Augustus Lyndon and his wife, Margaret, established one of the first ranches in Alberta in 1881. Lyndon homesteaded a site in the Porcupine Hills west of Fort Macleod. They primarily raised cattle but also raised horses for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for additional income. Lyndon's herds suffered with others' herds during the hard winter of 1886-87. He developed an irrigation system and a post office as the district grew during the 1890's. Although Lyndon died in 1903, his family maintained his enterprises until 1966 when the ranch was sold.<ref> Patricia Hawk, . The Lyndon Ranch. Alberta History 2000 48(1): 10-13.</ref>

Benson (2000) describes the social structure for cowboys and other workers on large, corporate ranches in southwestern Alberta around 1900. Four of those ranches, the Cochrane, the Oxley, the Walrond, and the Bar U, demonstrate the complex hierarchies that separated cowboys from cooks and foremen from managers. Ethnic, educational, and age differences further complicated the elaborate social fabric of the corporate ranches. The resulting division of labor and hierarchy permitted Alberta's ranches to function without the direct involvement of investors and owners, most of whom lived in eastern Canada and Britain.<ref>Kristi Benson, "Cowboys and Cattlebarons: Status and Hierarchy on Alberta's Early Corporate Ranches." ''Alberta History'' 2000 48(4): 2-9. Professor Sheldon, "A Visit To The Bar U" ''Alberta History'' 2000 48(1): 21-26, reprints an 1891 travel account. </ref>

The survival of Alberta's cattle industry was seriously in doubt for most of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. At two points during this time, 1887-1900 and 1914-20, the industry enjoyed great prosperity. The latter boom began when the United States enacted the [[Underwood Tariff]] of 1913, allowing Canadian cattle free entry. Exporting Alberta cattle to Chicago markets proved highly profitable for the highest quality livestock. By 1915, most stocker and feeder cattle from the Winnipeg stockyards were exported to the United States, harming Canada's domestic beef market. Several factors, including the severe winter of 1919-20, the end of inflated wartime prices for beef, and the reinstitution of the US tariff on Canadian cattle, all contributed to the collapse of the Alberta cattle market. The boom ultimately worked against Alberta's economic interests because the high prices during that period made it unfeasible to establish local cattle finishing practices.<ref> Max Foran, "Mixed Blessings: The Second 'Golden Age' of the Alberta Cattle Industry 1914-1920." ''Alberta History'' 1998 46(3): 10-19. </ref>

Some ranchers became important entrepreneurs. A rancher and brewer with secondary interests in gas, electricity, and oil, Calgary entrepreneur Alfred Ernest Cross (1861-1932) was a significant agent of modernization in Alberta and the Canadian West. As with others, his name symbolizes a driving force of enterprise, the pursuit of profit, family-centered capitalism, use of Canada's and Britain's capital markets, and economic progression through reinvestment of earnings. His personal family management developed a family estate that remains significant in Alberta's economy. Cross is remembered principally for his cattle breeding advances and his dynamism and scientific approach to brewing.<ref> Henry C. Klassen, "Entrepreneurship in the Canadian West: The Enterprises of A. E. Cross, 1886-1920." ''Western Historical Quarterly'' 1991 22(3): 313-333. 0043-3810 </ref>

====Women====
Gender roles were sharply defined. Men were primarily responsible for breaking the land; planting and harvesting; building the house; buying, operating and repairing machinery; and handling finances. At first there were many single men on the prairie, or husbands whose wives were still back east, but they had a hard time. They realized the need for a wife. As the population increased rapidly, wives played a central role in settlement of the prairie region. Their labor, skills, and ability to adapt to the harsh environment proved decisive in meeting the challenges. They prepared bannock, beans and bacon, mended clothes, raised children, cleaned, tended the garden, helped at harvest time and nursed everyone back to health. While prevailing patriarchal attitudes, legislation, and economic principles obscured women's contributions, the flexibility exhibited by farm women in performing productive and nonproductive labor was critical to the survival of family farms, and thus to the success of the wheat economy.<ref> Sandra Rollings-Magnusson, "Canada's Most Wanted: Pioneer Women on the Western Prairies." ''Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology'' 2000 37(2): 223-238; E. Rowles, "Bannock, beans and bacon: An investigation of pioneer diet." ''Saskatchewan History'', 1952. Vol. V, No 1, pp. 1-16. </ref>

====Miners====
James Moodie developed the Rosedale Mine in Alberta's Red Deer River Valley in 1911. Although Moodie paid higher wages and operated the mine more safely and efficiently than other coal mines in the province, the Rosedale experienced work slowdowns and strikes. Because Moodie owned the mine and provided services for the camp, Bolshevik sympathizers considered him an oppressor of the laborers and a bourgeois industrialist. The radicalism at the mine diminished as Moodie replaced the immigrant miners with Canadian military veterans ready to appreciate the safe work environment offered there.<ref> Catherine Munn Smith, "J. Frank Moodie: The Man and the Mine." ''Alberta History'' 2000 48(2): 2-9. </ref>

===Urban life===
In the larger cities the Alberta chapter of the Canadian Red Cross provided relief services to the community during the hard years of the 1920s and 1930s. It also successfully lobbied the government to take a more active and responsible role in looking after the people during difficult times.<ref> Nancy M. Sheehan, "The Red Cross And Relief In Alberta, 1920s-1930s." ''Prairie Forum'' 1987 12(2): 277-293. </ref>

====Business====
Most business operations were family affairs, with relatively few large scale operations apart from the railways. In 1886, the Cowdry brothers (Nathaniel and John) opened a private bank at Fort MacLeod, Alberta. Its history provides a prototype to show how a small-scale private banking house became an important force in early southwestern Alberta finance. Both brothers were astute businessmen, community leaders, and had absolute confidence in each other - so much so that in 1888 Nathaniel returned to Lindsay (later Simcoe) and became a grain merchant. The banking business expanded, with branches being opened and advertising and the lending of money becoming widespread. In March 1905, the Cowdrys sold their banking concerns at Fort Macleod to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. The role of family enterprise in private banking during the late 19th and early 20th centuries was pivotal in providing an important channel for the flow of credit into southwestern Alberta and facilitated the emergence of the modern economy.<ref>Henry C. Klassen, "Cowdry Brothers: Private Bankers In Southwestern Alberta, 1886-1905." ''Alberta History'' 1989 37(1): 9-23. </ref>

After a dramatic economic boom during the First World War, a sharp, short depression hit Alberta in 1920-22. Conditions were typical in the town of Red Deer, a railroad and trading center midway between Calgary and Edmonton that depended on farmers. Hardship during the early 1920s was as severe, or even somewhat worse, than those experienced during the much longer Great Depression of the 1930s. The groundwork for the economic collapse had been laid as early as 1913, when the speculative boom that had fueled Alberta's prosperity had collapsed. But the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 initiated an enormous demand for agricultural products and helped to mask the serious weaknesses of the provincial economy. With the conclusion of the war, however, unemployment skyrocketed as veterans returned and inflation increased. Grain prices began to fall in 1920, causing further hardships. By the spring of 1921, many Red Deer businesses had gone bankrupt, and the city's unemployment rate was estimated at 20%. The city's economic situation began to improve in 1923, and Red Deer city officials were finally able to collect enough tax revenues to avoid the need for short-term bank loans.<ref> Michael J. Dawe, "Debt and Depression: Red Deer in the Early 1920s." ''Alberta History'' 1996 44(2): 19-23. </ref>

