House Democrats Rip Senate Colleagues: Their Lethargy Is Going To Cost Us Seats In 2010

A trio of progressive House members took direct aim at their colleagues in the Senate on Saturday, declaring that the upper chamber "sucks," has a "toxic effect" on the legislative process, and would cost House Democrats seats in the 2010 election.

Appearing at a panel discussion at Netroots Nation , the lawmakers argued that the public was not discriminating in its anger with Congress' legislative inertia. And while a fair chunk of the Senate was immune from direct, electoral blowback, every member of the House would have to deal with the taint.

"They say the senate has a luxury of time, six-year cycles for elections," said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus. "But these last 18 months have, in memory, have not only been the most frustrating but the inertia created in the Senate is what is jeopardizing Democrats and progressives' opportunities in the midterms. It is not our lack of action. It has been their lack of action."

"I think [we] feel a frustration because my constituents don't necessarily distinguish between the House and the Senate," said Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). "And so when they see something not getting done they are not really tolerant of my argument which is, 'Well it passed the House.' That doesn't really wash. They hold us all accountable for the failure of these issues moving forward. I personally think the 60-vote requirement in the United States Senate is a bastardization of the United States constitution."

"It sucks," said Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), "and I mean it literally. It sucks the energy out of the room and it sucks the urgency out of what we do... The lack of urgency from the Senate on these jobs bill is soul-crushing."

It is not, of course, uncommon for House aides to gripe about the inaction of their Senate colleagues. Nor for that matter is it rare for Senate aides to belittle House members as wildly idealistic about the pace of governance. But by publicly raising the prospect of electoral repercussions, Grijalva, Murphy and Perriello seemed a bit more willing to dispense with the formal niceties and political détentes that party leadership tries to uphold between the two chambers.

Comments

[Teresa Eckerman-Pfeil]

05:33 PM on 07/27/2010

Absolutely agree with this analysis of constituent confusion. If the senators don't want to change that filibuster rule, they should play the game: sleep on the cots, insist that the phone book or whatever is read for 24 hours straight without taking breaks. Make the Republicans look like fools filibustering for real, no getting away with a threat of filibuster. The people will realize that the Republicans are defeating the bill they want passed and the charade will end. And representative democracy will come back.

[loveroffarrakhanobamatoo]

05:46 PM on 07/26/2010

. I personally think the 60-vote requirement in the United States Senate is a bastardization of the United States constitution."


ever a true statement there

[Coloradem]

05:13 PM on 07/26/2010

Raul Grijalva is, quite possibly, the single best member of the House of Representatives. We need to get him over to the Senate, pronto..... Kyl could use a good strong challenge when he's up again.

[TedEjr]

01:38 PM on 07/26/2010

When they are right, who can argue with them?

How does that expression go? The House proposes, and the Senate . . . . sits back on their heels, says no, and then goes on recess.

Can't miss those basketball games. Ya know.

[HotSpringsSteve]

01:14 PM on 07/26/2010

Gutless is the word that applies to these mongrels. When they had the chance to put anything through that they wanted, they did nothing; not one thing. Later, when faced with contention, they rolled over and gave up position after position, knowing all the while it was wrong to do so. They need to be replaced. Just not with repugs. (spoken as a lifelong repug).

[TedEjr]

08:46 PM on 07/26/2010

As a independent minded, Libertarian with a Liberal streak, I say to you. H*ll yeah. Kick em all out. Both sides of the aisle. And then go for a Constitutional amendment for term limits. INCLUDING the SCOTUS.

[tarlipps]

05:02 PM on 08/11/2010

You joking ? The repugs plus the blue dogs make sure it doesn't add up to 60 votes.

[Noland]

12:00 PM on 07/26/2010

Hell to the yeah! ARE YA LISTENIN' BENJAMIN "BENEDICT ARNOLD" NELSON!!!!!!! Hell, there should be more backlash against this numbnuts.

[loveroffarrakhanobamatoo]

05:49 PM on 07/26/2010

Hell yea

[bascombe]

11:45 AM on 07/26/2010

LETHARGY or COMPLICITY?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Carolyn LeBeauf]

11:06 AM on 07/26/2010

When democratic Party is free of peole like Fingold,Lincoln, Nelson, and Landreau, then we will have a chance to do the work of this country.

[AustinCynic]

09:23 PM on 07/25/2010

They've got a point. Especially under Reid, the Senate has plumbed new depths of dysfunction.

[Jason Platt]

11:59 PM on 07/25/2010

It's not Senator Reid's fault the chamber needs 60 votes. There's really nothing he can do about it unfortunately. We just need to elect more Democratic Senators.

[WhitneyKyle]

09:49 AM on 07/26/2010

Very funny, but Reid is not the problem if you paid even ten minutes of time observing our senate, instead of hours watching Fox News and listening to AM radio. The problem is bought and paid for Republicans who refuse to let the senate pass bills to send to our president for signature. The international corporations and the international rich have tripled their wealth in a decade while working Americans have lost ground. Saying Reid is the problem is taking the side of the international rich and turning coat against America. That is unpatriotic.

[Auduboner]

11:24 AM on 07/26/2010

Well, you just haven't been watching the Senate for very long. Reid has been the most ineffective Majority Leader from either party in many decades. There are ways to get things done, and he hasn't been using them. Many of his problems have come from his own caucus - and that is inexcusable! You think LBJ as Majority Leader would have let that happen?? Reid is a wimp, and his members know it and push him around.

