National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA)

Palin: Thank You, Tim Tebow

NFRA Staff — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:19:48 +0000

Thank You, Tim Tebow

by Sarah Palin

Women's Rights groups, like NOW, commendably call out advertisers and networks for airing sexist and demeaning portrayals of women that lead to young women's diminished self-esteem and acceptance of roles as mere sexed-up objects.

What a ridiculous situation they're getting themselves into now with their protest of CBS airing a pro-life ad during the upcoming Super Bowl game.

The ad will feature Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mom, and they'll speak to the sanctity of life and the beautiful potential within every innocent child as Mrs. Tebow acknowledges her choice to give Tim life, despite less than ideal circumstances.

Messages like this empower women! This speaks to the strength and commitment and nurturing spirit within women. The message says everything positive and nothing negative about the power of women - and life. Evidently, some women's rights groups like NOW do not like that message.

NOW is looking at the pro-life issue backwards. Women should be reminded that they are strong enough and smart enough to make decisions that allow for career and educational opportunities while still giving their babies a chance at life.

In my own home, my daughter Bristol has also been challenged by pro-abortion "women's rights" groups who don't agree with her decision to have her baby, nor do they like the abstinence message which she articulated as her personal commitment.

NOW could gain ground and credibility with everyday Americans, thus allowing their pro-women message to be heard by more than just their ardent supporters, if they made wiser decisions regarding which battles to pick. They should call attention to and embrace the Tebows' message, instead of covertly and overtly disrespecting what Mrs. Tebow, Bristol, and millions of other women have chosen to do (in less than ideal circumstances).

My message to these groups who are inexplicably offended by a pro-woman, pro-child, pro-life message airing during the Super Bowl:

Please concentrate on empowering women, help with efforts to prevent unexpected pregnancies, stay consistent with your message that for too long women have been made to feel like sex objects in our "modern" culture and that we can expect better in 2010.

But don't let your double standard glare so vividly as to undo some of the good to which you could contribute.

And CBS: just do the right thing. Don't cave. Have the backbone to run the ad.

To the Tebows: thank you. America is listening. We appreciate you.

Sarah Palin

[TTP Note: CBS News legal analyst Jan Crawford has publicly condemned the "hypocrisy" of the NOW protest against the Tebow ad, and NOW's "stunning" attempt to "silence discussion of society's most contentious issue."]

Editor's Note: We have reprinted Sarah Palin's "Thank You, Tim Tebow" from To The Point News here in its entirety. We encourage you to visit the original.

THANK YOU, TIM TEBOW

Written by Sarah Palin

Thursday, 28 January 2010

What a ridiculous situation they're getting themselves into now with their protest of CBS airing a pro-life ad during the upcoming Super Bowl game.

My message to these groups who are inexplicably offended by a pro-woman, pro-child, pro-life message airing during the Super Bowl:

But don't let your double standard glare so vividly as to undo some of the good to which you could contribute.

And CBS: just do the right thing. Don't cave. Have the backbone to run the ad.

To the Tebows: thank you. America is listening. We appreciate you.

Sarah Palin

Technorati Tags: NOW, pro-life, Sarah Palin, Tim Tebow

Memo to Steele: GOP Will Win

NFRA Staff — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:54:08 +0000

Memo to Steele: GOP Will Win

By Dick Morris

Pessimism is no more attractive in a party leader than it is in a high school cheerleader. And in the case of Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele, it is unwarranted as well. Despite his prediction, on Fox News, that GOP congressional control will not come “this year,” the Republican Party has a very, very good chance of taking both houses of Congress in 2010.

We are in the midst of a political tsunami. To judge that the water will only ascend a hundred feet or two hundred or three hundred is entirely speculative. Generally, once these things start, they go further than anyone would have thought likely. Only rarely do they fall short.

President Barack Obama’s determination to march ahead with his full socialist agenda, including the imposition of a healthcare system a majority doesn’t want, can only strengthen the winds and the tide that is approaching. The 60-vote Democratic Senate majority is empowering such arrogance and disdain for the democratic process that it is easy to see how it will trigger an equal and opposite reaction in the 2010 elections.

The tsunami of 2010 is qualitatively different from the other slaughters of incumbents that took place in 1994 or 1974 or 1964. In those years, one party overstepped its bounds and the other exploited its rival’s vulnerability. They were classic instances of the voters correcting for the excessive liberalism, conservatism or dishonesty of the incumbent regime.

