Ultradave

Without a Speaker no business gets done. The Speaker Pro Tem's (the interim Speaker) one and only responsibility is to preside over the election of a new Speaker, after which they can get down to business. There's been some talk on voting to give him more responsibility in order to pass aid bills, but I can't really see that happening. Opening a can of worms unless it's very restrictively written.
The large aid package is unrelated to the Speaker election or lack of a Speaker. The one time large aid package is a proposal to avoid dickering about aid every 2 months with smaller appropriations bills, and just get enough aid to last until the election (next November). Biden can't do it himself. Both houses have to pass it, which they may do. There is still good support in both parties for aid to Ukraine, although recent news has showed lessening support among Republicans. But their majority is only 5 seats, so it would only take 6 Republicans and all the Democrats to pass a bill, or some similar combination. The big however to this might be getting it to the floor in the House to vote on, depending on who the next Speaker is. 
Hope that helps. My gut feeling is that sanity will prevail. Someone recently quoted the Churchill saying about Americans being counted on to do the right thing, once all the other possibilities are exhausted. Very perceptive, he was.

Dave

Oh, there will be, for sure. Maybe not 5 minutes after it happened.
This video post is the first I saw this (partly because I've been driving around a good part of the day). In the US, there is a broad antipathy to the policies of the Israeli government and that has been so for years. But there is also very strong support for them as well. What there also is is VERY widespread support for the Israeli people. 
Most people can separate governmental policy from the people. Others will unfairly malign the critics as lacking support for Israel. It's complicated 😀
Dave

Umbrella of what? They have about enough material to make ONE uranium warhead nuclear weapon. They have a missile program, but really no way to mount and deliver a U weapon on a missile. They have NO capability at all of creating a Pu warhead weapon, which would be required for missile delivery. A Pu warhead is significantly smaller. Their one and only method of possibly getting Pu was the Arak reactor and that was permanently reconfigured under the terms of the JCPOA to not be a source of Pu for a weapon. They could process enough U for a weapon, do a test, then have to start processing more U for another weapon, which will take some time, although not a year as under the terms of the JCPOA. But even so, should they do so, I would expect an immediate and violent response by the US and UK at a minimum, to cripple their nuclear infrastructure. A lot is buried and it wouldn't all be destroyed but certainly would be significantly set back.
Highly, highly unlikely. Russia is a party to the JCPOA. They have no interest in having a nuclear armed Iran that close to them or their former -stans, which is a big reason they were a party to the agreement in the first place. The Bushehr power reactor in Iran is under IAEA safeguards and part of that is that Russia provides all the fuel, and they receive the spent fuel back. Iran has no capacity to reprocess fuel to extract Pu even if they held on to the spent fuel, and even if they did have that capability, Pu from spent fuel from a PWR is wholly unsuitable for nuclear weapons use. (That's why the DoD has special purpose reactors to do that). They would have needed the spent fuel from the Arak reactor and that is no longer in play. Even though the US withdrew from the JCPOA (a supremely stupid act, IMO), many of its requirements still exist. 
Dave

Umbrella of what? They have about enough material to make ONE uranium warhead nuclear weapon. They have a missile program, but really no way to mount and deliver a U weapon on a missile. They have NO capability at all of creating a Pu warhead weapon, which would be required for missile delivery. A Pu warhead is significantly smaller. Their one and only method of possibly getting Pu was the Arak reactor and that was permanently reconfigured under the terms of the JCPOA to not be a source of Pu for a weapon. They could process enough U for a weapon, do a test, then have to start processing more U for another weapon, which will take some time, although not a year as under the terms of the JCPOA. But even so, should they do so, I would expect an immediate and violent response by the US and UK at a minimum, to cripple their nuclear infrastructure. A lot is buried and it wouldn't all be destroyed but certainly would be significantly set back.
Highly, highly unlikely. Russia is a party to the JCPOA. They have no interest in having a nuclear armed Iran that close to them or their former -stans, which is a big reason they were a party to the agreement in the first place. The Bushehr power reactor in Iran is under IAEA safeguards and part of that is that Russia provides all the fuel, and they receive the spent fuel back. Iran has no capacity to reprocess fuel to extract Pu even if they held on to the spent fuel, and even if they did have that capability, Pu from spent fuel from a PWR is wholly unsuitable for nuclear weapons use. (That's why the DoD has special purpose reactors to do that). They would have needed the spent fuel from the Arak reactor and that is no longer in play. Even though the US withdrew from the JCPOA (a supremely stupid act, IMO), many of its requirements still exist. 
Dave

