By
On Friday afternoon, after Republicans failed again to elect a new House speaker, Democratic members gathered on the Capitol steps and heard House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries denounce the GOP’s nominee, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, as an “extremist” and the chairman of his party’s “chaos caucus.”
But that’s not all the New York Democrat said. “We want to find a bipartisan path to reopening the House of Representatives,” he added.
It was a familiar message. In fact, on a nearly daily basis last week, Jeffries told anyone who’d listen that there’s an alternative to the Republicans’ shambolic process: It’ll take 217 votes to elect a new House speaker, and Democrats are sitting on 212 votes. “We are ready, willing and able,” the minority leader told PBS on Thursday, to work on “a bipartisan path forward.”
Is there anyone in the GOP majority willing to respond to Jeffries’ offer? For now, the answer appears to be a cautious yes. Politico reported:
Talks of a possible bipartisan solution to the House Speaker standoff that has created chaos in the Republican caucus are underway, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Sunday. “There are informal conversations that have been underway. When we get back to Washington tomorrow, it’s important to begin to formalize those discussions,” the New York Democrat said during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
When host Kristen Welker asked what, exactly, House Democratic leaders would seek as part of a possible agreement, Jeffries sketched out a rough vision, focused on procedural changes.
“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,” he responded. “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.”
As for whether there are Republicans prepared to engage in such a conversation, there were a handful of GOP members late last week who raised the specter of bipartisan talks, including House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers, who told reporters, in reference to Democrats, “We’re willing to work with them, but they gotta tell us what they need.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner said something similar a few days later, conceding on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that if Republicans find themselves unable to elect a speaker on their own, a “deal will have to be done” with Democrats.
To reiterate a point from Friday, it’s best not to overstate the likelihood of such an agreement. To know anything about congressional GOP politics in recent years is to realize that the party’s bipartisan muscles have long since atrophied.
But the more the Republican majority struggles, the louder the clamoring for a bipartisan deal becomes. All things considered, as recently as five days ago, the idea of such an agreement seemed like a fantastical thought experiment in an Aaron Sorkin drama. Every day since, it’s become more plausible.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.