Former Congressman Questions McMahon’s Math On Murphy’s Attendance Record
by Hugh McQuaid | Aug 20, 2012 7:00am
(19) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Congress, Election 2012
For more than a week Linda McMahon’s campaign has been running TV spots accusing U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy of being absent from nearly 80 percent of the hearings for the legislative committees he’s assigned to. But a former Republican congressman said Friday that the ad may be misleading.
McMahon and Murphy are the respective Republican and Democratic nominees for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Joseph Lieberman. But even before both candidates won their primary bids Tuesday night, McMahon was running ads critical of Murphy’s attendance record for the two legislative committees he served on in his first term.
The McMahon campaign launched a new ad Friday, in which the narrator asks “If you skipped 80 percent of the meetings for your job, would you get a promotion?” The ad alleges that Murphy skipped 80 percent of “urgent meetings” aimed at avoiding a meltdown during the 2008 financial crisis.
“Maybe Chris was at the plush, secret congressional health club which you paid for. Or maybe Murphy skipped work to raise money to keep his $170,000 a year job, but Chris Murphy didn’t show up for the job you paid him to do,” the narrator says.
An accompanying press release states that out of a total of 218 hearings by the Government Oversight and Financial Services Committees, Murphy was absent from 170, or 77.9 percent.
But for a number of reasons, former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons said it may not be accurate to characterize Murphy as skipping work. Simmons lost a Republican primary battle with McMahon in 2010, the first time she ran for U.S. Senate. On Friday he said McMahon’s lack of experience as a lawmaker may be coloring her attacks on her Democratic opponent this year.
“Mrs. McMahon has never served in public office in any capacity. Therefore she has no idea how legislatures—local, state, or federal, how they work,” Simmons said.
McMahon did serve on the state board of education for one year before resigning. She only missed one meeting during that time.
But Simmons said there are a few reasons why lawmakers would not attend hearings. For one thing, they sit on a number of committees and subcommittees, he said. There are times when committees and subcommittees meet at the same time, forcing legislators to either choose one and skip the other or try to split his or her time between the groups, Simmons said.
He said some lawmakers who appear to participate in almost every hearing on paper don’t necessarily spend much time at them.
“Some people I know would go in and register as present then walk out,” he said.
Tim Murtaugh, McMahon’s spokesman, questioned whether Murphy had a scheduling conflict during 80 percent of committee hearings.
Simmons said 20 percent attendance seemed low, but noted there is a difference between informational hearings and committee meetings where lawmakers cast votes on legislation. Responding to an earlier TV spot, the Murphy campaign pointed to Murphy’s high attendance rate for meetings where a vote occurred.
“During his first term, Chris was a very active member of the Financial Services Committee, casting 129 out of 132 votes in the committee and 1,854 out of 1,875 votes on the House floor. Any suggestion otherwise is a lie,” Taylor Lavender, Murphy’s campaign spokeswoman, said in a statement.
Simmons said he felt that being present for a vote was more important than attending hearings, which are designed to give lawmakers an opportunity to learn about issues and ask questions of experts.
“When someone comes to testify, unless it’s really high profile, attendance is not high,” Simmons said.
Part of the reason for that is some lawmakers consider themselves well-versed on certain issues. For instance, Simmons, a retired Army officer, said he considered himself knowledgeable on military issues. He said it helped him when he served on the House Armed Services Committee.
“I didn’t necessarily need to be attending hearings to learn things,” he said.
Simmons said when he was in the House he regularly attended hearings, but he was often multitasking while he was there. He said he would be listening to the hearing with one ear but also focusing on other things like signing letters.
He said some other members attend hearings simply to use them as a soapbox.
“Some members use hearings as a podium, not there to ask questions, there to get on television,” he said.
In particular, the McMahon campaign focuses on two hearings that occurred in October 2008. One was a Government Oversight hearing on the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. The other was a hearing exploring the role of credit rating agencies in the financial crisis.
“Are you telling me Chris Murphy knew enough about Lehman Brothers?” Murtaugh asked.
Murtaugh said it was up to Murphy to explain why he missed hearings, not Simmons.
“With all due respect to former Congressman Simmons, he doesn’t know why Murphy missed those hearings,” he said.
