In the Arena

The Pelosi Flap

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, with typical judiciousness, gets the Pelosi trip quite wrong. First, George Logan was not a member of the Congress when he made his “pacifist” trip to France. (He was elected to the Senate three years later, in 1801.) Second, Pelosi did not make the trip to negotiate with Assad, but to talk with him. Third, this is not a “wartime” situation–in fact, we continue to have diplomatic relations with Syria. Fourth, as others have noted, numerous Republican members of Congress have gone to speak with Assad. In fact, it was a Republican, Chris Shayes, who first told me that I should go over and interview Assad. Fifth, the media coverage of this on CNN and elsewhere has been abysmal. (Do you think CNN would repeatedly call itself the best political team on television if it actually was?)

Finally, what is the real scandal here: that Pelosi spoke with Assad or that the Bush Administration won’t?…Or, as I reported last week, that the Bush Administration won’t even let the Israelis talk to Assad?

And even more finally, the Assad family is a mafia, brutal and corrupt. I’ve recently received an email from the family of Dr. Kamal Labwani, a gentle and civilized Democracy activist I interviewed in Damascus just after he was released from prison. He had a question he wanted me to ask Assad: “Mr. President, you’re a doctor and so am I. Why did you put me in jail?” I asked and Assad said, “I’m not in charge of everything in this country!” Hmm.
Labwani is not only back in prison now, but in isolated detention and his health is declining. This is completely outrageous…and, I believe, all the more reason for Americans to talk to Assad and try to shame him into releasing Labwani and other political prisoners. It’s a long shot, but it certainly can’t hurt. If we can talk to Hosni Mubarak–another free-range oppressor–there’s no reason why we can’t talk to Assad.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Why Romney Is Dodging the Press

    Joe, the Romney campaign’s control-freakery makes for bad democracy, but I suspect it’s a smart strategy. Consider the way Mitt’s personal approval rating has bounced back over the past several weeks. As the GOP primaries wrapped up, Romney was roughly as unpopular as late-era George W. Bush. Now he’s about even with Barack Obama.

    Since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Romney’s favorable-unfavorable rating has jumped to 50%-41%, his best ever and in the same neighborhood as Obama’s 52%-46% standing.

    What changed? Well, for one thing, other Republican rivals are no longer attacking Romney. That helps. But it’s not like he’s had a free ride: the Obama camp has picked up where Rick and Newt left off. An alternate explanation would be that Americans are simply seeing less of Romney, and that makes them like him better.

    For Obama, gay marriage stance born of a long evolutionHuffPost Politics

    Crossroads, Super PACs and the Incumbent Advertising Gap

    In a recent piece about the Obama-Romney ad wars, Michael Scherer made the smart point that this election is different from past ones in that the incumbent no longer gets a free hit on his rival during the period immediately following the primary. The reason: super PACs have the cash to cover that gap while the challenger collects enough general election funds to keep pace.

blog comments powered by Disqus