Yesterday we brought you the news that hapless GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa -- fresh from his efforts to build on our southern border the sort of electric fence used for livestock -- was planning to introduce an amendment to prevent Nancy Pelosi from consorting with the enemy.The amendment -- attached to appropriations legislation -- would have prohibited Pelosi from using State Department funds to visit Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan or Syria.
Well, King's measure was voted on early this morning in the House of Representatives. And it went down to a crushing defeat. The final tally: 337 noes; 84 ayes.
Looks like the radicals are starting to lose their grip on the Republican party. The whole idea was ridiculous, of course, since Republican legislators had done the same thing days earlier, but there was a time when poisonous partisanship was riding high that the Pubs would have done ANYTHING to destroy a Democrat. Or maybe even the Republicans realize that Bush's refusal to engage in diplomacy of any sort has served the nation poorly.

Comments (6)
Looking at King's picture, maybe Pelosi should introduce a bill outlawing 'Really Bad Combovers' in Congress. Wow, that's awful.
That would make as much sense as what King tried to do.
1. Posted by Lee Ward | June 22, 2007 2:23 PM
Posted on June 22, 2007 14:23
This guy Steve King is pretty extreme. He even defends cockfighting in America.
2. Posted by Steve Crickmore | June 22, 2007 3:08 PM
Posted on June 22, 2007 15:08
well, i can understand barring house members as a whole from using state department funds while traveling. if they want to travel on official business they should use congressional funds.
and i can understand there being some serious issues with congressmen (from either party) going and playing at foreign policy with states that we are in conflict with against the wishes of the president. after all, the president is vested in the constitution with the power of making treaties and such. besides which isn't there an actual law on the books about elected officials negotiating with foreign powers without the consent of the president being illegal? i think it's the logan act (not sure tho)
but i don't like what king did with this measure where it would only apply to the speaker. that's just petty. if you're going to do this, make it apply to everyone equally. or don't do it at all.
3. Posted by ke_future | June 22, 2007 8:01 PM
Posted on June 22, 2007 20:01
KE, I think all that Pelosi -- and the Pub officials -- were doing was *talking* with the people there. If they had been actually negotiating a treaty, that would have been totally different. But we have elected officials all the time going to other nations and meeting with government officials. But usually it's with nations considered friendly to us so nobody makes a big deal out of that.
4. Posted by Paul Hamilton | June 22, 2007 8:05 PM
Posted on June 22, 2007 20:05
i don't know who the Pubs had been talking to because that didn't get any attention in the press until after Pelosi's junket (at least that i saw). but nancy said some stupid things while she was in syria, that is for sure.
you know, foreign policy issues are going to have a lot of viewpoints. and we should vigorously debate them on our own shores.
but the US really needs to speak with one voice to other countries. regardless of whichever party is in the white house. that's all i'm saying.
5. Posted by ke_future | June 22, 2007 10:02 PM
Posted on June 22, 2007 22:02
KE, you are right about speaking with one voice. The problem was that Bush wasn't speaking at all. His idea of diplomacy was either to threaten someone or to ignore them completely. Obviously that didn't work, so it's not surprising that if he executive wasn't doing it's job, the legislative might step up. But a bipartisan delegation would have been the best solution.
BTW, I'm not counting my chickens, but did you see that he North Koreans might shut down their reactor? This has happened after we've had several people go over and talk with them, and it shows that in spite of Bush's delusions about being the baddest mother on the block, there are still some things which are best handled with talking.
6. Posted by Paul Hamilton | June 23, 2007 11:56 AM
Posted on June 23, 2007 11:56