Bail Out Roll Call Vote

The Roll Call vote on the Bail Out bill is here.

The Nay's are here, and the 95 Dems who voted against it are in Roman letters, while the Republicans are in Italics.

Of note: Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.)voted against it. Udall, a true progressive in my view, is running for the Senate in Colorado. Another Colorado Democrat who voted against it is the much more centrist John Salazar, brother of Colorado Senator Ken Salazar.

Update: Rep. Dennis Kucinich says the bailout will not keep homeowners in their homes, urged colleagues to vote against it and provides this letter (pdf) from an Emory law professor.

Whose vote do you find surprising or laudatory?

< Foggo Pleads | McCain Blames Obama and Democrats for Bail Out Failure >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My congressmen voted for it (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:30:04 PM EST
    I am glad, and he was smart he wrote an op-ed sunday explaining yes this is a crappy situation but not passing it would be worse.

    oh well I am glad democrats didn't pass this alone.

    THAT would have pissed me off

    I know I'm just being over emotional..... (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:46:55 PM EST
    ...but right now they all make me sick.

    I'm right there with you. And given (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:55:46 PM EST
    the magnitude of what's going on, I don't think we're being over emotional at all.

    Here's something that might make you laugh (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:00:04 PM EST
    Politico reports on its front page:

    - hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked.Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his top aides took credit for building a winning bailout coalition

    The rush to claim he had engineered a victory now looks like a strategic blunder that will prolong the McCain's campaign's difficulty in finding a winning message on the economy.

    Shortly before the vote, McCain had bragged about his involvement and mocked Sen. Barack Obama for staying on the sidelines.

    "I've never been afraid of stepping in to solve problems for the American people, and I'm not going to stop now," McCain told a rally in Columbus, Ohio. "Senator Obama took a very different approach to the crisis our country faced. At first he didn't want to get involved. Then he was monitoring the situation."

    McCain, grinning, flashed a sarcastic thumbs-up.

    Neither one will look good (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:06:09 PM EST
    if people get hurt because leadership failed, all around.  Could Obama have gotten 12 more Dem votes in the House?  That would have won it -- and then he really could have had the last laff on McCain.  Imagine Dems coming forward to say it was Obama's leadership that saved the bill, the day, the country. . . .

    Dems do not look good in this either.  That's the problem, for all of McCain's posturing.  Let him take himself down, if he couldn't win it.  But then the obvious question becomes could Obama have gotten it done?  


    That's the first time I've really (none / 0) (#24)
    by Joelarama on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:06:36 PM EST
    smiled today, with all of this.  Thanks.

    I supplement my living through careful investments I made back when I earned more money.  This meltdown could really throw me off-track.

    I'm lucky I'm relatively young.  I can still work, and work harder. Others aren't so lucky.


    See my update a couple of posts below n/t (none / 0) (#36)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:27:54 PM EST
    In hindsight... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:35:11 PM EST
    maybe those investments weren't so careful?

    Not to belittle your situation, I don't wanna see hardworking people losing their hard earned money...but there is a reason it is called gambling.  Stocks, money markets, 401K's...it's all gambling.

    The golden rule of gambling is never bet what you can't afford to lose...and that rule has served me well.


    Well, that's easy. You're so right. I'll convert (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Joelarama on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:43:01 PM EST
    all my money into cash, cancel my four credit cards, and start putting my money in the mattress.

    It has worked for me.... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:47:55 PM EST
    I haven't had a bank account in ten years, never had a credit card (just a prepaid)...I eat everyday and have a place to lay my head at night...everything else is gravy.

    LOL. Ok. You may come out ahead, if (none / 0) (#54)
    by Joelarama on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:09:57 PM EST
    everything comes crashing down, and if you don't find yourself with a lot of people depending on you despite ups and downs (weathering short-term problems is, at base, what good credit is for).

    If it works out otherwise, I do credit counseling pro bono (gratis), and I'm damn good at it.  Let me know if you ever need it -- I can refer you, too.


    Thanks Joe.... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:00:56 PM EST
    but I don't think I'll be needing any credit counseling:) If I can't afford it, I don't need it...a simple creed that has served me well.  