====Women====
Up to the 1880s prostitution in Alberta was tolerated and not considered serious. As the itinerant population became more settled, however, this attitude gradually changed. The years 1880-1909 witnessed few arrests and even fewer fines for prostitution, in part because those caught were encouraged to leave town rather than be jailed. Later, 1909-14, a smallpox epidemic in the red light district started a crackdown against prostitution, which by then was regarded as a major problem, especially by middle class women reformers. The [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] vigorously opposed both saloons and prostitution, and called for woman suffrage as a tool to end those evils.<ref> Judy Bedford, "Prostitution In Calgary 1905-1914". ''Alberta History'' 1981 29(2): 1-11; Nancy M. Sheehan, "The WCTU on the Prairies, 1886-1930: An Alberta-Saskatchewan Comparison." ''Prairie Forum'' 1981 6(1): 17-33.</ref>

The Calgary Current Events Club, started in 1927 by seven women, rapidly gained popularity with professional women of the city. In 1929 the group changed its name to the Calgary Business and Professional Women's Club (BPW) in response to a call for a national federation of such groups. Members traveled to London, England, in 1929 to make the case for recognizing women as full legal citizens. In the 1930s the group addressed many of the controversial political issues of the day, including the introduction of a minimum wage, fair unemployment insurance legislation, the compulsory medical examination of school children, and the requirement of a medical certificate for marriage. The national convention of the BPW was held in Calgary in 1935. The club actively supported Canadian overseas forces in World War II. At first most of the members were secretaries and office workers; more recently it has been dominated by executives and professions. The organization continues to attend to women's economic and social issues.<ref> Andrews, D. Larraine. "Calgary Business And Professional Women's Club." ''Alberta History'' 1997 45(1): 20-25. </ref>

====Cinema====
Motion pictures have been an important aspect of urban culture since 1910. The places where people have watched films, from the nickelodeon to the multiplex, have changed in ways that reflect changes in the society generally. The cinema in Edmonton reflected the changing urban landscape. Because the movie houses themselves are part of the entertainment product, the cinema industry follows a cycle of construction, renovation, and demolition. The industry's face is constantly changing in an effort to draw people inside; Edmonton's cinemas have moved with the retail industry from the downtown core to the suburban shopping malls, and are now experimenting with new formats similar to retailers' big boxes. Just as Edmonton is known for massive amounts of retail space, it also has one of the highest numbers of movie screens in Canada in proportion to its population. Cinemas are thus a revealing aspect of trends in urban development.<ref> Douglas Bailie, Cinemas in the City: Edmonton from the Nickelodeon to the Multiplex. Prairie Forum [Canada] 1996 21(2): 239-262. </ref>
====Sports====
Throughout the province popular sports included snowshoeing and skating for everyone, and hunting and fishing for men and boys.

Competitive sports emerged in urban areas, especially hockey. It provided an arena for the civic rivalries such as those between the cities of Edmonton and neighboring Strathcona during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Edmonton, on the north bank of the Saskatchewan River, and Strathcona, on the south bank of the river, developed separately - economically, politically, and socially - because travel and communication across the river were limited. (They merged in 1912.) In addition to affording an outlet for civic rivalries, the games between the Edmonton Thistle and Strathcona Shamrock hockey clubs united individuals from different social classes and diverse cultural backgrounds in support of their team.<ref>Terence O'Riordan, "The 'Puck Eaters': Hockey As A Unifying Community Experience In Edmonton & Strathcona, 1894-1905." ''Alberta History'' 2001 49(2): 2-11. 0316-1552 </ref>

Skiing began in [[Banff]] in the 1890s and received its main impetus with the winter carnival in 1916. In the next decades the carnival became popular; ski jumping and cross-country races led to much publicity. By 1940, Banff had become one of Canada's leading skiing centers, and was heavily promoted as a vacation destination by the Canadian Pacific railway.<ref>Rolf T. Lund, "The Development of Skiing in Banff." ''Alberta History'' 1977 25(4): 26-30. </ref>

===Oil, gas and tar sands===
Alberta has played the central role in Canada's petroleum industry —both from the discovery and development of conventional oil and natural gas, and through the development of the world's largest [[bitumen]] deposits in the province's vast northern [[oil sands]] or "tar sands." The province became one of the world's foremost producers of [[crude oil]] and [[natural gas]], generating billions of revenue for the province and igniting a bitter feud with the national government.

The first oil field in western Canada was Turner Valley, south of Calgary, where large supplies were discovered in 1914 at a depth of about 3,000 feet (910 meters). Calgary became the oil capital, with a reputation for swashbuckling entrepreneurship. Turner Valley was for a time the largest oil and gas producer in the British Empire. Three distinct phases of discovery marked the field's history and involved such Albertans as William Stewart Herron and A. W. Dingman, and companies that included Calgary Petroleum Products, later the Royalite Oil Company; Turner Valley Royalties; and later the Home Oil Company. In 1931, the province enacted the Oil and Gas Wells Act to reduce the heavy waste of natural gas. In 1938, the Alberta Petroleum and Natural Gas Conservation Board was successfully established and enacted conservation and prorating measures. The goal was to maximize the long-term yield, as well as to protect small producers.<ref> Laura Atkins, Coleen Nicoll, and Jody Stewart, "Turner Valley Oilfields." ''Alberta History'' 1984 32(1): 9-19; Breen (1993). </ref>

In 1947 an even bigger field opened at [[Leduc]], 20 miles (32 km) south of Edmonton, and in 1948 oil mining began at Redwater. Both these fields were overshadowed in importance in 1956 with the discovery of the [[Pembina]] field west of Edmonton. Other fields were discovered east of Grande Prairie and in central Alberta. From collection and distribution points near Edmonton the oil is sent by pipeline to refineries, some as distant as Sarnia, Toronto and Montreal to the east, Vancouver to the west, and especially the U.S. to the South. Interprovincial Pipe Line (IPL) began in 1949, transporting oil to refineries in the east. IPL became Enbridge Pipelines in 1998 and now has 4500 employees; it moves 2 million barrels a day over 13,500 miles of pipe.

