Out in Right Field

by Julius Ponds

The Bear went down to Georgia, he was looking for some land to steal. He was in a bind 'cos nations paid him no mind: he was willin' to bring ‘em to heel.

It is a true shame that a young budding Democracy was assaulted as it was by a larger, authoritarian neighbor. My fear is that in the future, people will be less likely to throw off the shackles of oppression in Rose Revolutions, Orange Revolutions and Tulip Revolutions. We do not want those people to resign themselves to living in the darkness and in the shadow of Russian autocracy, but rather embrace the light of political freedom.

Saakashvili’s rosin up his bow and play his fiddle hard. 'Cos hells broke loose in Georgia and the Bear deals it hard.

In a previous edition of the GOPyr newsletter, I advocated a Girondist theory of foreign policy for the United States. I continue to advocate that we need to acknowledge the effect and impact of our great American experiment in human freedom on foreign peoples. We should neither turn our back on the world, nor coddle repressive regimes out of fear of appearing arrogant. In practical applications, we should have stood more firmly behind a country like Georgia – as a newer democracy – and as a staunch ally in the war on terror.

Wouldn’t it have been better for humanity if the story had ended like this?

The Bear bowed his head because he knew that he'd been beat. He laid that golden fiddle on the ground at Saakashvili’s feet.

I am not confident in the incoming foreign policy team of Obama, Biden and Clinton. I would hope they see the positive value America brings to the world, but fear they share the Left’s convictions that America is a corrupting and malevolent influence on the world stage.

Out in Right Field

Earlier this summer, I saw the newest installment in the Indiana Jones franchise, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” and was thoroughly disappointed.

Take a moment and consider the character played by John Hurt. You may remember him as Caligula from the “I, Claudius” series. He plays Professor Harold Oxley, and his acting talent is wasted in most of the picture in incoherent babbling. Even worse, the other characters equate his insane ramblings as wisdom. This is worse than the dystopia envisioned by Kurt Vonnegut in his short story, “Harrison Bergeron.” At least in that story, the leftists needed hundreds of constitutional amendments and numerous technological handicaps to enforce their rabid egalitarianism. In the Indiana Jones movie, the other characters simply consent to that equalization.

At the end of the movie, there is a scene with Indiana Jones and Marion Ravenwood tie the knot at the altar. This is totally out of character with the Indy we’ve grown to know and love in the previous three movies. There is no explanation given for this alteration. Just as Democrats from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama are deluded into thinking terrorist sponsors like Syria and Iran will suddenly become cooperative and civilized with the appropriate amount of hand holding. We’re just as likely to see Kim Jong-Il cease claims that he aced five holes and finished thirty eight under par on the links.

This movie was a disappointment on multiple levels. It lacked the great stunt work of the previous chapters, and relied too heavily on computer generated imagery. The entire UFO plot line was threadbare and unconvincing. Worst of all, there were these none too subtle leftist underpinnings. My evening of escapism was stolen, instead, by an extended Mark Shields column.

Out in Right Field

by Julius Ponds

Back on March 1, 2008, the Colombian military crossed over the border into Ecuador to take out an encampment of FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) terrorists. That action caused a short-term diplomatic crisis and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez used the action to engage in some saber-rattling and anti-American propaganda.

First, the United States should support a fellow democratic nation that has implemented the Bush Doctrine. Colombia also has the right to treat nations that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as they would the terrorists themselves, just as we have done with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Colombia also made the wise decision to pursue its interests in a unilateral, military strike. It did not waste time spinning wheels in the Organization of American States (OAS) or Rio Group meetings while terrorists were receiving sanctuary just across the Colombian frontier.

Secondly, in a South American climate that sees the leftist tyrant Hugo Chavez constantly raising his profile and building connections throughout the hemisphere, it is all the more important to cement our support and friendships with those nations, like Colombia, who seek it.

The United States should stand behind Colombia whole-heartedly. That means giving it the diplomatic support in its drive to suppress terrorists groups and to stand up to regional delinquents like Hugo Chavez. It also means approving the free trade agreement with Colombia. As we have learned the hard way over the past eight years, in times of trouble, the true friends of the United States are few and far between. We must stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a true friend like Colombia.