Umbrella of what? They have about enough material to make ONE uranium warhead nuclear weapon. They have a missile program, but really no way to mount and deliver a U weapon on a missile. They have NO capability at all of creating a Pu warhead weapon, which would be required for missile delivery. A Pu warhead is significantly smaller. Their one and only method of possibly getting Pu was the Arak reactor and that was permanently reconfigured under the terms of the JCPOA to not be a source of Pu for a weapon. They could process enough U for a weapon, do a test, then have to start processing more U for another weapon, which will take some time, although not a year as under the terms of the JCPOA. But even so, should they do so, I would expect an immediate and violent response by the US and UK at a minimum, to cripple their nuclear infrastructure. A lot is buried and it wouldn't all be destroyed but certainly would be significantly set back.
Highly, highly unlikely. Russia is a party to the JCPOA. They have no interest in having a nuclear armed Iran that close to them or their former -stans, which is a big reason they were a party to the agreement in the first place. The Bushehr power reactor in Iran is under IAEA safeguards and part of that is that Russia provides all the fuel, and they receive the spent fuel back. Iran has no capacity to reprocess fuel to extract Pu even if they held on to the spent fuel, and even if they did have that capability, Pu from spent fuel from a PWR is wholly unsuitable for nuclear weapons use. (That's why the DoD has special purpose reactors to do that). They would have needed the spent fuel from the Arak reactor and that is no longer in play. Even though the US withdrew from the JCPOA (a supremely stupid act, IMO), many of its requirements still exist. 
Dave

Umbrella of what? They have about enough material to make ONE uranium warhead nuclear weapon. They have a missile program, but really no way to mount and deliver a U weapon on a missile. They have NO capability at all of creating a Pu warhead weapon, which would be required for missile delivery. A Pu warhead is significantly smaller. Their one and only method of possibly getting Pu was the Arak reactor and that was permanently reconfigured under the terms of the JCPOA to not be a source of Pu for a weapon. They could process enough U for a weapon, do a test, then have to start processing more U for another weapon, which will take some time, although not a year as under the terms of the JCPOA. But even so, should they do so, I would expect an immediate and violent response by the US and UK at a minimum, to cripple their nuclear infrastructure. A lot is buried and it wouldn't all be destroyed but certainly would be significantly set back.
Highly, highly unlikely. Russia is a party to the JCPOA. They have no interest in having a nuclear armed Iran that close to them or their former -stans, which is a big reason they were a party to the agreement in the first place. The Bushehr power reactor in Iran is under IAEA safeguards and part of that is that Russia provides all the fuel, and they receive the spent fuel back. Iran has no capacity to reprocess fuel to extract Pu even if they held on to the spent fuel, and even if they did have that capability, Pu from spent fuel from a PWR is wholly unsuitable for nuclear weapons use. (That's why the DoD has special purpose reactors to do that). They would have needed the spent fuel from the Arak reactor and that is no longer in play. Even though the US withdrew from the JCPOA (a supremely stupid act, IMO), many of its requirements still exist. 
Dave