Alberta produced 81% of Canada's crude oil in 1991, when Alberta's traditional oil fields peaked; output is now steadily declining. Before the 1970s, the major producers were controlled by U.S. oil giants.
====Natural gas====
Exploration for oil led to the discovery of large reserves of natural gas. The most important gas fields are at Pincher Creek in the southeast, at Medicine Hat, and in the northwest. TransCanada pipeline, completed in 1958, carries some of the gas eastward to Ontario and Quebec; other pipelines run to California. Alberta produces 81% of Canada's natural gas.
====Oil sands====
The '''"[[oil sands]]"''' or "tar sands" in the Athabasca River valley to the north of [[Fort McMurray]] contain an enormous amount of oil, one of the world's richest deposits--second only to Saudi Arabia. The first plant for extracting oil from the tar sands was completed in 1967, and a second plant was completed in 1978. In 1991 the plants produced about 100 million barrels of oil. Expansion was rapid, with very high paid workers flown in from eastern Canada, especially the depressed Maritimes and Newfoundland. In 2006 bitumen production averaged 1.25 million barrels per day (200,000 m³/d) through 81 oil sands projects, representing 47% of total Canadian oil output. The processing of bitumen, however, releases large amounts of carbon dioxide, which has alarmed environmentalists worried about global warming and the Canada's carbon footprint. <ref>Timothy Le Riche, ''Alberta's Oil Patch - The People, Politics & Companies'' (2006)</ref>

In the 1960s Great Canadian Oil Sands, Ltd., a small, indigenous Canadian firm, relied on new technology and heavy capital investment to pioneer oil sand extraction in the Athabascan region. Unfavorable leasing terms from the provincial government and the strong financial risk inherent in the project forced it firm to seek an investment partner. The large American oil company [[Sunoco|Sun Oil Company]] took the risk, but as the investment burden on Sun increased, the company became compelled to assume both financial and managerial control of the operation. Thus, the native Canadian firm had to yield its autonomy as the price of pursuing a pioneering but complicated industrial project. In 1995 Sun sold its interest to Suncor Energy, based in Calgary. Suncor is second to Syncrude in the oil sands, but Syncrude is controlled by a consortium of international oil companies.<ref> Graham D. Taylor, "Sun Oil Company and Great Canadian Oil Sands Ltd.: The Financing and Management of a 'Pioneer' Enterprise, 1962-1974." ''Journal of Canadian Studies'' 1985 20(3): 102-121. 0021-9495 </ref>

====Spin-off industry====
The province's oil and natural gas furnish raw materials for large industrial complexes at Edmonton and Calgary, as well as for smaller ones at Lethbridge and Medicine Hat. These complexes include oil and gas refineries and plants that use refinery by-products to make plastics, chemicals, and fertilizer. The oil and gas industry provides a market for firms supplying pipes, drills, and other equipment. Large amounts of sulfur are extracted from natural gas in plants near the gas fields. Helium is extracted from the gas in a plant near Edson, west of Edmonton.

==Social Credit==
'''Social Credit''' (often called ''Socred'') was a populist political movement strongest in Alberta and neighboring [[British Columbia]], 1930s-1970s. [[Social Credit]] was based on the economic theories of an Englishman, [[C. H. Douglas]]. His theories became very popular across the nation in the early 1930s. A central proposal was the free distribution of prosperity certificates (or social credit), called "funny money" by the opposition.<ref>Bob Hesketh, ''Major Douglas and Alberta Social Credit.'' (1997)</ref>

During the [[Great Depression]] in Canada the demand for radical action peaked around 1934, after the worst period was over and the economy was recovering. Mortgage debt was significant because farmers could not meet their interest payments. The insecurity of farmers, whose debts were increasing and who had no legal protection against foreclosure, was a potent factor in creating a mood of political desperation. The radical farmers party, UFA was baffled by the depression and Albertans demanded new leadership.

The prairie farmers had always believed that they were being exploited by Toronto and Montreal. What they lacked was a prophet who would lead them to the promised land. The Social Credit movement began in Alberta in 1932; it became a political movement in 1935 and suddenly burned like a prairie fire. The prophet and new premier was radio evangelist [[William Aberhart]] (1878-1943). The message was biblical prophecy. Aberhart was a fundamentalist, preaching the revealed word of God and quoting the Bible to find a solution for the evils of the modern, materialistic world: the evils of sophisticated academics and their biblical criticism, the cold formality of middle-class congregations, the vices of dancing and movies and drink. "Bible Bill" preached that the capitalist economy was rotten because of its immorality; specifically it produced goods and services but did not provide people with sufficient purchasing power to enjoy them. This could be remedied by the giving out money in the form of "social credit", or $25 a month for every man and woman. This pump priming was guaranteed to restore prosperity, he prophesied to the 1600 Social Credit clubs he formed in the province.

Alberta's businessmen, professionals, newspaper editors and the traditional middle-class leaders protested vehemently at Aberhart's crack-pot ideas, but they had not solved any problems and spoke not of the promised land ahead. Aberhart's new party in 1935 elected 56 members to the Assembly, compared to 7 for all the other parties.<ref> The economic theorist for Aberhart was Major Douglas, an English engineer with an unbounded confidence in technology. * H. Blair Neatby, ''The Politics of Chaos: Canada in the Thirties'' (1972) pp 143-61; John A. Irving, ''The Social Credit Movement in Alberta'' (1959)</ref>

Alberta's Social Credit Party remained in power for 36 years until 1971. It were re-elected by popular vote no less than 9 times, achieving success by moving from left to the right.<ref>Thomas Flanagan and Martha F. Lee, "From Social Credit to Social Conservatism: The Evolution of an Ideology," ''Prairie Forum'' 16 (1991): 205-223; C. B. Macpherson, ''Democracy in Alberta: Social Credit and the Party System.'' 2d ed. 1962. </ref>

===Social Credit in office===
Once in office Aberhart gave a high priority to balancing the provincial budget. He reduced expenditures and increased the sales tax and the income tax. The poor and unemployed got nothing.<ref>Alvin Finkel, "Social Credit and the Unemployed." ''Alberta History'' 1983 31(2): 24-32.</ref> The $25 monthly social dividend never arrived, as Aberhart decided nothing could be done until the province's financial system was changed, and 1936 Alberta defaulted on its bonds. He did pass a Debt Adjustment Act that canceled all the interest on mortgages since 1932 and limited all interest rates on mortgages to 5%, in line with similar laws passed by other provinces. In 1937 backbenchers passed a radical banking law that was disallowed by the national government (banking was a federal responsibility). Efforts to control the press were also disallowed. The party was authoritarian and tried to exert detailed control over its officeholders; those who rebelled were purged or removed from office by the new device of recall elections. Although Aberhart was hostile to banks and newspapers, he was basically in favor of capitalism and did not support socialist policies as did the [[Cooperative Commonwealth Federation]] (CCF) in Saskatchewan.<ref> In Alberta the CCF and Social Credit were bitter enemies, which made it impossible for them to merge in Saskatchewan. See S. M. Lipset, ''Agrarian Socialism: The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Saskatchewan a Study in Political Sociology.'' (1950, 1971 ed.) p. 143-4.</ref>

By 1938 the Social Credit government abandoned its notions about the $25 payouts, but its inability to break with UFA policies led to disillusionment and heavy defections from the party. Aberhart's government was re-elected in the [[Alberta general election, 1940|1940 election]], carrying 43% of the vote. The prosperity of the Second World War relieved the economic fears and hatreds that had fueled farmer unrest. Aberhart died in 1943, and was succeeded as Premier by his student at the Prophetic Bible Institute and lifelong close disciple, [[Ernest C. Manning]] (1908-1996).