Murtaugh said for the hearings held by committees tasked with addressing the financial crisis Murphy “was a no show four out of five times. It’s an embarrassment.”
In a press release the McMahon campaign asked if Murphy wasn’t at the two hearings, where was he?
Murphy declined to return phone calls for this report, but his campaign did put out a statement explaining that he was in Connecticut.
“In October of 2008, when the House wasn’t in session, Chris was back in Connecticut talking to his constituents and business leaders about what should be done to save the economy. When the House was not in session, he thought it was more important to be in Connecticut listening to the people he represented than listening to a panel discussion in Washington,” Lavender said.
Tags: Linda McMahon, Chris Murphy, Rob Simmons, U.S. Senate 2012
(19) Comments
posted by: Noteworthy | August 20, 2012 7:11am
Simmons is still angry over his loss to Linda. Secondly, the subcommittee in question was dealing with the financial crisis which as we now know, affected us and continues to haunt us in dramatic ways - from job losses to value losses in our homes to massive foreclosures. One would think a congressman can prioritize these meetings. Was there a conflicting meeting 80% of the time that was more important than the financial crisis?
posted by: ALD | August 20, 2012 8:26am
“Simmons said he felt that being present for a vote was more important than attending hearings, which are designed to give lawmakers an opportunity to learn about issues and ask questions of experts.”
If all a member of Congress is going to do is vote his/her party line virtually all the time anyway I guess what Mr Simmons says is true, they don’t need to waste any of their time attending any hearings.
However with all due respect to Mr Simmons, I think that is exactly one of the major problems in Washington. I don’t want the party leaders doing the thinking for my Representatives. I would hope my Representatives would want to take every opportunity to attend these hearings to become fully informed before they vote.
I wonder if Mr Simmons thinks it’s more important to just show up for the High School class picture, and graduation ceremonies, or to show up for classes as well?
posted by: JAM | August 20, 2012 9:54am
The “Financial Crisis” was a quickly moving and evolving problem that even the most experienced financial people were flying by the seat of their pants. To suggest that Murphy or any other Congrees Person did not need to stay on top of things is ridiculous.
If you want to know how fast things were moving, read Henry Paulson’s “On The Brink.”
posted by: SalRomano | August 20, 2012 10:18am
Rob Simmons told me that he was also unhappy with Susan Bysiewicz also, and appeared enthused over the fact that Chris Murphy beat her—on the Democratic Primary night. Perhaps, “it’s a male ego thing, with Rob Simmons?”
As a Republican, Simmons should support Linda McMahon—and let his past political battles—remain as HISTORY.
Vote for and support Linda, Rob!
posted by: meridenite | August 20, 2012 10:25am
So murphy voted 98% of the time but only knew about 20% of the issues/bills, which means about 75% of the time he didn’t know what he was voting on.
posted by: kenneth_krayeske | August 20, 2012 10:32am
McMahon will still never overcome the fact that she is an unlikeable millionaire madam who happily sold sex, violence and misogyny to kids.
posted by: mpalmer | August 20, 2012 12:20pm
McMahon served on the state board of education and quit after one year?
posted by: MGKW | August 20, 2012 12:53pm
So we are going to accept the veracity of the world according to MCM$$$$ after she said that WWE is family entertainment? Its on YouTube. under Linda Mcmahon and Bill O’Reilly.
The more blood money she spends the worst it looks.
posted by: joemanc | August 20, 2012 1:02pm
“McMahon will still never overcome the fact that she is an unlikeable millionaire madam who happily sold sex, violence and misogyny to kids. “
Like Hollywood liberals?
posted by: Diana037 | August 20, 2012 1:27pm
I wonder how many of those people who are criticizing Rep. Murphy have actually sat in a hearing either here in the state or down in Washington?
Many of the hearings that I attended there was only one legislator attending the hearing out of forty-five members. A number of the members sit on more than one committee and there are conflicts with the other committee meetings. Also many of the legislators are watching it on television from their office.
posted by: Dempsey Dem | August 20, 2012 7:02pm
I found it indicative of Ms McMahons integrity when she appeared on Face The State a week ago saying that she would avoid negative adds, and then within sixty seconds of the shows end , she ran her attack ad. As she criticizes Chris Murphy for the existence of a Congressional Health Club, she’s probably dreaming this stuff up while sitting on her Sexy Bitch (Her yacht of course)...Come to think of it, where’s she hiding the yacht?
posted by: ALD | August 20, 2012 7:43pm
“I wonder how many of those people who are criticizing Rep. Murphy have actually sat in a hearing either here in the state or down in Washington?”