But 2010 is different. It is not only that Obama is too liberal or that the Democrats have given us unemployment that won’t end, a deficit that won’t shrink, a newfound vulnerability to terrorism after seven safe years and a healthcare system a majority abhors.

2010 will be a unique year because voters have seen the myth of the moderate Democrat exposed. There is no longer any such animal. No moderate or conservative voter can rest on the assumption that his congressman or senator will stand firm for his values in the face of party pressure. The sweep of 2010 will be due as much to this intellectual insight as to any other cause, and this will make it even more powerful.

In the House, party switches have already won the Republicans one seat and more are likely to follow. Among open seats, Republicans will probably lose two and the Democrats six, reducing their margin to 35.

Then there are 28 Democrats who might lose who come from districts won by McCain. Seventeen are very vulnerable and 11 others somewhat less so.

But even these 11 longtime incumbents may find that their constituents cannot be bought by earmarks nor deluded into voting for what they are told is a “conservative” Democrat.

Eight Democrats — six of them freshmen — come from districts McCain narrowly lost and they narrowly won. And 11 others — three of them freshmen — are only slightly less vulnerable.

Republicans need to defeat 35 of these 47 Democrats to take control. Not a task that is at all beyond reach.

In the Senate, the Republicans will easily hold all their open seats except for Ohio, Missouri and New Hampshire. Since Missouri went for McCain, count it likely to send Rep. Roy Blunt to the Senate. Since Ohio is the quintessential swing state, it is hard to see how it does not go Republican as well. In New Hampshire, Kelly Ayotte, the Republican, looks to be ahead, although the state is too Democratic to regard her as safe.

Democrats look to lose at least five seats: in Delaware, Arkansas, Nevada, North Dakota and Colorado. But in a tsunami, Republicans would likely pick up Illinois and Pennsylvania (with or without an Arlen Specter retirement or a loss in the primary), too. Four to go.

Despite Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s appeal and his state’s liberalism, the Chris Dodd seat cannot be considered safe in this kind of year. Nor can California’s Barbara Boxer take victory over Carly Fiorina for granted.

For the remaining two seats, the Republicans need strong candidates in Indiana, Washington state, Oregon, Wisconsin and against Kirsten Gillibrand in New York.

A strong candidate can be born or made. Even a relatively weak newcomer can gather strength from the kind of tsunami working its way toward Washington. The irresistible numbers of a GOP landslide make all of these seats winnable.

Editor's Note: We have reprinted Dick Morris' "Memo to Steele: GOP Will Win" from The Hill in full here. We encourage you to visit the original.

Technorati Tags: 2010 Elections, GOP, Michael Steele, RNC

Unions Make Obama An Offer He Can’t Refuse

NFRA Staff — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:42:16 +0000

Unions Make Obama An Offer He Can’t Refuse

by Kyle Olson

It’s amusing to watch President Obama try to stick it to his friends in organized labor by proposing a tax on union-negotiated health care benefits.

If it weren’t for the fact that the tax proposal would have a devastating effect on the American economy, the situation would be downright hilarious.

Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO President

On Monday, a group of top leaders from the American labor movement gathered at the White House to share their concerns with the president.

The irony of the discussion was delicious. During the campaign, Obama and the Democratic Party (including the unions) attacked John McCain for suggesting that health care benefits should be taxed as income.

Strangely, that’s what Obama is now proposing (above a certain level) and union bosses aren’t happy because it would impact the lush benefits they’ve successfully secured through bare-knuckle negotiations.

Interestingly, Rich Trumka, former coal miner and now president of the AFL-CIO, suggested that the president could be unwittingly arranging a replay of the 1994 mid-term election, when labor voters stayed home in droves and the Democrats lost control of Congress. From the Associated Press:

“A bad bill could have that kind of effect, where people sit at home,” Trumka told reporters. “Politicians who think that working people have it too good – too much health care, too much Social Security and Medicare, too much power on the job – are inviting a repeat of 1994. Our country cannot afford such a repeat.”

Harold A. Shaitberger, president of the firefighters’ union, made “similarly threatening remarks,” in the words of the AP.

“The president’s support for the excise tax is a huge disappointment and cannot be ignored,” Shaitberger said. “If President Obama continues to support it and signs a bill that include the excise tax on workers, we will hold him accountable.”