Umbrella of what? They have about enough material to make ONE uranium warhead nuclear weapon. They have a missile program, but really no way to mount and deliver a U weapon on a missile. They have NO capability at all of creating a Pu warhead weapon, which would be required for missile delivery. A Pu warhead is significantly smaller. Their one and only method of possibly getting Pu was the Arak reactor and that was permanently reconfigured under the terms of the JCPOA to not be a source of Pu for a weapon. They could process enough U for a weapon, do a test, then have to start processing more U for another weapon, which will take some time, although not a year as under the terms of the JCPOA. But even so, should they do so, I would expect an immediate and violent response by the US and UK at a minimum, to cripple their nuclear infrastructure. A lot is buried and it wouldn't all be destroyed but certainly would be significantly set back.
Highly, highly unlikely. Russia is a party to the JCPOA. They have no interest in having a nuclear armed Iran that close to them or their former -stans, which is a big reason they were a party to the agreement in the first place. The Bushehr power reactor in Iran is under IAEA safeguards and part of that is that Russia provides all the fuel, and they receive the spent fuel back. Iran has no capacity to reprocess fuel to extract Pu even if they held on to the spent fuel, and even if they did have that capability, Pu from spent fuel from a PWR is wholly unsuitable for nuclear weapons use. (That's why the DoD has special purpose reactors to do that). They would have needed the spent fuel from the Arak reactor and that is no longer in play. Even though the US withdrew from the JCPOA (a supremely stupid act, IMO), many of its requirements still exist. 
Dave

Umbrella of what? They have about enough material to make ONE uranium warhead nuclear weapon. They have a missile program, but really no way to mount and deliver a U weapon on a missile. They have NO capability at all of creating a Pu warhead weapon, which would be required for missile delivery. A Pu warhead is significantly smaller. Their one and only method of possibly getting Pu was the Arak reactor and that was permanently reconfigured under the terms of the JCPOA to not be a source of Pu for a weapon. They could process enough U for a weapon, do a test, then have to start processing more U for another weapon, which will take some time, although not a year as under the terms of the JCPOA. But even so, should they do so, I would expect an immediate and violent response by the US and UK at a minimum, to cripple their nuclear infrastructure. A lot is buried and it wouldn't all be destroyed but certainly would be significantly set back.
Highly, highly unlikely. Russia is a party to the JCPOA. They have no interest in having a nuclear armed Iran that close to them or their former -stans, which is a big reason they were a party to the agreement in the first place. The Bushehr power reactor in Iran is under IAEA safeguards and part of that is that Russia provides all the fuel, and they receive the spent fuel back. Iran has no capacity to reprocess fuel to extract Pu even if they held on to the spent fuel, and even if they did have that capability, Pu from spent fuel from a PWR is wholly unsuitable for nuclear weapons use. (That's why the DoD has special purpose reactors to do that). They would have needed the spent fuel from the Arak reactor and that is no longer in play. Even though the US withdrew from the JCPOA (a supremely stupid act, IMO), many of its requirements still exist. 
Dave

Just my own opinion, but I think this is the most likely argument. If Trump had won, Putin could have waited. Ukraine would not have gotten aide from the US and without that the rest of NATO would be less likely to go it alone. With Biden in office, he knew that Biden would build up unified opposition and a good case for aide, so the sooner the better (or in reality, the sooner the less bad 😀 )
Interesting how the disinformation campaigns take root and are hard to weed out. My cousin stopped overnight on his way back from a business trip a few weeks ago. My wife was out of town so we went out to dinner at a local Irish pub and he brought up some of the issues in Ukraine. First on his list was the "secret US run bio warfare labs that the Russians had liberated". Ugh. I thought that was put to bed long ago. He recommended that I not listen to the "mainstream media" and instead go to "trusted sources".  He named a few - all of them completely unreliable rumor mills. I won't bother to give them any print here. Now this is a guy, middle aged (mid 50s), who is well educated (University of Florida, then Oxford), in economics, has worked in oil and gas futures and resource evaluation for a couple decades. He's no dummy. But he's been led astray by all the BS that is spread. I explained the "bio-labs" and how the US has been for years helping Ukraine and others better secure facilities, and that rather than following his sources, he should actually read the state department agreement that details exactly what has been done over the years. Slack jaw. There was more - Ukraine and the US started everything. There was a treaty that the US would not expand NATO at all after the USSR fell. There was no guarantee of Ukraine's integrity, yada, yada, yada.
I love him to death. I only have 2 cousins and with my parents and my younger brother all dead, 1) I'm the oldest in the family, and 2) he and his sister are the only peer family I have left (we all have "kids"), but ugh, we agreed to talk about other stuff. 
Dave
 