The Social Credit party, now firmly on the right, governed Alberta until 1968 under Manning.

By the late 1960s Social Credit activists were redeploying into the conservative, fundamentalist [[Reform Party]] by [[Preston Manning]], son of Ernest Manning.<ref> Murray Dobbin, ''Preston Manning and the Reform Party'' (1991)</ref>

The anti-semitic rhetoric of some Social Credit activists greatly troubled Canada's Jewish community; in the late 1940s Premier Manning belatedly purged the anti-Semites.<ref> Major C.H. Douglas, was blatantly anti-Semitic and enamored with the fake ''Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.'' Aberhart and Manning vigorously denied they were anti-Semitic. See Janine Stingel, ''Social Discredit: Anti-Semitism, Social Credit, and the Jewish Response.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 2000. </ref>

==Second World War==
Alberta's contribution to the Canadian war effort from 1939 to 1945 was substantial. Thousands volunteered for service and many were killed in combat in Europe.

In 1942 many Japanese from British Columbia were forcibly sent to internment camps in southern Alberta, which already had Japanese communities at Raymond and Hardieville. At first limited to working in sugar beet fields, the newly arrived Japanese had severe housing, school, and water problems. In the following years some of the Japanese were permitted to work in canning factories, sawmills, and other businesses. There was constant controversy in the press about the role and freedom of the local Japanese. Farm production increased markedly, and after the war few of the Japanese took advantage of the repatriation plan to go to Japan. The Japanese in Alberta today are well assimilated, but little of Japanese heritage remains.<ref> David B. Iwaasa, "The Japanese in Southern Alberta, 1941-45." ''Alberta History'' 1976 24(3): 5-19.</ref>

==Postwar==
After the war the Manning government passed several pieces of restrictive legislation that limited labor's ability to organize workers and to call strikes. The enforcement of labor law also reflected an anti-union bias. Social Crediters, who had a penchant for conspiracy theories, believed union militancy was the product of an international Communist conspiracy. Their labor legislation sought to foil the conspiracy's plans in Alberta and incidentally to reassure potential investors, particularly in the oil industry, of a good climate for profit taking. The path for such legislation was made smoother by the conservatism of one wing of the labor movement in the province and the fear of being tarnished with the Communist brush by the other wing.<ref> Alvin Finkel, "The Cold War, Alberta Labour, and the Social Credit Regime." ''Labour'' [1988 (21): 123-152. 0700-3862 </ref>
===Conservatives and reform===
In 1971, [[Peter Lougheed]]'s Conservatives put an end to the long rule of the Social Credit Party as the [[Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta|Progressive Conservative Party]] came to power. They remain in power to this day, coming up on 38 years of majority governments.

Many experts maintain that the large-scale social change that occurred in the province as a result of the postwar oil boom was responsible for this important change of government. Urbanization, in particular the expansion of the urban middle classes, secularization, and increasing wealth are often cited as the primary causes of Social Credit's downfall. Bell (1993) challenges this popular interpretation, arguing instead that short-term factors such as leadership, contemporaneous issues, and campaign organization better explain the Conservative triumph.<ref> Edward Bell, "The Rise of the Lougheed Conservatives and the Demise of Social Credit In Alberta: A Reconsideration." ''Canadian Journal of Political Science'' 1993 26(3): 455-475. 0008-4239 </ref>

The election in May 1986 of a 22-member opposition to Alberta's legislature signals for the first time since 1971 a significant competitive voice to the dominant Conservative Party in that province's voting citizenship. This development and the emergence of the New Democrats as the primary opposition party in Alberta necessitates a reevaluation of Alberta politics, which critics have long labeled as ideologically conservative, anachronistic, and oddly unpredictable. Alberta politics are now beginning to resemble that of Canada's other provinces. The rise of a new, competent opposition is a healthy development in Alberta's politics and will likely contribute positively to Alberta's economic and social well-being, Tupper (1986) argues.<ref> Allan Tupper, "New Dimensions of Alberta Politics." ''Queen's Quarterly'' 1986 93(4): 780-791. </ref>

==Bibliography==
===Surveys and reference===
* Heritage Community Foundation. ''Alberta Online Encyclopedia,'' [http://www.albertasource.ca/aoe/ui/index.aspx online 2009], a short encyclopedia
* ''The Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008) a very good starting point [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1 online edition]
* ''The Dictionary of Canadian Biography'' (1966-2006), scholarly biographies of every important person who died by 1930 [http://www.biographi.ca/index-e.html online edition]
* Cashman, Tony. ''A Picture History of Alberta''. Edmonton, Alta.: Hurtig, (1979) . 215 pp.
* Friesen, Gerald. ''The Canadian Prairies: A History'' (2nd ed. 1987)
* MacGregor, James A. ''A History of Alberta.'' Edmonton, Alta.: Hurtig, 1972. 335 pp.
* Owram, Douglas R., ed. ''The Formation of Alberta: A Documentary History''. Calgary: Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1979. 403 pp. primary sources
* Palmer, Howard. ''Alberta: A New History'' (1999), standard survey by leading historian
* Pitsula, James M. "Disparate Duo" ''Beaver'' 2005 85(4): 14-24, a comparison with Saskatchewan, Fulltext in EBSCO
* Wardhaugh, Robert A., ed. ''Toward Defining the Prairies: Region, Culture, and History.'' (2001). 234 pp.