The Wall Street Journal listed the attendees of the White House meeting:

• AFL-CIO’s Trumka

• Anna Burger of Change to Win [and SEIU vice president]

• Dennis Van Roekel of the National Education Association

• Leo Gerard of United Steelworkers

• Joe Hansen of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

• Ed Hill of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

• Jim Hoffa of the Teamsters

• Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers

• Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union

• Terry O’Sullivan of the Laborers’ International Union of North America

• Gerry McEntee of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

• Larry Cohen of the Communications Workers of America

The people on that list wield a great deal of political power, and Obama is clearly angering them at his own peril.

It’s shocking, but not unprecedented, for organized labor to threaten to withhold political support from a sitting Democratic president. But its temper tantrum will likely produce the desired result - dropping the tax proposal.

If not, the unions may just poke a few more holes in the already sinking Democratic ship. At least Trumka, Stern, Weingarten and Van Roekel can enjoy their martinis and fine cigars during the slow, painful ride to the bottom.

Editor's Note: We have reprinted Kyle Olson's "Unions Make Obama An Offer He Can't Refuse" from Breitbart's BigGovernment in full here. We encourage you to visit the original.

No Related Posts

NFRA Bylaws as Amended by 7th Biennial Convention

NFRA Staff — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:23:03 +0000

The NFRA National Convention, which was held in Reno, Nevada, approved amendments to the NFRA bylaws. The amended bylaws, which took effect October 24, 2009, at the close of the 7th Biennial Convention, are posted on the NFRA website here: http://www.RepublicanAssemblies.org/about/bylaws/.

The bylaws are available in two formats: one easily readable in 30 pages and one condensed for printing which is 16 pages.

Questions or comments? Click here.

Technorati Tags: Bylaws, NFRA, NFRA National Convention

Dallas County Republican Assembly Endorses Local Candidates

NFRA Staff — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:34:31 +0000

Dallas County Republican Assembly Endorses Local Candidates

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, Jan 6, 2010

CONTACT: Michael Gallops, President, mgallops@texasra.org

Dallas, TX – Dallas County Republican Assembly president, Michael Gallops, today announced the organization’s full endorsement of candidates in several local contested Republican primary races.

Gallops declared, “It is with great pleasure that I announce our endorsement of the following candidates. We believe these candidates best represent our beliefs, principles and values and will do everything we can to ensure they win their primary races.”

The candidates were selected by secret ballot of the membership at the Assembly’s monthly meeting on Mon, Jan 4. Assembly bylaws require a 2/3 majority to earn an endorsement.

Candidates being endorsed by the Dallas County Republican Assembly are:

• Dallas County District Clerk – Cliff Boyd

• Texas House District 101 – Cindy Burkett

• Texas House District 102 – Stefani Carter

• Texas Senate District 2 – Bob Deuell

• US Congress District 30 – Charles Lingerfelt

On hearing of the endorsement Cindy Burkett, candidate for Texas House District 101, said "As a long-time grassroots activist, I am humbled to receive the endorsement of the Dallas County Republican Assembly. It is my goal to live up to the high principles embraced by this organization."

Candidate for US House District 30, Charles Lingerfelt, added, "I am deeply honored to have received the endorsement from the Dallas County Republican Assembly. After having served on the Board of Directors of the DCRA for a number of years, it is now with appreciation that I am so endorsed by them.”

Stefani Carter, running for Texas House District 102, said, "Everyday citizens are rising up and taking a stand against the Obama health care takeover and they want representatives in DC and Austin who will stand by their side. Gaining the endorsement of the Dallas County Republican Assembly proves that grassroots voters believe I will be the strongest advocate for free market solutions to the challenges facing our State."

"When the federal government fails to protect our borders, Texas must do what Texans have always done---take the lead and get things done for ourselves. Grassroots organizations, like the Dallas County Republican Assembly, exemplify the Texas spirit of advocating from the bottom up. I am honored to have its endorsement and support as we fight for common sense legislation like a Voter ID bill and protecting our borders."

Cliff Boyd, candidate for District Clerk said, “It is an honor to receive the endorsement of the Dallas County Republican Assembly. My beliefs and principles are in line with the organization and I will do my best to uphold and employ them in performing my duties as the Dallas County District Clerk. Thanks for the dedication and efforts of the Assembly to promote candidates that support free market capitalism as the only economic system that creates the opportunities and incentives that allow maximum productivity and prosperity for the people.”