Oh, there will be, for sure. Maybe not 5 minutes after it happened.
This video post is the first I saw this (partly because I've been driving around a good part of the day). In the US, there is a broad antipathy to the policies of the Israeli government and that has been so for years. But there is also very strong support for them as well. What there also is is VERY widespread support for the Israeli people. 
Most people can separate governmental policy from the people. Others will unfairly malign the critics as lacking support for Israel. It's complicated 😀
Dave

Oh, there will be, for sure. Maybe not 5 minutes after it happened.
This video post is the first I saw this (partly because I've been driving around a good part of the day). In the US, there is a broad antipathy to the policies of the Israeli government and that has been so for years. But there is also very strong support for them as well. What there also is is VERY widespread support for the Israeli people. 
Most people can separate governmental policy from the people. Others will unfairly malign the critics as lacking support for Israel. It's complicated 😀
Dave

Oh, there will be, for sure. Maybe not 5 minutes after it happened.
This video post is the first I saw this (partly because I've been driving around a good part of the day). In the US, there is a broad antipathy to the policies of the Israeli government and that has been so for years. But there is also very strong support for them as well. What there also is is VERY widespread support for the Israeli people. 
Most people can separate governmental policy from the people. Others will unfairly malign the critics as lacking support for Israel. It's complicated 😀
Dave

Just my own opinion, but I think this is the most likely argument. If Trump had won, Putin could have waited. Ukraine would not have gotten aide from the US and without that the rest of NATO would be less likely to go it alone. With Biden in office, he knew that Biden would build up unified opposition and a good case for aide, so the sooner the better (or in reality, the sooner the less bad 😀 )
Interesting how the disinformation campaigns take root and are hard to weed out. My cousin stopped overnight on his way back from a business trip a few weeks ago. My wife was out of town so we went out to dinner at a local Irish pub and he brought up some of the issues in Ukraine. First on his list was the "secret US run bio warfare labs that the Russians had liberated". Ugh. I thought that was put to bed long ago. He recommended that I not listen to the "mainstream media" and instead go to "trusted sources".  He named a few - all of them completely unreliable rumor mills. I won't bother to give them any print here. Now this is a guy, middle aged (mid 50s), who is well educated (University of Florida, then Oxford), in economics, has worked in oil and gas futures and resource evaluation for a couple decades. He's no dummy. But he's been led astray by all the BS that is spread. I explained the "bio-labs" and how the US has been for years helping Ukraine and others better secure facilities, and that rather than following his sources, he should actually read the state department agreement that details exactly what has been done over the years. Slack jaw. There was more - Ukraine and the US started everything. There was a treaty that the US would not expand NATO at all after the USSR fell. There was no guarantee of Ukraine's integrity, yada, yada, yada.
I love him to death. I only have 2 cousins and with my parents and my younger brother all dead, 1) I'm the oldest in the family, and 2) he and his sister are the only peer family I have left (we all have "kids"), but ugh, we agreed to talk about other stuff. 
Dave
 