===Economics, business, labour===
* Ascah, Robert L. ''Politics and Public Debt: The Dominion, the Banks, and Alberta's Social Credit.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1999. 360 pp.
* Bercuson, David Jay, ed. ''Alberta's Coal Industry, 1919.'' Calgary: Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1978. 264 pp. 1919 primary source
* Breen, David H. ''Alberta's Petroleum Industry and the Conservation Board.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1993. 800 pp.
* Breen, David H. and Macleod, R. C., eds. ''William Stewart Herron: Father of the Petroleum Industry in Alberta.'' Calgary: Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1984. 459 pp. primary sources
* Bright, David. ''The Limits of Labour: Class Formation and the Labour Movement in Calgary, 1883-1929.'' U. of British Columbia Press, 1998. 286 pp.
* Burrill, Gary. ''Away. Maritimers in Massachusetts, Ontario and Alberta: An Oral History of Leaving Home.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1992. 272 pp. a primary source; interviews with oil workers
* Chatko, Paul. ''Developing Alberta's Oil Sands: From Karl Clark to Kyoto'' (2005) [http://www.h-net.org/~energy/roundtables/Chastko.html author's dicsussion]
* Ferguson, Barry Glen. ''Athabasca Oil Sands: Northern Resource Exploration, 1875-1951.'' Regina, Saskatchewan: Can. Plains Res. Center, 1986. 283 pp.
* Hart, E. J. ''The Selling of Canada: The CPR and the Beginnings of Canadian Tourism.'' Banff: Altitude, 1983. 180 pp.
* House, John D. ''The Last of the Free Enterprisers: The Oilmen of Calgary.'' Toronto: Macmillan, 1980. 230 pp.
* Johnston, Alex; Gladwyn, Keith G.; and Ellis, L. Gregory. ''Lethbridge: Its Coal Industry.'' Lethbridge Hist. Soc. (1989) 148 pp.
* Kennedy, Margaret A. ''The Whiskey Trade of the Northwestern Plains: A Multidisciplinary Study.'' New York: Lang, 1997. 181 pp.
* Klassen, Henry C. ''A Business History of Alberta.'' U. of Calgary Press, 1999. 362 pp.
* Parker, James M. ''Emporium of the North: Fort Chipewyan and the Fur Trade to 1835.'' Regina, Sask.: Can. Plains Res. Cen., 1987. 208 pp.
* Richards, John and Larry Pratt. ''Prairie Capitalism: Power and Influence in the New West.'' Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979. 340 pp. influential Marxist interpretation
* Schneider, Ena. ''Ribbons of Steel: The Story of the Northern Alberta Railways.'' Calgary: Detselig, (1991) 312 pp.
* Wetherell, Donald G. and Kmet, Irene. ''Useful Pleasures: The Shaping of Leisure in Alberta, 1896-1945.'' U. of Regina Press, 1990. 430 pp.

===First Nations, Metis===
* Drees, Laurie Meijer. ''The Indian Association of Alberta: A History of Political Action. U. of British Columbia Press, 2002. 246 pp.
* McClintock, Walter. ''The Old North Trail: Life, Legends, and Religion of the Blackfeet Indians.'' (1910). 539 pp.
* Pocklington, T. C. ''The Government and Politics of the Alberta Métis Settlements.'' Regina: Can. Plains Res. Cen., 1991. 162 pp.
* Price, Richard, ed. ''The Spirit of the Alberta Indian Treaties.'' Toronto: Butterworth, 1979. 202 pp.
* Samek, Hana. ''The Blackfoot Confederacy, 1880-1920: A Comparative Study of Canadian and U. S. Indian Policy.'' U. of New Mexico Press, 1987. 236 pp.
* Ward, Donald. ''The People: A Historical Guide to the First Nations of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.'' Saskatoon: Fifth House, 1995. 115 pp.

===High culture===
* Ainslie, Patricia Ainslie, and Mary-Beth Laviolette. ''Alberta Art and Artists: An Overview‎'' (2007) 147 pages
* Calder, Alison and Wardhaugh, Robert, ed. ''History, Literature, and the Writing of the Canadian Prairies.'' U. of Manitoba Press, 2005. 310 pp.
* Keahey, Deborah. ''Making It Home: Place in Canadian Prairie Literature.'' (1998). 178 pp.
* Johns, Walter H. ''A History of the University of Alberta, 1908- 1969''. Edmonton: U. of Alberta Press, 1981. 544 pp.
* Melnyk, George. ''The Literary History of Alberta, Vol. 1: From Writing-on-Stone to World War Two.'' Edmonton: U. of Alberta Press, 1998. 240 pp.
** Melnyk, George. ''The Literary History of Alberta. Vol. 2: From the End of the War to the End of the Century.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1999. 302 pp.

===Politics and government===
* Aberhart, William. ''Aberhart: Outpourings and Replies.'' ed. by David R. Elliott, Calgary: Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1991. 296 pp. a primary source
* Barr, John J. ''The Dynasty: The Rise and Fall of Social Credit in Alberta.'' Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. 248 pp.
* Bell, Edward. ''Social Classes and Social Credit in Alberta.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1993. 196 pp.
* Boudreau, Joseph A., ed. ''Alberta, Aberhart and Social Credit. Canadian History Through the Press.'' Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, 1975. 122 pp. newspaper reports; primary source
* Bruce, Christopher J.; Kneebone, Ronald D.; and McKenzie, Kenneth J., eds. ''A Government Reinvented: A Study of Alberta's Deficit Elimination Program.'' Oxford U. Press, 1997. 518 pp.
* Caldarola, Carlo, ed. ''Society and Politics in Alberta: Research Papers.'' Toronto: Methuen, 1979. 392 pp.
* Elliott, David R. and Iris Miller. ''Bible Bill: A Biography of William Aberhart.'' Edmonton: Reidmore Books, 1987. 373 pp.
* Finkel, Alvin. ''The Social Credit Phenomenon in Alberta.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1989.
* Gray, James H. ''R. B. Bennett: The Calgary Years.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1991. 310 pp.
* Hesketh, Bob. ''Major Douglas and Alberta Social Credit.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1997. 315 pp.
* Hewitt, Steve. ''Riding to the Rescue: The Transformation of the RCMP in Alberta and Saskatchewan, 1914-1939.'' (2006). 205 pp. excerpt and text search
* Johnson, William. ''Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada'' (2006)
* Mardon, Ernest, and Austin Mardon. ''Alberta Election Results 1882–1992.'' Edmonton: Documentary Heritage Society of Alberta (1993).
* Rennie, Bradford J. ed. ''Alberta Premiers of the Twentieth Century.'' Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina. (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Alberta-Premiers-Twentieth-Century-Scholorship/dp/0889771510/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233991307&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Rennie, Bradford James. ''The Rise of Agrarian Democracy: The United Farmers and Farm Women of Alberta, 1909-1921''. U of Toronto Press, 2000. 282 pp.
* Thomas, Lewis H., ed. ''William Aberhart and Social Credit in Alberta.'' Toronto: Copp Clark, 1977. 175 pp. readings
* Thomas, Lewis Gwynne. ''The Liberal Party in Alberta.'' University of Toronto Press: (1959).
* Tupper, Allan and Gibbins, Roger, eds. ''Government and Politics in Alberta.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1992. 335 pp. textbook