[AustinCynic]

01:55 PM on 07/26/2010

I actively AVOID Fox News and would rupture my eardrums with knitting needles before listening to wingnut spew on the radio. I DO fault Reid for not bringing the hammer down on Lieberman, Bill Nelson, and some of the other Blue Dogs that are enabling Republican obstructionism. Harry Reid may not be able do anything about the GOP but he should be able to put the screws on his own caucus when he needs to.

[afgail]

07:41 PM on 07/25/2010

The 60 vote super majority is designed to cede too much power to the small state senators. Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Olympia Snow, Joe Lieberman collectively don't represent the number of people in one New York City borough.

[maxfax]

08:20 PM on 07/25/2010

Maybe not, but their power is in their assignments.

[AFunkyMan]

07:26 PM on 07/25/2010

100 senators are deciding America's future

38 of them are uniformly not even going to let the other 62 vote on anything
5 more of them are going to waver if they are bought off enough for various reasons
57 will vote fairly regularily for democratic prnciples with maybe another 7-8 going rogue

To just stay at home and not vote allows that 38 number to grow with there never being a chance to come even close to your ideals and principles.

To complain ad nauseum that other people have to go within the administration and not lay any blame for these current circumstances is even worse and just self serving.

These are the guys holding the power. no more radically right or blue canines

PROGRESSIVES! !!!

[niblik]

04:35 PM on 07/26/2010

We must stay involved even when frustrated by the process or individual elected officials. You couldn't be more correct: staying home and not voting is the absolute WORST thing any of us could do right now.

fanned

[AFunkyMan]

04:40 PM on 07/26/2010

thx friend :)

[RescueUS]

07:13 PM on 07/25/2010

Pelosi said today that Democrats are "moving on all fronts to reduce the deficit" with pay-as-you-go rules.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011573-503544.html

Like paying for the unemployment benefits? Yeah right.

[blinkthink]

08:36 PM on 07/25/2010

This is the GOP priority, with no pay as you go, and long term deficit devastation:

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/02/25/kyl-puts-up-tax-cuts-for-rich-heirs-now-banner-up-in-senate/

[WhitneyKyle]

09:55 AM on 07/26/2010

The Republicans refuse to accept paying for unemployment by taxing where the revenues are, that is, the profitable corporations and the super rich. They insist that the broke middle class pay for it. Think for a moment. Why should those rolling in profits not pay taxes to pay for unemployment? Why should food stamps or Medicare be cut, but Exxon gets 2.5 billion in subsidies? Why should you have to give up something instead of the super rich who have tripled their wealth in the last decade?

[HotSpringsSteve]

01:20 PM on 07/26/2010

because they know that nothing 'trickles down'.

[Ryan Magdangal]

05:35 PM on 07/25/2010

This is why the filibuster must be done with. The house has passed over a hundred bills and the senate hides behind some rule that has been abused like a red headed step child.

The Constitution also specifies that a simple majority "shall constitute a Quorum to do Business." Indeed, the Framers were so confident that majority-vote rules would typically be used that they even assigned a tie-breaker: Under article 1, Section 3, Clause 4, the vice president "shall have no Vote, unless [the Senate] be equally divided."

Here's what Alexander Hamilton said, "To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is ... to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ... [I]ts real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. " Federalist 22

Sound familiar?

[BannedNBoston]

03:16 PM on 07/25/2010

If you cant beat them join them SEND CASH TO SCHUMER!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Evqr855igU&NR=1

[dpisoccer]

03:12 PM on 07/25/2010

Formed with the idea that it would be the thoughtful counter balance to the knee jerk house of the people, it has become an inert sloth feeding on lethargy. A chamber in which all 100 members presume that they indeed are more worthy of being POTUS than the actual person holding that office. A chamber in which any single member for any single reason can block the passage of a bill which is intended for the betterment of the entire country. The chamber has become the home for spoiled rich grown ups who if they don't get there way will pick up their ball and go home and sulk about how none of the rest understand them. I would pity them if it were not the fact that even in pity they seek advancement for themselves.

[mtnthunder]

03:19 PM on 07/25/2010

I agreed with everything you said except when you referred to them as grown ups.

[dpisoccer]

03:30 PM on 07/25/2010

point taken please see correction below

spoiled rich brats.

[playon]

03:52 PM on 07/25/2010

"Thoughtful counterbalance"? I don't think so... the Senate was originally created as the American version of the House of Lords and that's exactly what it is.

[Graywolf48]

06:21 PM on 07/25/2010

You are correct. The Senate was to be filled with Senators appointed by each state's governor and that's how it once was. Members of the Senate were to be landed gentry. The president, indirectly elected by the people (all property owners and all white males) held the power of the veto. The Senate and the President were set up to reign in the House of Commons (Representatives). American schools don't really teach how our nation was founded and the Constitution developed and that is indeed our loss. How many people know Madison thought the Constitution gave the Oligarch full possession of the government? I think the Federalist papers should be read by every American student, along with the Constitution and those pesky amendments Jefferson insisted on adding later, rather than call a second Constitutional convention that could lead to more mischief.