The Dallas County Republican Assembly is a chapter of the Texas Republican Assembly which is affiliated with the National Federation of Republican Assemblies. The Republican Assembly’s are “the Republican wing of the Republican Party,” meaning they seek to help elect strong social and fiscal conservatives.

####

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, Jan 6, 2010

Dallas, TX – Dallas County Republican Assembly president, Michael Gallops, today announced the organization’s full endorsement of candidates in several local contested Republican primary races.

The candidates were selected by secret ballot of the membership at the Assembly’s monthly meeting on Mon, Jan 4. Assembly bylaws require a 2/3 majority to earn an endorsement.

Candidates being endorsed by the Dallas County Republican Assembly are:

• Dallas County District Clerk – Cliff Boyd

• Texas House District 101 – Cindy Burkett

• Texas House District 102 – Stefani Carter

• Texas Senate District 2 – Bob Deuell

• US Congress District 30 – Charles Lingerfelt

CONTACT: Michael Gallops, President, mgallops@texasra.org

Learn more about the Texas Republican Assembly.

Technorati Tags: Bob Deuell, Charles Lingerfelt, Cindy Burkett, Cliff Boyd, Conservative, Dallas County Republican Assembly, Stefani Carter, Texas Republican Assembly

RI Republicans Debate Primary Open Only to Registered Members

NFRA Staff — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 04:53:18 +0000

RI Republicans Debate Primary Open Only to Registered Members

by Richard C. Dujardin

WARWICK –– By a vote of 26 to 10, members of the state Republican Party’s executive committee urged state chairman Giovanni Cicione Tuesday to call a meeting of its state Central Committee on Jan. 19 to take up a request that all future Republican primaries be open only to registered Republicans.

But whether the vote represented any real victory for change proponents is yet to be seen. Cicione, in a telephone interview after the meeting, said that the final decision as to when to have a meeting is his alone and, right now, he is not inclined to call one.

“The fact is that the governor strongly objects to even considering this change, and the majority of elected officials are with the governor on this,” said Cicione. “And so am I.”

Under current state law, Republicans and Democrats are not permitted to vote in the opposing party’s primaries unless they have chosen to disaffiliate at least 90 days prior to the primary. The 48 percent of the electorate who are already listed on the voting rolls as unaffiliated have generally been able to decide on primary day whether to cast ballots in either the Republican or Democratic primary — and to keep that unaffiliated status by signing a document after voting.

The bylaw change proposed by executive committee members such as Raymond McKay would make the process more difficult for unaffiliated voters by requiring that they register as Republicans at least 90 days prior to the primary.

McKay, who was a supporter of former Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey’s primary campaign against then-Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee in 2006, said that the change would prevent the kind of thing he believes occurred then. He said some voters who planned to vote for the Democrat in the general election voted in the Republican primary to support Chafee and knock Laffey out of the race.

According to participants at the meeting Tuesday, a slight majority of executive committee members who are also elected officials opposed the call for a Jan. 19 meeting.

Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian, who hosted the meeting in his campaign offices, said he would be against a closed primary “because we need to grow the party and attract people with innovative ideas.”

Earlier Tuesday, the office of Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis sent out an advisory that the state Board of Elections reviews all revisions to party bylaws, so that if the GOP Central Committee does vote to restrict who can vote in its primaries, the “state Board of Elections will be the setting for the next step in the process.”

Editor's Note: We have reprinted Richard C. Dujardin's "RI Republicans Debate Primary Open Only to Registered Members" from Projo.com in full here. We encourage you to visit the original.

f you would like to join the fight for True Conservative Values in Rhode Island, contact the Rhode Island Republican Assembly at http://www.ri-ra.org.

Technorati Tags: Conservatives, Rhode Island Republican Assembly

GOP Faces Internal Debates in 2010

NFRA Staff — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:11:00 +0000

GOP Faces Internal Debates in 2010

by Edward Fitzpatrick, The Providence Journal

Republicans will need to arrive at some major resolutions early in this New Year.

The Rhode Island GOP will be diving back into a debate about its party platform while trying to find a candidate for governor. And national Republican leaders will be deciding whether to act on a proposed resolution that would deny party financing to candidates who buck the party’s stance on at least three items from a 10-point checklist.

Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. came up with the 10-point test, telling The Washington Post, “I think we have a very urgent task as Republicans and that is to reclaim our conservative bona fides.”

“All we’re requiring is that somebody agree with us most of the time,” Bopp said, calling RNC support for candidates such as former U.S. Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee “very damaging to the party” because they “ended up either leaving the party or supporting the Democrat.” (Chafee, a Republican-turned-independent, ended up supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, and is now running for governor.)