Out in Right Field

Out in Right Field
by Julius Ponds

One of the recurring topics of this presidential election cycle is American foreign policy. What is the United States’ proper role in Iraq? What is the United States’ proper role towards other dictatorships around the globe? And this is not just an issue between Republicans and Democrats, but even an issue of contention among Republicans. You have some presidential aspirants who definitely question our role in the world. What direction should our Republican Party advocate in the field of foreign policy?

Let me give a little guiding quote…

“We declare, in the name of the people, that we will accord fraternity and assistance to all people who wish to recover their liberty, and we charge the executive power to give to the generals the necessary orders to protect these peoples and to defend our citizens who may have been or who may be harassed for the cause of liberty. The present decree shall be translated and distributed in all languages.”

Is this a quote from some neoconservative submission to the Weekly Standard? Or a resolution drafted by a hawkish portion of the current congressional Republican minority? No, instead it was a decree by the French National Convention on November 19, 1792. Yeah, yeah, all chuckles aside due to the French authorship, there is merit to prevailing attitude behind it.

The Girondist theory of foreign policy, which is exemplified in this decree, is one that speaks loudly to the current position of the United States. The Girondists recognized the important role of revolutionary France in Europe at that time, a position of hope and encouragement to others across the continent desiring to throw off the repressive shackles of absolute tyranny. They paid special attention to the effect and impact of their experiment in human freedom on foreign peoples. Likewise, we need to acknowledge the effect and impact of our even greater American experiment in human freedom on foreign peoples. We should neither turn our back on the world, nor coddle repressive regimes out of fear of appearing arrogant.

Few times in human history do both MIGHT and RIGHT reside in the same global power. The United States should not betray our duty and responsibility, but remain actively engaged in the world as a strong and powerful force for freedom and liberty. We should make sure that as Republicans, our party’s presidential candidate shares that view.

Out in Right Field

by Julius Ponds

Some nights ago, I took time to watch the results from the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary roll in.

It was especially entertaining watching Ed Rollins get really punchy with Chris Wallace on Fox News. Many of us will remember Ed Rollins for his high-level involvement with K.T. McFarland’s senatorial campaign in 2006. Now Rollins is serving as national campaign chairman for Mike Huckabee. He was a very sore winner, as noted later by Brit Hume. I would strongly suggest that, instead, they role out more Chuck Norris and less Ed Rollins for these high-profile television appearances. Otherwise, the campaign of the former Arkansas governor could quickly become a Hucka-been.

Over on CNN, as I was munching on my McRib, Anderson Cooper was presiding over so many guest panelists and talking heads as if he were now hosting Hollywood Squares. “Donna Brazile is correct, so circle gets the square.” “OK, Anderson, I’ll take Bill Bennett in center square for the block.” And how did David Gergen feel about being relegated to the “kiddie” table? When you have so many analysts that you need a “kiddie” table for the overflow, it’s time to rethink your format.

Speaking of rethinking one’s format, one has to wonder how the Giuliani campaign is feeling. True, Rudy has a sizable war chest, and has still been polling well in the bigger states with February primaries. But how long will his polling remain high when other candidates are racking up victories in early primaries states and Rudy’s campaign is only giving marginal efforts? It’s going to get harder and harder to motivate volunteers for phone banks and door-to-door efforts for a candidate who is only pulling single-digit leads in high profile contests.

The following Tuesday, I watched the results come in from the New Hampshire primary. I tried to broaden my perspective by watching a little of the coverage on MSNBC. I found it extremely problematic. First off, they featured that shrew, Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation. I find her so annoying. Among other things, she never uses the word liberal, but instead chooses to call her favored left-of-center positions progressive. Secondly, I found it disappointing that so much of the MSNBC coverage centered on making jokes at the expense of John McCain’s victory speech. It was as if, they slipped into a broadcast of one of the Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts.

Earlier that Tuesday, I had an e-mail exchange with fellow Young Republicans, and discussed Hillary Clinton’s choking up episode. One of these was convinced that this was a calculated effort to win her some sympathy and show her in a more human and less calculating light. I disagreed. I could not think of a way in which showing weakness on television… crying or choking up or loosing one’s cool…could be spun into something positive. I felt that was especially true for a female candidate who would probably be fighting against latent misogynist biases in the electorate. I was expecting this to be an Ed Muskie moment, not a pivot for Hillary’s campaign to rebound.

In any event, a Republicans, we have an exciting winter head of us. With each of Huckabee (Iowa), Romney (Wyoming) and McCain (New Hampshire) having each won a state contest thus far, the field is wide open.