===Regional, urban===
* Belliveau, Anne. ''The Story of Alberta's Big West Country: Upper North Saskatchewan River Corridor, Shunda Basin, Brazeau Collieries and Nordegg.'' Calgary: Detselig, 1999. 240 pp.
* Foran, Max and Jameson, Sheilagh S., eds. ''Citymakers: Calgarians after the Frontier.'' Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1987. 386pp.
* Foran, Max and Foran, Heather MacEwan. ''Calgary: Canada's Frontier Metropolis. An Illustrated History.'' Windsor, Ont.: Windsor, 1982. 367 pp.
* Foran, Max. ''Calgary: An Illustrated History/Calgary: Histoire Illustrée.'' Toronto: Lorimer; Ottawa: Natl. Mus. of Man, 1978. 192 pp.
* Hesketh, Bob and Swyripa, Frances, eds. ''Edmonton: The Life of a City.'' Edmonton: NeWest, 1995. 366 pp.
* Johnston, Alex and denOtter, Andy A. ''Lethbridge: A Centennial History.'' Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1985. 240 pp.
* MacDonald, Graham A. ''Where the Mountains Meet the Prairies: A History of Waterton Country.'' (Parks and Heritage Series, No. 3.) U. of Calgary Press, 2000. 210 pp.
* Melnyk, Bryan P. ''Calgary Builds: The Emergence of an Urban Landscape, 1905-1914.'' Calgary: Alberta Culture, Can. Plains Res. Center, 1985. 214 pp.
* Rasporich, Anthony W. and Klassen, Henry C. ''Frontier Calgary: Town, City, and Region, 1875-1914.'' U. of Calgary and McClelland and Stewart West. 306 pp.
* Reasons, Chuck, ed. ''Stampede City: Power and Politics in the West.'' Toronto: Between the Lines, 1984. 216 pp. impact of oil on Calgary
* Smith, Donald B., ed. ''Centennial City: Calgary, 1894-1994.'' U. of Calgary Press, (1993) 88 pp.
* Wetherell, Donald G. and Kmet, Irene R. A. ''Alberta's North: A History, 1890-1950'' U. of Alberta Press, 2000. 520 pp.
* Wetherell, Donald G. and Kmet, Irene R. A. ''Town Life: Main Street and the Evolution of Small Town Alberta, 1880-1947.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1995. 368 pp.

===Settlement, rural, pioneers===
* Baker, William M., ed. Pioneer Policing in Southern Alberta: Deane of the Mounties, 1888-1914. Calgary: Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1993.
* Bennett, John W. and Seena B. Kohl. ''Settling the Canadian-American West, 1890-1915: Pioneer Adaptation and Community Building. An Anthropological History.'' U. of Nebraska Press, 1995. 311 pp.
* Bowen, Lynne. ''Muddling Through: The Remarkable Story of the Barr Colonists.'' Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1992. 234 pp.
* Brado, Edward. ''Cattle Kingdom: Early Ranching in Alberta.'' Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1984. 298 pp.
* Brunvand, Jan Harold. ''Norwegian Settlers in Alberta.'' National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Canadian Centre for Folk Cultural Studies, Paper no. 8. Ottawa: Natl. Mus. of Man, 1974. 71 pp.
* Danysk, Cecilia. ''Hired Hands: Labour and the Development of Prairie Agriculture, 1880-1930.'' (1995). 231 pp.
* Hurt, Leslie J. ''The Victoria Settlement, 1862-1922.'' Occasional Paper, no. 7. Edmonton: Alberta Culture, Hist. Resources Division, 1979. 242 pp.
* Jaques, Carrol. ''Unifarm: A Story of Conflict and Change''. U. of Calgary Press, 2001. 342 pp.
* Jones, David C. ''Empire of Dust: Settling and Abandoning the Prairie Dry Belt.'' U. of Nebraska Press, 1987. 330 pp.
* Jones, David C., ed. ''"We'll All Be Buried Down Here": The Prairie Dryland Disaster, 1917-1926.'' Calgary: Alberta Records Publ. Board; Hist. Soc. of Alberta, 1986. 200 pp. collects primary sources
* Leonard, David W. ''Delayed Frontier: The Peace River Country to 1909.'' Calgary, Alta.: Detselig, 1995. 256 pp.
* Palmer, Howard. ''The Settlement of the West'' (1977) online edition
* Rennie, Bradford James. ''The Rise of Agrarian Democracy: The United Farmers and Farm Women of Alberta, 1909-1921''. U of Toronto Press, 2000. 282 pp.
* Gross, Renie. ''Groundwork: Carl Anderson, Farm Crusader.'' Wardlow, Alta.: Badlands Books, 1998. 352 pp.
* Jackson, Mary Percy. ''Suitable for the Wilds: Letters from Northern Alberta, 1929-1931.'' ed. by Janice Dickin McGinnis, Toronto: U. of Toronto Press, 1995. 264 pp.; a primary source
* Sharp, Paul F. ''Whoop-up Country: The Canadian-American West, 1865-1885.'' Reprint ed., Norman: U. of Oklahoma Press, 1973. 347pp. primary source
* Silverman, Eliane Leslau. ''The Last Best West: Women on the Alberta Frontier 1880-1930.'' Montreal: Eden, 1984. 183 pp.
* Thompson, John Herd. Forging the Prairie West. (1998)
* Voisey, Paul. ''Vulcan: The Making of a Prairie Community.'' Toronto: U. of Toronto Press, 1987. 341 pp.

===Social, ethnic, religion and schools===
* Byrne, M. B. ''From the Buffalo to the Cross: A History of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary.'' Calgary Archdiocese. 555 pp.
* Cavanaugh, Catherine A. and Warne, Randi R., ed. ''Standing on New Ground: Women in Alberta.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1993. 202 pp.
* denOtter, Andy A. ''Civilizing the West: The Galts and the Development of Western Canada.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1981. 395 pp.
* Flint, David. ''The Hutterites: A Study in Prejudice.'' Oxford U. Press, 1975. 193 pp.
* Hoe, Ban Seng. ''Structural Changes of Two Chinese Communities in Alberta, Canada.'' Mercury Series, no. 19. Ottawa: Natl. Mus. of Man, Can. Centre for Folk Culture Studies, 1976. 385 pp.
* McLachlan, Elizabeth. ''With Unshakeable Persistence: Rural Teachers of the Depression Era.'' Edmonton: NeWest, 1999. 187 pp.
* Palmer, Howard and Palmer, Tamara, eds. ''Peoples of Alberta: Portraits of Cultural Diversity.'' Saskatoon, Sask.: Western Producer Prairie Books, 1985. 551 pp.
* Palmer, Howard. ''Patterns of Prejudice: A History of Nativism in Alberta.'' McClelland and Stewart, 1982. 217 pp.
* Scheffel, David. ''In the Shadow of Antichrist: The Old Believers in Alberta.'' Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 1991. 252 pp.
* Stebbins, Robert A. ''The Franco-Calgarians: French Language, Leisure, and Linguistic Life-Style in an Anglophone City.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1994. 152 pp.
* Ukrainian Pioneers' Association of Alberta. Ukrainians in Alberta. Edmonton: Ukrainian Pioneers' Assoc. of Alberta (1975) 560 pp.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

== External Links ==
* [http://www1.travelalberta.com/en-ab/index.cfm?country=CA&state=AB&setlocale=1/ Alberta Tourism]
* [http://www.tourismcalgary.com/ Tourism Calgary]
* [http://www.traveldrumheller.com/ Travel Drumheller]
* [http://www.tourismcanmore.com/ Tourism Canmore]
* [http://www.turnervalley.ca/ Discover Turner Valley]
* [http://www.town.vulcan.ab.ca/ Vulcan Tourism]

[[Category:Alberta]]
[[Category:Canadian Provinces]]

Muhammad

2011-04-17T03:17:41Z

LloydR: undo vandalism

[[File:Mohammad.jpg|right|200px]]
'''Muhammad''' (or '''Mohammed''' or (archaic) '''Mahomet'''), A.D. 570-632) was the founder of [[Islam]], one of the world's major religions.

