Is it too much to ask that a bill that is all about securing borders abroad also include money and policies to secure the border here at home?

Of course, the answer is yes. This is not because the request is unreasonable but because Speaker Johnson doesn't have the votes to make it happen. He doesn't have the votes to make anything happen. 

He isn't so much a RINO as a SpINO. Speaker in Name Only. 

I am more sympathetic to the anger against Johnson for re-upping the FISA law--FISA has been abused so egregiously and so often that I think that the whole system needs a revamp. I can only guess what made Johnson do an about-face on the bill. I suspect it comes down to this: reform was impossible with a Biden presidency and a Democrat Senate, and there is plenty of evidence that a terrorist attack is around the corner. It was this bill or nothing, and having nothing may have made avoiding a likely attack more difficult. 

I think that is what he is thinking. Open borders are making us less safe, and he felt in a terrible bind. You can disagree with him, but I don't think he is in thrall to the intelligence community. 

I can't assess whether Johnson was played or not, so I will confine my comments to the foreign aid package and the border. I wasn't there to get the briefings that scared Johnson. 

The problem Johnson faced was simple: 101 Republicans wanted the Ukraine/Israel bill passed, and together with the Democrats, they could make it happen. The problem wasn't Johnson per se—any Speaker would have brought up the bill or lost his Speakership without making a difference to the outcome. 

I argued, and I suspect that at least most of my colleagues agree, that with the House split so evenly, it doesn't matter which Republican is in the Speaker's chair. 

Not even a little bit. This is why I thought kicking out McCarthy was a fool's errand and said so—not because I liked what was happening in Congress—I hate it—but because what happens in Congress is a result of the balance of power both within Congress as a whole and within the Republican caucus. 

If Johnson (or McCarthy) had a 30-seat majority, he would have maneuvering room to cobble together a coalition in the House; right now, he can't do squat. And no matter how the House votes, the Senate and the president will frustrate anything the Republicans do. 

Any Republican Speaker right now is not a leader; he or she will be a caretaker whose job it is to help Republicans hobble over the finish line come November 5th. 

Does this suck? Yes, yes, it does. 

Is it frustrating? You bet it is. 

But elections have consequences, and Republicans screwed up big time in 2022. We should have been laser-focused on winning elections, but we were in the midst of a power struggle that hampered our efforts to do so. 

We lost GEORGIA, for God's sake! Georgia!! We should have won Georgia and Pennsylvania but failed. 

Blaming Johnson or McCarthy is satisfying, but the reality is that neither man is/was really in charge of anything. Put in Jim Jordan, and you will suddenly discover that he, too, is a RINO.

Not because he is a RINO, but because he has zero power. Or, rather, the minimal amount of power that is worthy of the name. 

If Republicans win the presidency, the House, and the US Senate, we can pressure people with power. Right now, no Republicans in Washington have much at all when it comes to issues that matter to you and me. The more screaming we do at Republicans, the more we empower the Democrats. 

The motions to vacate the Speaker's chair are stupid. They will accomplish nothing. It will make Republicans look stupid and help the Democrats. 

How do I know this? Not only did I see it when McCarthy was kicked out, but events have confirmed it since. Johnson, after all, was supposed to bring REAL CONSERVATISM™ back into power. 

How'd that work out?