Bopp’s proposed “Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates” cites former President Ronald Reagan’s axiom that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.

Some Republicans reject the notion of a litmus test. For example, former U.S. Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., who served as National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, told Politico, “We’re becoming a church that would rather chase away heretics than welcome converts and that’s no way to become a major party. This makes no sense for those of us who are interested in winning elections.”

And I’m reminded of a documentary that debuted at the Rhode Island International Film Festival in August. HouseQuake documented the Democratic Party’s takeover of the House in the 2006 midterm elections, showing that Democrats ran candidates with conservative views on issues such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.

In the film, Rahm Emanuel, who chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006 and is now President Obama’s chief of staff, said he didn’t care about ideology — he only cared about picking up 15 House seats.

Recent legislative battles have highlighted the difficulties Democrats can face when their ranks include a range of viewpoints. But Democrats are now in power, and that matters. For example, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., replaced Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., as chair of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, signaling a much different approach to global warming.

So with the 2010 elections looming, shouldn’t Republicans be expanding the size of their tent?

Raymond T. McKay — president of the Rhode Island Republican Assembly, an affiliate of [the National Federation of Republican Assemblies] a national group billed as “the Republican wing of the Republican Party” — said the big-tent philosophy has not helped Republicans in the Northeast. “We’ve been using that philosophy for three or four decades now, and where has it gotten us?” he said.

McKay said the GOP will succeed if it is clear about the principles it stands for and does not waste money and energy on candidates such as Chafee.

He noted Reagan won every state except Minnesota in 1984, and McKay said that shows “someone unabashed in his conservative beliefs” can win, even in a blue state such as Rhode Island. “It shows you can win if you are a principled individual and willing to expound on those principles,” he said.

When asked about Bopp’s proposed 10-point test, McKay said, “That’s probably not a bad idea” given what just happened in a special election for a U.S. House seat in upstate New York. He said the National Republican Congressional Committee wasted $900,000 on Republican Dede Scozzafava, who withdrew from the race and backed a Democrat, who beat a Conservative Party candidate.

On Dec. 8, the Rhode Island GOP’s central committee voted to send a platform proposal back to its platform committee for a rewrite. The proposal had staked out positions on jobs and state spending but said that in “the longstanding tradition of New England Republicans,” the state party respects “the right of all of our candidates to hold and express their own considered views on social issues.”

McKay, a member of the GOP platform committee, argued that the platform should take a stand on social issues. He said the proposal could just as easily have been presented by the new Moderate Party of Rhode Island, which focuses on issues such as the economy while avoiding issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and illegal immigration. (By the way, McKay suspects Chafee will run for governor as a Moderate.)

McKay agreed the economy will be a big issue in the 2010 elections but predicted issues such as same-sex marriage will also be a factor in Rhode Island.

Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian, a moderate Republican, praised the original platform proposal as “very inclusive,” saying it would have “allowed us to market ourselves to people who might not normally consider themselves Republicans.”

(By the way, in the small world that is Rhode Island, McKay is Warwick’s computer network manager, so that makes Avedisian his boss.)

Avedisian said social issues are not the most pressing concern right now. With the state unemployment rate at 12.7 percent, Rhode Islanders want to hear about “building jobs here in Rhode Island and building an economy that will encourage people to stay here after college,” he said.

Avedisian said, “It’s great to say we are going to stand on philosophical issues, but if you can’t win elections, you can’t govern. I thought the goal of a party was to try to govern.”

He said that in the 1980s, the state GOP elected the likes of U.S. Sen. John H. Chafee, U.S. Rep. Ronald K. Machtley, U.S. Rep. Claudine Schneider, Attorney General Arlene Violet and Senate Minority Leader Lila Sapinsley. While they didn’t agree on every issue, they worked as a team to govern, he said. But now, he said, “We don’t have that notion of a team that wants to govern together.”

Avedisian said some Republicans wanted to kick him out of the party for saying he’d support Lincoln Chafee in the governor’s race. (Avedisian was a page for the late Sen. John Chafee, and Lincoln Chafee is a former Warwick mayor.)

When asked about Bopp’s proposed 10-point test, Avedisian said, “When you start doing things like that you end up with a closed, small group of people. That’s when you start to see a party falling apart because you’re not allowing any new ideas to come into the party.”

