Jeffries says 'informal conversations' taking place for bipartisan solution to Speakership | The Hill
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
by Lauren Sforza - 10/15/23 11:39 AM ET
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that there are "informal conversations" taking place for a bipartisan solution to the House Speakership, which has been vacant for nearly two weeks.
"There are informal conversations that have been underway. When we get back to Washington tomorrow, it's important to begin to formalize those discussions," he told NBC's Kristen Welker on "Meet the Press."
Asked why formal conversations haven't happened yet, Jeffries responded: "At this point, that is on my House Republican colleagues. We have made clear, publicly and privately, that we are ready, willing and able to enter into a bipartisan governing coalition that puts the American people first and solves problems for hardworking American taxpayers."
"My Republican colleagues have a simple choice. They can either double or triple down on the chaos, dysfunction and extremism. Or, let's have a real conversation about changing the rules of the House so it can work in the best interests of the American people," he added.
The House GOP has been engaged in a tumultuous debate since eight of its members sided with Democrats to oust Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) from the Speakership nearly two weeks ago. Republicans have voted to put forward Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) as their nominee, but it is unclear whether he will have enough support to secure the Speaker role.
When asked what "demands" he would have for changing House rules, Jeffries reiterated that they are trying to find "common ground."
"We want to ensure that votes are taken on bills that have substantial Democratic support and substantial Republican support so that the extremists aren't able to dictate the agenda," Jeffries said. "The current rules of the House have facilitated a handful of Republicans being able to determine what gets voted on in the House of Representatives, and that undermines the interests of the American people. We can change the rules to facilitate bipartisanship, and that should be the starting point of our conversation."
Tags Hakeem Jeffries Hakeem Jeffries Jim Jordan Jim Jordan Kevin McCarthy Kevin McCarthy Kristen Welker Speakership vote
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Keep conversations to the topic or face comment removal.
Tags
Who is online
644 visitors
With the divisions and animosity in a fractured conference can Republicans pick a speaker without bi-partisan support? I'd like to see the Republican Governance Caucus lead the way.
He sees what's important. Ignoring the extremists so the adults can get work done
Bi-partisanship shouldn't be a dirty word. It should be normal operating procedure, but these are not normal times. I will also say if the moderates in both parties bail out the Majority and can govern effectively it will undermine the extreme populists in both wings, but right now it seems like there are too many divisions in the Republican Party to place any bets on where they will go.
MAGA don't compromise.
Democracy is a dirty word to the Trumpsters.
gee, it seems there's a few too many wannabe dictators in the new 4th reich ...
Exactly. The cohesive majorities in each party basically nullify each other leaving the fringe to have control.
Stubborn partisanship is not good for the nation.
I see more politics and less governing going on these days, but it is what it is. The best type of person for the job is someone that doesn't want it.
You haven't talked to my mother, but let's keep this on topic please.
The time for bipartisanship was when the vote to remove McCarthy was taken. Democrat's bipartisan effort was to intentionally create the chaos in the House. 208 Democrats voted for the chaos in the House. Only 8 Republicans voted for the chaos in the House. Are we to believe that Hakeem Jefferies didn't want to create this mess? Why should anyone trust Jeffries?
Democrats put political points on the scoreboard. Now is the time for Democrats to savor their victory. So, why isn't Biden taking a victory lap?
In the world of what came first you seem to have decided that not only did chicken and egg come at the same time but they are both democrats.
As to "So, why isn't Biden taking a victory lap?" That would be an unseemly act in today's turmoil reserved for your latest hero.
Are you attempting to deny Democrats' role in shutting down the House by voting to ouster Kevin McCarthy? Only seven Democrats voting present would have avoided the chaos in the House. Democrats deliberately chose to form a coalition with the Freedom Caucus led by Matt Gaetz to remove Kevin McCarthy. Democrats complaining about Jim Jordan becoming Speaker seems rather hypocritical.
Jefferies is lying about bipartisanship. Jefferies is only interested in scoring political points. Maybe this is payback for Biden throwing House Democrats under the bus to get Joe Manchin on board. Make no mistake, Jefferies has thrown Biden under the bus with this political stunt.
With the House shut down the government is definitely drowning in the bathtub. Newt Gingrich would have been so proud to have the help of so many Democrats. Jefferies threw the baby out with the bathwater. Why should Republicans pull Jefferies' ass out of the fire?
