Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Who killed the bailout? The folks worried about keeping their seats

By

This was never about party (Democrats voted yes 140-95; GOP voted no 65-133 — about as bipartisan a House vote as we’ve seen in some time).  Nor is it about a few lawmakers’ feelings being hurt by Nancy Pelosi — honestly, if there’s any truth to that, the lawmakers in question (and I don’t mean Pelosi) should resign immediately, since they’re obviously far too delicate for the rough-and-tumble world of Washington politics.

No, this is about the fact that calls in everyone’s offices were running like 100-1 against the bailout.  Check this out:

Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as “toss-up” or “lean” by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.

By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don’t have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.

Remember, telephone calls to congressional offices were running about 100 to 1 against this bill.

… [And,] among 26 congressmen NOT running for re-election (almost all of whom are Republicans), 23 voted in favor of the bill, as opposed to 2 against and one abstaining.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. This is what Barney Frank had to say about that subject, via Think  Progress:

    Here’s the story. There’s a terrible crisis affecting the American economy. We have come together on a bill to alleviate the crisis. And because somebody hurt their feelings, they decide to punish the country. I mean, I would not have imputed that degree of pettiness and hypersensitivity.

    We also have – as the leader will tell you, who’s been working with them – don’t believe they had the votes, and I believe they’re covering up the embarrassment of not having the votes. But think about this. Somebody hurt my feelings, so I will punish the country. That’s hardly plausible. And there are 12 Republican members who were ready to stand up for the economic interest of America, but not if anybody insulted them.

       I’ll make an offer. Give me those 12 people’s names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are and maybe they’ll now think about the country.

    • not to be able to whip their own votes.  if i were them, i might be trying to use the ‘moooom!  nancy was mean to me’ excuse too.  btw, i thought that white knight mccain rode in to the rescue?  guess his greatness has been slightly exaggerated.  

      • Pelosi looked as if she was on the verge of an MI. Her eyes were blinking 20 times/sec which is a new high for her. She needs to get her meds adjusted.

        <

        p>This legislation is garbage. Congress needs to sit back and think about this for a while. Nothing like a stampede or a lynch mob to get folks all riled up and run down the wrong doad and do something they regret for the rest of their lives because, “it seemed like a good idea at the time.
        Wall street? Who cares. It goes up and down. I’ve been in the market for over thirty years. I’ve lost my shirt more than once and I’ve already taken a big hit on this one. It goes down and it goes up. It’s early in the morning and the futures market is already up today.  Speculators are ruminating that a barrel of oil could go down to less that $50/barrel. Every cloud has a silver lining. Next couple of days could be good times to buy!

    • There were 95 Democrats who voted against the bill. Were their feelings hurt too?

      <

      p>Playing politics and trying to blame the Republicans for the failure of the bill to pass is denied by the vote tally.

      <

      p>I stand by my apportionment of responsibility: Bush gold medal, Congressional Democrats, silver medal.

      • Why should those 95 democrats voted to pass the bill? So we could lose the House this election?

        <

        p>What’s with the knee jerk reactions? This bill STUNK. We can pass a better one. Make a bill that will make Democrats proud and we’ll pass it with a wide margin. This bill failed to do that, hence 95 sane Democrats. Write a better bill that will help americans, provide oversight and ensure Wall Street pays in full for this boondoggle and the Dems will pass this. At that point, it’s in the Senate and Bush’s hands: if the Republicans want to stop that, it’s on them.

        • Tell me – what excuse did Delahunt, Tierney, and Lynch have?  All three are unopposed – Barney Frank couldn’t even deliver the unopposed members of his own delegation, and it’s the REPUBLICANS fault?

          <

          p>If Nancy Pelosi had the guts to ram a vote forward, she could have won.  But her OWN members said – no, we need EVERYBODY’S fingerprints on this; we need more Republicans to vote for it.  They wanted their votes, but not their participation in writing the bill and that’s the REPUBLICANS fault?

          • Maybe they were actually listening to their constituents? I called Capuano’s office this morning and was very clear that I would not be supporting him in the future if he voted for this. Since it didn’t pass, I might vote for him again. It will depend on what else the House tries to do about the economy. At the moment I’m probably going to be not voting in that election (he was unopposed in the primary and I think he’s unopposed in the general too). Maybe I’ll just write in my State Senator’s name.