Both McKay and Avedisian make some good points. But in 2010, I think most voters will use a litmus test that involves one issue: the economy. And I can’t argue with U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a big-tent advocate who told Politico that while some countries have many political parties, we have two major parties and “when you get down to 300 million people divided by two, you have a lot of range of attitudes and views.”

Editor's Note: We have reprinted Edward Fitzpatrick's "GOP Faces Internal Debates in 2010" from Projo.com in full here. We encourage you to visit the original.

If you would like to join the fight for True Conservative Values in Rhode Island, contact the Rhode Island Republican Assembly at http://www.ri-ra.org.

Technorati Tags: 2010 Elections, Conservatives, Rhode Island Republican Assembly

Capitalism Fingered as Fiend of the Past Decade

NFRA Staff — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 03:33:12 +0000

Capitalism Fingered as Fiend of the Past Decade

Reducing "capitalism" to its alleged sins

by Jonah Goldberg

On the last day of 2009, that awful year, I was listening to a report on National Public Radio (yes, I’m a listener). Reporter Tamara Keith presented a by-now-familiar recap of the worst financial and corporate scandals of the decade, from Enron and Martha Stewart to Tyco and Bernie Madoff. It was a depressing slog of greed, venality, and theft. When the report was over, Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep summarized the report with a tart: “The decade in capitalism.”

I don’t want to single out Inskeep, since he was doing what pretty much the entire media establishment has done, particularly of late: reducing “capitalism” to its alleged sins.

And that’s the point. There are few areas of life where a thing responsible for so much good gets so little credit for it.

Imagine if I were to collect the most infamous deeds of African Americans over the last decade — say, Michael Vick’s dog-fighting scandal and O. J. Simpson’s most recent criminal exploit — and then put a bow on it with the phrase “the decade in black America.” What if I did the same thing with Jews? Bernie Madoff, the face of Jewish America! Do the scandals of Rod Blagojevich, Charlie Rangel, and John Edwards define the Democratic party from 2000 to 2010? Do Abu Ghraib and the balloon boy sum up America?

Consider NPR. As a brand, it claims to be standing athwart capitalism because it’s “public.” What that means exactly is a bit unclear, since it still allows corporations to fund its programming in exchange for audio endorsements none dare call commercials and relies on the kindness of listeners to keep it afloat — listeners who, one way or another, make their money from you-know-what.

Indeed, speaking of the decade in capitalism, National Public Radio failed to mention that Joan Kroc, widow of Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald’s, left more than $200 million to NPR in 2003. Mrs. Kroc’s generosity of spirit was her own, but the wampum is all capitalism’s, baby.

In a similar vein, the decade of capitalism saw one of the world’s richest men, Warren Buffett, pledge more than $30 billion to a foundation created by another offspring of capitalism, Bill Gates, for the purpose of aiding the world’s poor. Surely capitalism should get some of the credit, since the book on philanthropy in non-capitalist systems is shorter than the guide to cities without Starbucks.

Capitalism doesn’t just create generous wealthy people, but generous poor people, too. Americans give twice as much to charity as the most generous European nations, and the most generous Americans are, in fact, poor Americans.

But forget philanthropy. Since 2000, hundreds of millions of people in China and India — home to a plurality of the world’s poor — have lifted themselves out of poverty and illiteracy thanks to capitalism.

China started to embrace markets as a last resort in the late 1970s. And by last resort, I mean last resort. First they tried murdering tens of millions of their own people through collectivism and oppression. When that didn’t work, they embraced markets, and the poverty rate dropped from 64 percent to around 8 percent today.

As it always does, capitalism drove innovation over the last decade. The BlackBerry was introduced in 1999, but the iPhone didn’t exist in 2000, nor did the iPod. YouTube was a fantasy, and no one could even imagine why you’d ever need something like Facebook or Twitter (in fairness, some people still ask that question). iTunes was launched in 2003, and five years later it was outselling Wal-Mart as the No. 1 music retailer. Government-funded basic research in medical science deserves some credit for breakthroughs, but it’s worth remembering that lots of countries invest in basic research. America, with its markets, stands alone as the leading, arguably sole, source of medical innovation. Breakthrough drugs are as American as apple pie.

Every good thing capitalism helps produce — from singing careers to cures for diseases to staggering charity — is credited to some other sphere of our lives. Every problem with capitalism, meanwhile, is laid at her feet. Except the problems with capitalism — greed, theft, etc. — aren’t capitalism’s fault, they’re humanity’s. Socialist countries have greedy thieves, too.