Just my own opinion, but I think this is the most likely argument. If Trump had won, Putin could have waited. Ukraine would not have gotten aide from the US and without that the rest of NATO would be less likely to go it alone. With Biden in office, he knew that Biden would build up unified opposition and a good case for aide, so the sooner the better (or in reality, the sooner the less bad 😀 )
Interesting how the disinformation campaigns take root and are hard to weed out. My cousin stopped overnight on his way back from a business trip a few weeks ago. My wife was out of town so we went out to dinner at a local Irish pub and he brought up some of the issues in Ukraine. First on his list was the "secret US run bio warfare labs that the Russians had liberated". Ugh. I thought that was put to bed long ago. He recommended that I not listen to the "mainstream media" and instead go to "trusted sources".  He named a few - all of them completely unreliable rumor mills. I won't bother to give them any print here. Now this is a guy, middle aged (mid 50s), who is well educated (University of Florida, then Oxford), in economics, has worked in oil and gas futures and resource evaluation for a couple decades. He's no dummy. But he's been led astray by all the BS that is spread. I explained the "bio-labs" and how the US has been for years helping Ukraine and others better secure facilities, and that rather than following his sources, he should actually read the state department agreement that details exactly what has been done over the years. Slack jaw. There was more - Ukraine and the US started everything. There was a treaty that the US would not expand NATO at all after the USSR fell. There was no guarantee of Ukraine's integrity, yada, yada, yada.
I love him to death. I only have 2 cousins and with my parents and my younger brother all dead, 1) I'm the oldest in the family, and 2) he and his sister are the only peer family I have left (we all have "kids"), but ugh, we agreed to talk about other stuff. 
Dave
 

I think no small amount of the dis/mis Information Age we live in is because most people do not know how to vet and apply critical thinking with respect to the internet.  Younger generations seem better at this but is digital refugees tend to lack some of the basic skill.  We grew up when information was pumped at us through a box.  We believed it, to a point.  
Then the information world blew up.  In an ocean of information, anything can be made true.  Connecting dots - even ones that were not there- became too easy.  We gorged and got sick on it.  Then we got scared and went back to listening to one or two channels on the box.  Problem was we all seemed to pick the channels we liked and not the ones we could trust because we did not know which ones to trust.  So we wind up with information being provided based on what we want to hear as opposed to what is actually happening.  The monetization of mainstream information channels did not help (although one could argue it was always monetized) but they adapted and began to tell truths they could seem to a market...not the actual truth.  It was all fun and games until politicians started doing it.  Now everyone else but my sources is “lying”, in an age that lying should be impossible.
The truth became relevant.  Again one could argue it always has been but the distance between relevance frameworks grew and diversified as we all sought certainty instead of truth.  I can only hope that young people are growing up far more digitally cynical and can smell “fake” much better than we can.  Of course with AI, “fake” is simply getting better as well.

Just my own opinion, but I think this is the most likely argument. If Trump had won, Putin could have waited. Ukraine would not have gotten aide from the US and without that the rest of NATO would be less likely to go it alone. With Biden in office, he knew that Biden would build up unified opposition and a good case for aide, so the sooner the better (or in reality, the sooner the less bad 😀 )
Interesting how the disinformation campaigns take root and are hard to weed out. My cousin stopped overnight on his way back from a business trip a few weeks ago. My wife was out of town so we went out to dinner at a local Irish pub and he brought up some of the issues in Ukraine. First on his list was the "secret US run bio warfare labs that the Russians had liberated". Ugh. I thought that was put to bed long ago. He recommended that I not listen to the "mainstream media" and instead go to "trusted sources".  He named a few - all of them completely unreliable rumor mills. I won't bother to give them any print here. Now this is a guy, middle aged (mid 50s), who is well educated (University of Florida, then Oxford), in economics, has worked in oil and gas futures and resource evaluation for a couple decades. He's no dummy. But he's been led astray by all the BS that is spread. I explained the "bio-labs" and how the US has been for years helping Ukraine and others better secure facilities, and that rather than following his sources, he should actually read the state department agreement that details exactly what has been done over the years. Slack jaw. There was more - Ukraine and the US started everything. There was a treaty that the US would not expand NATO at all after the USSR fell. There was no guarantee of Ukraine's integrity, yada, yada, yada.
I love him to death. I only have 2 cousins and with my parents and my younger brother all dead, 1) I'm the oldest in the family, and 2) he and his sister are the only peer family I have left (we all have "kids"), but ugh, we agreed to talk about other stuff. 
Dave
 