            <

            p>This was a very unpopular bill. It was also one that people actually knew about and had some kind of an understanding of (even if most people probably misunderstood more about it than they understood). I suspect that this bill probably generated more negative calls than any other bill in the history of this country.

            • not what some constituents, who have no idea what they are talking about, say in a phone call.  All those constituents who called their representatives to tell them to vote against the bill better be really rich.  Because if they are not, and another attempt at passing the bill or something similar fails, they have just screwed themselves.  I am so disappointed in my representative, John Tierney.  I expect a little craziness from Lynch; I do not expect it from Tierney. BTW, nobody likes the fact that the bill is necessary, and yes something should be done about the lack of oversight and regulations that led to this crisis, but that needs to be dealt with in the months to come, after Congress deals with the immediate crisis.    

          • So let’s be real here for a minute.  

            <

            p>Wasn’t this a bi-partisan bill?  Where were the Republican votes?  

            <

            p>Republican’s were supposed to get 50%, where was it.  They were playing politics.

              • Let’s not give the one of the most pathetic excuses I’ve heard in a long time as the reason.  They didn’t have the votes prior to the roll call, they knew it.  This is the best they could come up with?  

                <

                p>John McCain came to Washington on his unicorn to save the economy and get the Republican votes to get this bill passed.  So let me ask again, where were their votes?

                • They voted NO, as they should have.  

                  <

                  p>Are you making the argument that the Bill should have passed and the Republicans sunk it?  Because the alternative view is that the Bill sucked and–using your reasoning that it’s the Republicans’ fault–the Republicans saved us from a rush to judgement.

                  <

                  p>  

                • I guess Chicken Little didn’t come through for the hand wringers.

                  <

                  p>Even if he did—-ain’t the end of the world. It’s redistribution of wealth.

                • “Dead Cat bounce”?

                  <

                  p>The saying goes that even a dead cat will bounce if you throw it out of a high enough window.  Make of the market opening what you will.

                  <

                  p>The important indicator isn’t even the Dow, however, it’s the credit markets.  Those will be the things to watch, since ostensibly that’s what the bailout plan was designed to shore up.  Early returns are not encouraging.

          • The largest TAX BURDEN ever placed on the American taxpayers in one act—–The democrats who voted against this misfortunate legislation were the only ones who stopped and thought about it. Besides—NO ONE– has a clue what the ultimate effect of this $700 bilion will have—if any—. No one.

            <

            p>I have no idea what was going through Paulson’s and Behrnanke’s minds when they hatched this deal. I have grave suspicions regarding paulson’s motivation since he is part of the Wall Street crowd and views this effort as “What’s good for Wall Street is good for America.”

            <

            p>A bit puzzled. Some of the folks here who are always moaning about the “rich” are the loudest voices for bailing out the “rich”. The rich got rich by either stealing it or hard work and taking a risk. Live by the sword—-die by the sword. If they lose their ass—they’ll survive. They always do.

      • 60% of Democrats voted for this bill.  Only 33% of Republicans did.  And no Democarts said they voted against the bill because of a speech Nancy Pelosi gave, which is what Boehner said.

        <

        p>33% of Republicans voted for the bill after being whipped around by their president, their presidential candidate, and their treasury secretary.

        • The point being what?
          Boehner says the sky is falling in means what? What he said was idiotic. What Pelosi and Frank said was more than idiotic.

          <

          p>So what is the point re who voted for it and who didn’t.

          <

          p>This legislation was premature, presumptive, and fiscally irresponsible.

          <

          p>A little over 50% of congress have their heads screwed on right—at least twice a day.

    • ” I’ll make an offer. Give me those 12 people’s names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are and maybe they’ll now think about the country.” barney Frank….

      <

      p>Is he talking about Tierney, Lynch and Delahunt…of the stick together MA delegation?

        • There was just no emoticon for sarcasm!…I was just curious about how Frank (who was clearly angry with GOP members who “did not think about their country”) would react to his MA delegation colleagues who clearly had no faith in his proposal or request to vote for it for the sake of the country!

  2. This bill was largely supported by centrists. Progressives and conservatives came together for one last time to put to rest the notion that our nation’s interests can be served by a moderate agenda. Now is the time for progressives to draw the rest of the caucus in a direction that serves the needs of the people first. A new bill should be drafted that answers to what the people want — there are plenty of ideas out there. In their gut the people knew that this bailout bill stinks to high heaven, and they don’t want to hear anymore about “this is the best we can do under the circumstances.”