Are you denying that republicans and especially McCarthy put this into play by bending to their radicals wishes by allowing just one dissatisfied member to bring the current nonsense to fruition? Republicans reaped what they sowed and now want to blame the grocery store for their rotting produce.
15 votes for McCarthy to become Speaker didn't provide a clue? Who didn't know the Freedom Caucus had rigged a time bomb? Even the unbiased press recognized that before McCarthy dragged his sorry ass across the finish line to become Speaker.
So, Hakeem Jefferies is stupider than the average unbiased reporter?
“So, Hakeem Jefferies is stupider than the average unbiased reporter?”
No. He is obviously smart enough to let the gop cannibalism continue until they come to him for a resolution.
A political gamble? To be sure, but when the one seated across from you goes all in, and they have an obvious tell, prepare to have your bluff called.
The Freedom Caucus doesn't seem to care about a resolution. And it doesn't seem likely that enough Republicans can be scraped up to vote in a Democrat. So, now the only resolution is for Democrats to either vote for a Republican or sit on their hands to allow Republicans to elect a new Speaker.
Right now Biden's reelection is flapping in the wind. Biden has to buy votes and the money has dried up. Republicans only have to hold out for Biden to start begging and making concessions. House Democrat expectations for Senate Republicans to fold seems rather delusional, too. Senate Republicans recognize how the chaos is hurting Biden and Democrats.
House Democrats voted to remove McCarthy and create chaos. But that has stymied Biden. Great job Jefferies! Matt Gaetz has to be laughing his ass off.
“The Freedom Caucus doesn't seem to care about a resolution.”
And that is it in a ‘nut’shell.
The rest of your screed[s] are but the myopic, misguided, and misplaced placing of blame.
Who said the democrats were obligated to redux 'The Hurt Locker'?
It's hilarious how all things are blamed on Democrats/Liberals/Progressives and President Biden. Didn't you hear that it's his fault that the republiCONS/CONServatives are a bunch of do nothing projecting, deflecting, denying whackjobs and that they don't have a speaker of the house??????????????????
You do understand that the Democrat conference and the Freedom Caucus formed a bipartisan coalition to oust Kevin McCarthy? What is being suggested is 208 Democrats sided with the Freedom Caucus because Democrats were clueless about what the Freedom Caucus wanted.
We already have an example of Democrats' bipartisanship. Why would we want more of that? This is just another example of Democrats using chaos to get their way while lying to the public about what they've done.
So in your world, democrats not voting for a republican, let alone a MAGA republican, is bipartisan?
Are you trying to tell us that House Democrats are so freakin' stupid they didn't understand that the House couldn't do anything without a Speaker?
Democrats didn't have to vote for McCarthy; they could have voted 'present'. The claim that Democrats have to vote for a Republican is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Eight Democrats could have just sat on their hands and McCarthy would have remained speaker.
Democrats deliberately voted for chaos. Claiming Democrats were too stupid to understand what they were voting for might be stereotypically satisfying but that's just not the truth.
republican dysfunction is now the democrats fault? here's an idea, the magnetometers have been removed at the entrance to congress, let the GOP solve their internal problems the old fashioned way... ... like they did in the 17 and 1800's... /s
[deleted]
I think you give them too much credit, I believe they are too stupid to know what was going to happen, there is a long history of them being so fucking stupid as to not understand the unintended consequences of their actions.
Jedi mind tricks work on the weak minded. Maybe that explains how the Freedom Caucus convinced 208 Democrats to climb onto their wagon. Why should we be surprised if the Freedom Caucus can put Jim Jordan in the Speaker's chair?
“Jedi mind tricks work on the weak minded.”
Jim ‘Jedi’ Jordan? Funny stuff. That might actually stick.
Someone is most definitely lost in space.
Ain't that the ultimate reality/projecting/deflecting/denial/defenseoftheindefensible????????????????
I meant to say 'ultimate alternate reality . . . . . '
Apparently republicans are since they are the ones that initiated the vote to kick out McCarthy without a replacement ready. Democrats are just letting them have their way.
So what, when has the minority party ever voted for the majority nominee, especially when that nominee has let the lunatic fringe to dictate the rules.