Regarded by devout [[Muslim]]s as [[Allah]]'s final and greatest [[prophet]], Muhammad claimed Allah's [[revelation]]s, via the angel [[Gabriel]], that [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]] had grown corrupt, and that Muhammad was to restore the religion God intended.

In accordance with the Islamic [[hadith]], it is considered proper to add an honorary phrase of "sallalahu aleyhi wasallam (or SAW)," meaning "Peace Be Upon Him (or PBUH)," after speaking Muhammad's name. Many consider Muhammad to be one of the greatest and influential men to ever walk the earth, an example being the [[Christian]] author Michael Hart placing the Prophet Muhammad as number one, most influential human of all time, saying:

<blockquote>
'''''My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels. Of humble origins, Muhammad founded and promulgated one of the world's great religions, and became an immensely effective political leader.''''' <ref>http://www.amaana.org/ismailim.html</ref>
</blockquote>

== Images ==
Representations of the Prophet are well known from early on, but are not very common. While some Muslims hold beliefs that it is against Islam to make images of the Prophet, others have more relaxed attitudes, and among Shia Muslims, such pictures are common, and much liked. <ref>[http://www.hf.uib.no/religion/popularikonografi/default_eng.html Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion (AHKR), University of Bergen.]</ref>
== Life of Muhammad==
The Prophet Muhammad, was from Abrahamic decent, he was descending through his son [[Ismael]], who under God's orders, was left in the Arabian desert with only a little food and water, the spot this occurred is now called [[Mecca]], today over 3 million Muslims annually re-enact the frantic running of Ismael's mother Hager as she looked for water, in which Ismael hit the ground with his foot causing a spring of water to flow forth, still flowing today it's known of the Well of [[Zam Zam]].

Muhammad was orphaned at the age of six, his father Abdullah died before he was born, his Mother, Aminah, died soon after, leaving him with his Grandfather Abdul Muttalib, who died when he was six. He was then raised by his uncle (son of Abdul Muttalib) [[Abu Talib]], a powerful man among the Quraysh tribe who loved Muhammad more than anyone. [[Muhammad]] grew up, never to take part in pagen rituals. He despised the actions, and began a tradition of fasting, in the caves of Mecca every annual pilgrimage; the pagans at the time believed in [[Allah]], and the [[Hajj]], from the times of Ismael, however they later added more gods to the one God [[Allah]]. Lexically speaking, Allah comes from the word Ilah in [[Arabic]], with the Definite article Al placed in front, making it "Al-Llah", translating as "The One God". This is why [[Islam]] was tolerated from the start, by most because Muhammad never introduced a new God, he spoke of the God of Abraham, Jesus and Moses.

Muhammad was respected in Medina, he would frequently solve disputes, he was nicknamed Al-Amin, or The truthful one, and was well loved by all. He was never known to lie, cheat, or steal, all common practices by the pagans of his time. Everyone, including his enemies, like [[Abu Jahl]] had acknowledged his lineage to noble prophets such as Ismael, and Abraham, and this was never disputed among anyone.

When he was about 40 years old, Muhammad's early revelations, from the Angel [[Gabriel]] spoke of a need to return to the [[monotheism]] of [[Abraham]]; however, [[Muhammad]] upon seeing the Angel [[Gabriel]] was unsure of himself and rushed to his house terrified. He told his wife Khadija of the events, and she assured him God wouldn't let this happen to such a humble man. Khadija later went on to see her uncle, a Christian Scholar, who after reviewing his religious texts, claimed [[Muhammad]] was the next prophet, (it is important to note, these texts are not the texts of today, as the Christians of Mecca and the Arabs were not Pauline Christians or Roman Christians) this as well as the Jews in Medina, who were also expecting a new prophet; albeit a prophet from the Jewish tribe, [[Muhammad]]'s prophet-hood was an unpleasant surprise to many of them hence they rejected him. In this way, at an early age, Muhammad saw himself as reviving an ancient faith, a perceived correction to [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], and restoring his people to what he saw as their rightful position as the true founders and heirs of monotheism. In these revelations, submission to the will of God - [[Allah]] - was critical. Muhammad's fledgling religion continued to develop throughout his life, through periodic revelations often relating directly to events currently facing his new faith.

The faith caught on slowly, winning only a few converts in Mecca (the first being his wife, Khadija). In 622 A.D, under increased pressure and ostracism from elders in Mecca, Muhammad began the [[hijra]], an organized exodus of his followers from Mecca to the city of [[Medina]]. [[Muslims]] date the formation of their religion to the ''hijra'' itself, even beginning their dating system at this point.

Muhammad was first introduced to the people of [[Medina]], when frequent wars were broken out between Jewish tribes and Arab tribes, Muhammad was sent for as a mediator between the two, most Jews spoke highly of Muhammad, accepting him as the next Prophet, although some disliked that he was not of the decent of Moses or Bani Israel. When Muhammad came to Medina, most problems were resolved, and it's hailed as a success. One important battle; which shed light on Muslim-Jewish tensions, was [[The Battle of the Trench]], although there was a pact called [[The Constitution of Medina]], one that gave all religions freedom, and protective status under the Muslims, from Muslims or invaders, one Jewish tribe [[Bani Qurayza]] didn't help defend the city. However they allowed in Huyayy ibn Akhtab, a man exiled by Muhammad because of a dispute between Bani Qurayza and Bani Nadir, who encouraged Bani Qurayza to attack the Muslims, and help the invaders, so Muhammad would be defeated once and for all. However their plot was found out, and the pact was broken. This incident led to the execution of approximately 700 Jewish men<ref>Guillaume, p. 461-464</ref> from the tribe.

The execution was described as follow by Ibn Ishaq:
<blockquote>
Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off.<ref>Guillaume, p. 461-464</ref>
</blockquote>

==Marriage to Aisha==
A controversial (outside out of Islam) point of Muhammad's life was his "marriage" to [[Aisha bint Abi Bakr|Aisha]], daughter of [[Abu Bakr]], who was just six years old at the time of "engagement".<ref>''Sahih Bukhari'' 5:58:234</ref><ref>Sahih Muslim 8:3311</ref> The marriage was consummated when Aisha was nine years old and began puberty.<ref> D. A. Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 40</ref> The narratives describing her age at marriage as six are narrated by Aisha herself.

== After Muhammad's Death ==
Muhammad's death at an early age caused the splintering of his religion into new sects, over the question of succession. The groups called themselves the [[Sunnis]] and the [[Shiite|Shi'as]]. Many attribute this split to the high degree to which authority was centered in the powerful character of Muhammad himself: without his powerful personality, the movement could not survive intact.<ref>[[Bernard Lewis]], ''What Went Wrong''</ref>, however this depiction is not accurate in some lights. The [[Shi'as]] came into the picture much later than the death of Muhammad, and were first a nuisance group thought to be started by a Jew by the name of [[Abdullah ibn Saba]] who was burned at the stake by [[Abu Bakr]] for proclaiming [[Ali]] was God. Note that [[Ali]] disagreed with the punishment, because fire is a punishment only for [[Allah]].