    • Hard to think of that in any other way than extremists from both parties driving the economy off a cliff for no other reason that to buff up their ideological bona fides.

      • insisting on real regulation of a corrupt banking industry
        insisting on people-directed economic stimulus
        insisting on bankruptcy reform and homeowner relief

        <

        p>This bill did not include these; moreover it is incompatible with an “extremist” agenda that includes health-care reform, education assistance, development of alternative energy, etc.

        • for those of a certain ideological stripe.  And reps voted against the bill because, apparently, it was insufficiently ideologically pure.And other reps voted against it because it did not reduce capital gains, scale back the CRA, ban abortion, or win the war in Iraq.  They’re gambling, with our livlihoods, that they’re right.  

          <

          p>Let us hope that they are good gamblers, or lucky.

      • Um… this country is so far to the right that our Democratic Party is more conservative than the UK Tories. So let’s drop the hyperbole, okay?

        <

        p>The fact is that we need more progressive politics in this country. Jumping off the cliff is more of the same, which thankfully went down in flames today.  

    • Among some of the news coverage I watched (this was probably CNN), someone offered up the opinion that a bipartisan bill just isn’t going to happen now. If the argument is “you Democrats didn’t get all of your ducks in order” then the next version of the bill will be one that only a Democrat (and all the Democrats) could love. I guess the question then is will it get past the Senate (60 votes) and will Bush sign it?

      • let them. It’ll only continue today’s meme and destroy their electoral chances. It may be the one way to actually get a filibuster-proof senate. Or maybe it’ll get passed the Senate, Bush will sign it and the economy will get back on the right track.

        <

        p>The fact is if we offer and pass alternatives that will solve this problem now and in the future – and the Republicans vote it down repeatedly – then the Democrats have an easy message to sell for November, “vote for us if you want the economy to be saved.”

    • I’ve been in situations when the bad guys were coming through the wire. The key to survival is to avoid panic.

      <

      p>Rome will not topple in one day, nor in a week. Even if it did. You just rebuild.

  3. it SHOULD have been killed, David.

    <

    p>Let’s not overreact here. Pass a decent bill next week and the market goes up 500-700 points. This is all knee-jerk and scare tactics to pass a bill that will enable oversight-free highway robbery.  

  4. evidently pre-vote, all phone callers were anti-bailout.  

    <

    p>i wonder if this afternoon some pro-bailout voters started calling those guys….can a staffer fill us in?  

    • What a bunch of economic traitors.  We need to announce primary challenges to them NOW to commence in earnest late next year, after serious exploratory committees and real financing are lined up.  $2300 for every man woman and child into the pockets of guys who went to Vegas and lost, and now want your kid’s future college fund to cover it.  Disgusting!

  6. The bailout is designed to prop up prices that have been artificially inflated by easy credit.  As with the 1929 stock market crash, the prices of a commodity (that time stocks, this time real estate) are dropping to their real market value.  There is no easy, painless solution.  Prices have to reach their market level before there can be recovery.  No politician of any ilk is going to be able to change reality.  Artificially creating value only exacerbates the problem.  This was tried for a decade in the 1930’s and only served to extend the correction (Depression).

    <

    p>But, were I loaded with these mortgages, I would desperately want the market raised so that I may unload the paper and cut my losses.  (“Damn the people, I’m running a business!”) Is it odd that no one is blamed?  That this whole bailout is being pushed by the guy from Goldman Sachs?  Nobody is suspicious?  

    <

    p>“Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.

    <

    p>Will Rogers

    • Now there is a name I haven’t heard in over thirty years!
      Bet only a few know who that is right off the top of their head.

      <

      p>I concur. Market forces will have to work this out—either with a precipitous fall or something more moderate. Either way–artificially inflated values will eventually  correct themselves. Someone will gave to bite the bullet. The folks who lose the most are the ones who gain the most. This artificial infusion of $700 billion will only hurt the taxpayer who had nothing to do with the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac givaway and the Wall Street Greed-a-thon.

      <

      p>The “Progressives” should just look at this as a “redistribution of wealth”. I’m perplexed by the angst and vexation that some “rich people” may lose their ass.  

  7. As you said, if a Congressman is swayed by an insulting floor speech not to vote for a bill he may otherwise support, then he shouldn’t be in Congress. Similarly if he fails to recognize that there are some things more important than reelection.  Seems either explanation is as shallow as the othere.

Archives