Just my own opinion, but I think this is the most likely argument. If Trump had won, Putin could have waited. Ukraine would not have gotten aide from the US and without that the rest of NATO would be less likely to go it alone. With Biden in office, he knew that Biden would build up unified opposition and a good case for aide, so the sooner the better (or in reality, the sooner the less bad 😀 )
Interesting how the disinformation campaigns take root and are hard to weed out. My cousin stopped overnight on his way back from a business trip a few weeks ago. My wife was out of town so we went out to dinner at a local Irish pub and he brought up some of the issues in Ukraine. First on his list was the "secret US run bio warfare labs that the Russians had liberated". Ugh. I thought that was put to bed long ago. He recommended that I not listen to the "mainstream media" and instead go to "trusted sources".  He named a few - all of them completely unreliable rumor mills. I won't bother to give them any print here. Now this is a guy, middle aged (mid 50s), who is well educated (University of Florida, then Oxford), in economics, has worked in oil and gas futures and resource evaluation for a couple decades. He's no dummy. But he's been led astray by all the BS that is spread. I explained the "bio-labs" and how the US has been for years helping Ukraine and others better secure facilities, and that rather than following his sources, he should actually read the state department agreement that details exactly what has been done over the years. Slack jaw. There was more - Ukraine and the US started everything. There was a treaty that the US would not expand NATO at all after the USSR fell. There was no guarantee of Ukraine's integrity, yada, yada, yada.
I love him to death. I only have 2 cousins and with my parents and my younger brother all dead, 1) I'm the oldest in the family, and 2) he and his sister are the only peer family I have left (we all have "kids"), but ugh, we agreed to talk about other stuff. 
Dave
 

Just my own opinion, but I think this is the most likely argument. If Trump had won, Putin could have waited. Ukraine would not have gotten aide from the US and without that the rest of NATO would be less likely to go it alone. With Biden in office, he knew that Biden would build up unified opposition and a good case for aide, so the sooner the better (or in reality, the sooner the less bad 😀 )
Interesting how the disinformation campaigns take root and are hard to weed out. My cousin stopped overnight on his way back from a business trip a few weeks ago. My wife was out of town so we went out to dinner at a local Irish pub and he brought up some of the issues in Ukraine. First on his list was the "secret US run bio warfare labs that the Russians had liberated". Ugh. I thought that was put to bed long ago. He recommended that I not listen to the "mainstream media" and instead go to "trusted sources".  He named a few - all of them completely unreliable rumor mills. I won't bother to give them any print here. Now this is a guy, middle aged (mid 50s), who is well educated (University of Florida, then Oxford), in economics, has worked in oil and gas futures and resource evaluation for a couple decades. He's no dummy. But he's been led astray by all the BS that is spread. I explained the "bio-labs" and how the US has been for years helping Ukraine and others better secure facilities, and that rather than following his sources, he should actually read the state department agreement that details exactly what has been done over the years. Slack jaw. There was more - Ukraine and the US started everything. There was a treaty that the US would not expand NATO at all after the USSR fell. There was no guarantee of Ukraine's integrity, yada, yada, yada.
I love him to death. I only have 2 cousins and with my parents and my younger brother all dead, 1) I'm the oldest in the family, and 2) he and his sister are the only peer family I have left (we all have "kids"), but ugh, we agreed to talk about other stuff. 
Dave
 

Very petty, that.