The failure or splintering of movements, such as personality cults, built around a charismatic leader is a recurring sociological problem, often studied by psychologists, and referred to as the problem of the [[routinization of charisma]].<ref>Maximillian Weber, ''Theory of Social and Economic Organization,'' in the chapter "The Nature of Charismatic Authority and its Routinization," see also Len Oakes, "Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities"</ref>.

==See Also==
*[[Islam]]
*[[Muhammad cartoons controversy]]

== References ==

<references/>

== Notes ==

HIR | Muhammad's massacre of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayzah [http://www.hirhome.com/islam/art.htm]

[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Religious People]]
[[Category:Muslims]]

Joseph Smith

2011-04-17T03:17:12Z

LloydR: undo vandalism

[[Image:Joseph Smith.gif|thumb|right|150px|Joseph Smith, Jr.]]
''For other Joseph Smiths, see [[Joseph F. Smith]] or [[Joseph Fielding Smith]].''

'''Joseph Smith, Jr.''' (1805 - 1844) was the founder and 1st [[President]] of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]. Joseph Smith was the first [[prophet]], [[seer]] and [[revelator]] of the church. Joseph was born on December 23, 1805 in [[Sharon]], [[Vermont]].
==Visions==
[[Image:First Vision.jpg|thumb|125px|Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
After reading {{Bible ref|book=James|chap=1|verses=5|version=KJV}}, Joseph decided to ask God which church he should join. In the Spring of 1820, Joseph said he saw [[God]] and [[Jesus]] in a vision.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,959-1,00.html The First Vision] Mormon.org</ref> Joseph claimed to have been visited by an [[angel]] named [[Moroni]] from 1823 to 1827. According to Smith's account, Moroni showed Joseph where to find buried gold plates, and the plates contained the full gospel of Jesus Christ in "reformed Egyptian" (a language which few, if any non-Mormon, believes ever existed). Smith claimed to have translated these gold plates by the inspiration of God, and he published them in 1830 as the [[Book_of_Mormon|Book of Mormon]].<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1293-1,00.html Translation of the Book of Mormon] Mormon.org</ref> It was later claimed that, on May 15, 1829, the resurrected [[John the Baptist]] appeared to Joseph and [[Oliver Cowdery]] and gave them the authority to [[baptism|baptize]].<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1291-1,00.html Authority to baptize] Mormon.org</ref> In 1829 the [[apostle]]s [[Peter]], [[James the Apostle|James]], and [[John]] gave them the authority to restore Christ's Church.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1292-1,00.html Authority of Apostles] Mormon.org</ref>

Joseph Smith also worked on a revision of the [[King James Bible]], known as the [[Inspired Version]] of the Bible. It was not published until after his death.

==Wives==
Smith married [[Emma Hale]] (daughter of Isaac Hale) in 1827 against her father's wishes. A judge in South Bainbridge, [[New York]] married them. This angered her father. He said to Smith “You have stolen my daughter and married her. I had much rather have followed her to the grave.” <ref>MORMON ENIGMA: EMMA HALE SMITH (Newell & Avery, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 1994)</ref>

Later, in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith tried to establish [[polygamy]]. Between 1841 and 1843, Joseph married more than thirty wives although he kept the practice hidden from the public and from Emma. In order to cause Emma to accept his additional wives, Joseph claimed to receive a revelation regarding this “new and everlasting covenant” of plural marriage, partly directed at Emma - [[Doctrine and Covenants]] 132:

D&C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord...

D&C 132:4 ...no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

D&C 132:52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those [wives] that have been given unto my servant Joseph...

D&C 132:55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then...I will...give unto him an hundred fold in this world, of...wives...”

D&C 132:62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him...he cannot commit adultery...

D&C 132:64 ...if any man have a wife...and he teaches unto her [this] law...then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed...

Despite the document's stipulation that the multiple wives be "virgins", Smith unabashedly married eleven women who had current marriages to other men (who were still alive at the time of each woman's marriage to Smith).

Smith's wives (and their husbands) were: Emma Hale, Fanny Alger (16 years old), Lucinda Morgan Harris (married to George W Harris), Louisa Beaman, Zina Huntington Jacobs (married to Henry Jacobs), Presendia Huntington Buell (married to Norman Buell), Agnes Coolbrith, Sylvia Sessions Lyon (married to Windsor Lyon), Mary Rollins Lightner (married to Adam Lightner), Patty Bartlett Sessions (married to David Sessions), Marinda Johnson Hyde (married to Orson Hyde), Elizabeth Davis Durfee (married to Jabez Durfee), Sarah Kingsley Cleveland (married to John Cleveland), Delcena Johnson, Eliza R. Snow, Sarah Ann Whitney (17 years old), Martha McBride Knight, Ruth Vose Sayers (married to Edward Sayers), Flora Ann Woodworth, Emily Dow Partridge, Eliza Maria Partridge, Almera Johnson, Lucy Walker (17 years old), Sarah Lawrence (17 years old), Maria Lawrence, Helen Mar Kimball (14 years old), Hanna Ells, Elvira Cowles Holmes (married to Jonathan Holmes), Rhoda Richards, Desdemona Fullmer, Olive Frost, Melissa Lott, Nancy Winchester (14 years old) and Fanny Young.<ref>[http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp Family Search] Familysearch.org</ref><ref>[http://http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/ Wives of Joseph Smith] WivesofJosephSmith.org</ref>

Although there is some historic indication that Smith married more women than those listed here (such as Clarissa Reed Hancock, the mother of John Reed Hancock), the evidence is not conclusive.

==Imprisonment and Death==
Smith had been imprisoned in [[Carthage]], [[Illinois]] for destroying the printing press of the Nauvoo Expositor. The Expositor had denounced (in its only printed edition) "false doctrines" (for instance the "doctrines of many gods") and Smith had had the printing press burned in the street. In retaliation, an angry mob broke into the prison on June 27, 1844. In an attempt to defend himself (with a pistol which had been smuggled in to him), Smith shot and wounded three men. He was preparing to jump from the unbarred second floor window where he had been incarcerated, but was shot, causing him to fall injured to the ground below. Four men shot him to death on the ground. None was convicted. His brother [[Hyrum]] (who was also armed with a pistol) was shot in the face and killed during the same gun-battle. <ref>[http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith/menuitem.da0e1d4eb6d2d87f9c0a33b5f1e543a0/?vgnextoid=ad10001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&locale=0 Martyr for God] JosephSmith.net</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith JosephSmith.net] - The official web site on Joseph Smith by the LDS Church.
*[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,957-1,00.html "Who was Joseph Smith?"] - At Mormon.org

{{DEFAULTSORT:Smith, Joseph}}
[[Category:Religious People]]
[[Category:LDS Church]]
[[Category:Mormon Prophets]]