Free markets are in disrepute these days, particularly by the people running Washington. For them, government is the solution and capitalism is the problem. If they have their way over the next decade, they won’t cure what allegedly ails capitalism — people will still steal and lie — but they will impede everything that makes capitalism great. And that will be bad for everyone, even NPR.

Editor's Note: We have reprinted Jonah Goldberg's "Capitalism Fingered as Fiend of the Past Decade" from National Review Online in full here. We encourage you to visit the original.

Technorati Tags: Capitalism

RI Republicans May Try to Close Primary

NFRA Staff — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:56:32 +0000

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - The Rhode Island Republican Party is considering a plan that would attempt to close its primary so only registered Republicans can vote in it, several party leaders told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The party's executive committee will consider the plan Jan. 5. If approved by a majority of the committee's 50 members, it would then go to state party members for a vote, state GOP Chairman Giovanni Cicione said.

The Republican and Democratic parties currently allow unaffiliated voters to opt into either party on primary day to cast a ballot. Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly four-to-one in Rhode Island, with about 287,500 registered Democrats compared with 72,800 registered Republicans, according to the Secretary of State's office. Those are both smaller than the roughly 335,300 unaffiliated voters.

The rule became an issue in 2006 when then-Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a moderate, was embroiled in a primary with a more conservative challenger, former Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey. Chafee urged Democratic supporters to drop their party affiliation to vote for him. Chafee won the primary but went on to lose the general election to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse.

The bitterly contested primary still is a sore spot for some conservative Republicans, who had dubbed Chafee a RINO - Republican in Name Only. Darrell West, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution and former professor at Brown University, said the primary drew a large turnout of unaffiliated voters who propelled Chafee to victory.

"If it hadn't been for independents, Laffey would have won that primary," he said.

The proposal comes as Laffey is being urged by many supporters to run for governor. The Republicans' only declared candidate, Rory Smith, dropped out of the race this month, and the party has been casting about for another contender. Laffey supporter Raymond McKay, an executive committee member, is leading the push to close the primary.

McKay, president of the conservative Rhode Island Republican Assembly, said he has been pushing for the change since 2004, but what happened with Chafee's campaign in 2006 helped fuel the drive.

"The reality of the issue is that people did cross over to weigh in on a Republican primary, and they weren't Republicans," he said. "It's horrendous. It's tampering."

State Democratic Chairman Bill Lynch said he believes a change in state law is needed to close the primary, although Cicione and McKay said the issue had been researched and the primary could be closed through a change in the party's bylaws. McKay said the party had closed primaries until the 1980s, when the party changed its rules.

Two former members of the state Board of Elections said it was unclear. Roger Begin, a former chairman of the board who left about three years ago, said election laws have changed in the past decades and the question would have to be researched. Retired board member Thomas Iannitti said he believes the General Assembly would have to change the law, a process that could take years.

McKay said he has commitments from 25 of the executive committee's 50 members to support the proposal. If it passes, Cicione said the plan would then have to be read at a state party meeting and voted on by the party's 250 members at a second meeting. The next party meeting is scheduled for February.

Cicione said he's not sure yet if he supports the measure, but said he would not want it put into place until the 2012 race because it's too soon before the September primary. McKay said there are ways to speed up the measure so that it could be decided by February.

Chafee has since left the Republican Party and plans to officially announce his run for governor as an independent on Monday.

Laffey did not immediately respond to a request from the AP for comment on whether he supports the idea.

But John Robitaille, a senior adviser to Republican Gov. Don Carcieri, who said Tuesday he also is considering a run for governor, thinks the idea is bad for the party. He said the current system allows candidates to reach out to a broader audience during the primary.

"If you only look at people who are registered Republicans having a say, your chances of having a good candidate who could actually win in the general election is skewed," he said.

Warwick Mayor Scott Avedesian said he also opposes the idea.

"I think the only way a party grows and continues to thrive and bring more people in is to have an open primary system," he said. "We need an infusion of new ideas and new people, or nothing's going to change."

Among the 41 states that had primaries in the 2008 presidential election, they were about evenly divided between those that have open and closed primaries, according to a report by the Pew Center on the States.PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - The Rhode Island Republican Party is considering a plan that would attempt to close its primary so only registered Republicans can vote in it, several party leaders told The Associated Press on Tuesday.