Chaos has been at the House ever since the last election when republicans took over the majority. Keep in mind who voted to allow the speaker to be removed by 1 single rep?
isn't everything bad the fault of Democrats you silly goose?
nice pretzel logic. why would house democrats vote for a speaker that's a liar, or any SOTH candidate that is only there as a proxy for an insurrectionist liar. want to see some democrats cross the aisle in the SOTH race? simple, nominate somebody sane with american citizen's interests before his party's, preferably someone that's not wearing trump's anus like a headband...
Democrats didn't have to vote for anybody. The only thing needed was 8 Democrats sticking their thumbs up their butts and receiving a participation award for being there.
8 Democrats voting 'present' would have allowed McCarthy to remain Speaker with 210 Ayes and 208 Nays. And McCarthy remaining as Speaker means Biden could get his dollars for democracy.
Democrats crawled in bed with Matt Gaetz and the Freedom Caucus. So, Biden gets nothing until he grovels. Hakeem Jefferies threw Biden under the bus to score political points. So, why aren't Democrats taking a victory lap?
There was no political upside for them to do so. Now they have a better political position to bargain from. Either the Republicans work with the Democrats or the Republicans set fire to the House. Either way it's a political win for the Democrats.
I detest this part of politics, but it's always been the way.
The group that won was the Freedom Caucus. Matt Gaetz got everything he wanted. Democrats made that possible.
You are suggesting that Republicans have to cave to Democrats. But Republicans can also cave to the Freedom Caucus. Republicans already went through a spectacle of 15 votes to make Kevin McCarthy Speaker without asking for help from Democrats. Why would Hakeem Jefferies be more acceptable to Republicans than any Republican?
Biden is the one flapping in the wind. How long can Jefferies ignore Biden's demands for dollars?
'caving'... is an interesting way to frame bipartisan governing. Moderates working together would get more done, but would piss off 'the base' of populists that energize in the primaries.
This looks to be the route they are trying now. It also comes with consequences in moderates in districts that are up for reelection.
I never suggested he should be the Republican pick for Speaker. There are any number of moderate Republicans that I would pick.
You can continue to hang this on Dems, but the Republicans run the House even without a Speaker it is their problem to solve.
A clear sign of a partisan mindset.
McCarthy said in an interview before the vote he didn't want Dem help. The time for bipartisianship to bail out McCarthy was in January and he done fucked that up.
Democrats are quite adept at sitting on their hands most of the time. So, why didn't Democrats sit on their hands when the vote to remove McCarthy was taken?
Democrats didn't have to vote for McCarthy. Democrats could have just sat on their hands and be counted as present.
I wasn't privy to any of their meetings, but I'd guess that McCarthy's pandering to the Freedom Caucus had something to do with it. He did not attempt to reach out to Dems so what would they have gained politically?
“…McCarthy's pandering to the Freedom Caucus…”
”Those who gain applause and power by pandering to the mistakes, the prejudices and passions of the multitude are the enemies of liberty.”
~ Robert Green Ingersoll
Who knew that the GOP was just going to go from bad to worse?
pretty soon they won't even be able to synchronize their goosestepping...
15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker didn't provide a clue? So, now we know Democrats are thick as a brick.
What we really know is that you and a host of others are blaming the Pequod's sinking on the harpooners for Ahab's hapless hubris.
There's a newer variation of hubris, it's called agnorance
... both presoaked in impudence.
lol
The problem is square in the Republican's lap regardless of what Dems did, or didn't do. They can either close ranks and vote one person for Speaker OR work with Dems and deny the fringe. Either way their will be consequences on this historic moment.
since eight of its members sided with Democrats to oust Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) from the Speakership nearly two weeks ago
I’m so sick of seeing this bullshit assertion. McCarthy was openly hostile to Democrats. Of course they never, ever intended to endorse him - particularly in an effort to salvage a reputation for the hopelessly rudderless Republican Party.
It's a weak argument at best, but it's all they have without admitting that (considering the slim majority) McCarthy screwed the pooch in January to get his gavel.
Jeffries idea of a bipartisan solution is to vote for him.
No, it's not. The Democrats want the Republicans to pick a moderate that will work with Democrats across the isle. They certainly don't want a founding member of the Freedom Caucus who's hell bent on impeaching their leadership to run their chamber.
None the less - the Republicans don't need the Dems to elect a new Speaker. They just have to convince the 20 current hold outs to sell their souls and it's a done deal.
I thought that the majority of them had ALREADY sold their souls to the devil, the former 'president'