Well, over the years I have had several meetings with Mr Murphy. He looks you in the eye, smiles from ear to ear, nods his head in agreement, tells you what you want to hear, and as soon as he leaves the room forgets anything that was said. The only interaction I ever got from him afterwards were his almost daily e-mails asking for my money each election.
I agree with Ken Krayeske, Linda as an alternative is less than what we could hope for, but to me my experience with Chris Murphy makes her look very good. Plus she is using her money to run on, not mine.
To quote Mr Murphy 13 years ago in my home, “it’s time for a change” and in this case it’s time Mr Murphy looks for a job outside of politics.
posted by: SalRomano | August 20, 2012 8:35pm
kennethkrayeske: You come across like a “bitter oats Democrat?” Are you? Also since you are so judgemental of Linda, I hope that God has forgiven you—“for your Sins, Kenneth. None of us are mightier than THOU.
Give Linda a break, Kenneth, as she is not part of the Pres. Obama political deficit spenders, who have led us to $5.2 trillion dollars of massive deficit spending in under 4 years. We need Linda in there to replace the Obama team, led by Chris Murphy, who must be replaced by Linda McMahon, if we are going to save America from insolvency. You are generally a clear thinker, but you got very carried away this time, Kenneth.
Vote for Linda McMahon and Mitt Romney to improve your sagging political views, Ken. Besides, it’s best for America.
posted by: CitizenCT | August 20, 2012 8:42pm
For the Anti-McMahon Hartford Courant to deem this commercial “Generally Accurate” you know it must be true. Meridenite’s comment sums it up. Murphy has made a career at taxpayer expense of making uninformed votes. Look no further than Murphy being the only CT Representative to vote against the Defense Appropriation bill last month, critical for defense employment in the state, particularly Electric Boat. CT deserves better than Murphy.
posted by: Coyote | August 20, 2012 9:18pm
Many of the subscommittee hearings were pretty obscure and had nothing to do with the financial crisis. McMahon may have the numbers correct but the relationship of the accusation to how well Murphy is doing his job is negligible.
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-claimcheck-mcmahon-0821-20120820,0,4662179.story
posted by: jenand | August 21, 2012 11:48am
Linda - Is That all you’ve got? Pitiful. Chris is accessible to his constituents, and perhaps feels that our collective voice is more important that listening to some right wingnut blowhard, filibustering and blathering nonsense simply to obstruct positive policy from being enacted. How is it going to help those who are struggling if McMahon puts her rubber stamp on the noxious opininions of the Republican party? Chris and Blumenthal will have our interests at heart.
posted by: SalRomano | August 21, 2012 10:37pm
jenand: Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal are part of the Obama spending team that is heading our nation into bankruptcy by adding $5.2 trillion dollars to our national debt in less than 4 years. If you ran a business—you would never hire these fiscally irresponsible people. That’s why voters will vote this motley crew out of office on Election Day,” except they will have to wait a while before they can replace “Rabid Spender Blumenthal.”
posted by: bumphus | August 22, 2012 2:09am
Yes, Joemanc, she’s just like “hollywood liberals”, only much worse. She’s a right-wing, God-fearing, family values conservative liar from North Carolina.
posted by: eastrivertype | August 24, 2012 8:02pm
Chris Murphy says he has a 97% voting record. I am sure that is true. Linda McMahon says that he missed 80% of the committee hearings by the subcommittee which was supposed to deal with a major issue. I believe that is true also.
There is a difference between voting and attending. So Murphy doesn’t deny that he missed the 80%.
On this issue Chris Murphy is wrong. He should have been at those hearings. A more informed Congressman couldn’t have done worse than what Congress did on the issue. They made it worse.
His only defense is that did vote 97% of the time. He has no excuse for missing the 80% of the subcommittee hearings. If he does, I would like to hear it and not the lame sort of defense that Rob Simmons offered.