Well, that was the bipartisan budget deal that was ALREADY made to get the debt ceiling passed. It already existed. McCarthy reneged on it in an attempt to placate the far-right group. What good did that do?
Dave

They delayed things long enough that they could actually READ what was in the bill, instead of immediately voting on an unseen bill. Either that or trust McCarthy, and they already have experience at that. 😀 That's not obstructing the passage. Obstructing the passage would have been not voting for it, in which case it would not have passed. Not even close.
The fire alarm thing? One guy. One idiot. 
Ukraine aid is going to be a tough balancing act. The next Speaker is going to have to promise the 8 to 20 rebels that there won't be any, and yet, if they try to NOT include Ukraine aid, it won't pass, because no one is going to trust a new Speaker to push a separate Ukraine aid bill after the budget, and not renege on the promise. They could, I suppose, propose both at once, so the bills are all on the docket to vote for - not sure of the exact mechanisms for all that. Basically the Speaker and his minions control what actually gets done in the House.
The end result is that I have NO idea why anyone would even run for the job at this point. What a mess.
Dave

They did. They had a deal. McCarthy stabbed everyone in the back and reneged. Why would anyone trust him again?
Yes, McCarthy missed an opportunity to do the right thing. He could have put country before party and got the job done a couple of weeks ago but he deiced not to. He got what he deserved. Frankly it looked obvious that he was not going to survive as the speaker no matter what choice he made. I would have thought that would be motivating to do the right thing but he didn't.

They delayed things long enough that they could actually READ what was in the bill, instead of immediately voting on an unseen bill. Either that or trust McCarthy, and they already have experience at that. 😀 That's not obstructing the passage. Obstructing the passage would have been not voting for it, in which case it would not have passed. Not even close.
The fire alarm thing? One guy. One idiot. 
Ukraine aid is going to be a tough balancing act. The next Speaker is going to have to promise the 8 to 20 rebels that there won't be any, and yet, if they try to NOT include Ukraine aid, it won't pass, because no one is going to trust a new Speaker to push a separate Ukraine aid bill after the budget, and not renege on the promise. They could, I suppose, propose both at once, so the bills are all on the docket to vote for - not sure of the exact mechanisms for all that. Basically the Speaker and his minions control what actually gets done in the House.
The end result is that I have NO idea why anyone would even run for the job at this point. What a mess.
Dave

They delayed things long enough that they could actually READ what was in the bill, instead of immediately voting on an unseen bill. Either that or trust McCarthy, and they already have experience at that. 😀 That's not obstructing the passage. Obstructing the passage would have been not voting for it, in which case it would not have passed. Not even close.
The fire alarm thing? One guy. One idiot. 
Ukraine aid is going to be a tough balancing act. The next Speaker is going to have to promise the 8 to 20 rebels that there won't be any, and yet, if they try to NOT include Ukraine aid, it won't pass, because no one is going to trust a new Speaker to push a separate Ukraine aid bill after the budget, and not renege on the promise. They could, I suppose, propose both at once, so the bills are all on the docket to vote for - not sure of the exact mechanisms for all that. Basically the Speaker and his minions control what actually gets done in the House.
The end result is that I have NO idea why anyone would even run for the job at this point. What a mess.
Dave

They delayed things long enough that they could actually READ what was in the bill, instead of immediately voting on an unseen bill. Either that or trust McCarthy, and they already have experience at that. 😀 That's not obstructing the passage. Obstructing the passage would have been not voting for it, in which case it would not have passed. Not even close.
The fire alarm thing? One guy. One idiot. 
Ukraine aid is going to be a tough balancing act. The next Speaker is going to have to promise the 8 to 20 rebels that there won't be any, and yet, if they try to NOT include Ukraine aid, it won't pass, because no one is going to trust a new Speaker to push a separate Ukraine aid bill after the budget, and not renege on the promise. They could, I suppose, propose both at once, so the bills are all on the docket to vote for - not sure of the exact mechanisms for all that. Basically the Speaker and his minions control what actually gets done in the House.
The end result is that I have NO idea why anyone would even run for the job at this point. What a mess.
Dave