    Though if any of your clients want to learn how to eat for a week for 20 bucks, maybe I can be of assistance:)


    You are thus not part of (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:14:30 PM EST

    Your way is to go back to system of barter...


    Coulda fooled me.... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:21:39 PM EST
    I pay taxes, I patronize businesses, I give to those with less...How am I not a member of our society?

    We're still on the barter system...I'm not willing to barter my 2 grand share on this "rescue".  If anything, I'd rather be on the hook for 2 grand for some infrastructure improvements and put people to higher paying work so they can pay their mortgages.  Let the leeches get their slice on the back end...trickle up economics, if you will.


    Take it one step further (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    We might as well all move to the forest and live off of squirrels and mushrooms.

    So hard working people (none / 0) (#67)
    by standingup on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:33:23 PM EST
    are supposed to forgo what has become the pension or retirement plan for many of them in modern business.  And they would be smarter not to contribute and miss out on the matching funds that come with contributing to a 401K?  

    In hindsight, maybe your advice isn't very valuable either.  


    That's for every individual.... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:28:57 PM EST
    to decide...I just prefer a different kind of gamble.  I have no faith in these institutions.

    I'm not gonna lie, I feel slightly vindicated right now:)  When I'm old it might be a different story...but at least I can say no broker made a dime off the fruit of my labor...that is worth something to me.


    Thanks litagatormon (none / 0) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:24:46 PM EST
    The only smile of the day for me as well as an earlier commenter noted.

    McCain was against it before he was for it and then took credit for what didn't happen.

    Notice the Republican Noes include almost all the usual suspects.  A pantheon of GOP whack jobs.


    Doug Holtz-Eakin (none / 0) (#37)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:28:57 PM EST
    Perhaps the stupidest of McCain's economic advisors, just said on MSNBC that the Dems killed the bill to deprive McCain of the credit for getting the bailout passed.

    That's pretty funny too.


    Especially (none / 0) (#69)
    by cal1942 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:00:26 PM EST
    since an examination of the roll call vote demonstrates that it was Republicans who killed the bill.

    "Bailout"? Puleeze... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by supertroopers on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:31:38 PM EST
    Avg Americans weren't helped at all by this "for the rich" bailout.

    But do you see (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by standingup on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:38:02 PM EST
    how average Americans are being hurt by inaction?  You are correct about it not being a bail out.  This is an intervention to attempt to limit the damage and create a softer landing for the unwinding of a whole lot of bad debt out there that is grinding the economy to a halt.  Who the he!! cares if a few of the rich are helped if it will also keep the little guy from being hurt as bad?  

    And actually (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by cal1942 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:03:47 PM EST
    the little guy will be hurt far more than the Wall St big guys.

    That is probably why Barbara Lee and (none / 0) (#71)
    by hairspray on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 06:11:00 PM EST
    Pete Stark, two very liberal congress members voted no. Kucinich as well.  Sounds like a number of Dems were not willing to bail out the crooks.  Do they know something we don't?

    Vermont's only representative (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by dutchfox on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:57:35 PM EST
    Peter Welch voted no! I am pleased.

    I am happy, and just called to express as much, (4.20 / 5) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    that my Rep. (Fattah) voted for it.

    Agree. This bill has to be passed. I don't see (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Joelarama on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:13:47 PM EST
    how they can come up with a better one in this political climate.  

    Is Kucinich just stupid? This isn't about (3.40 / 5) (#8)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:41:05 PM EST
    helping foreclosed homeowners. It's about preventing the collapse of the financial sector, and thus the entire economy. By voting against this, he has virtually guarenteed a huge rise in unemployment.

    He's not stupid.... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:38:44 PM EST
    he knows this glorious economy that we are supposed to save at any cost wasn't so hot to begin with, and left a lot of people behind....namely his blue collar constituents in Ohio who saw their jobs get shipped overseas so somebody's stock would go up half a point.

    Pardon them for not crying a river when those same stocks crash...welcome to the tough luck club, hotshots.


    But, but.. (3.66 / 3) (#13)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:48:58 PM EST
    He's got a law professor to back him up on economics! How can you not be convinced?

    Yeah the brilliant professors.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    ..they know what to do. </snark>

    yes, he really is that stupid (2.33 / 3) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:42:35 PM EST
    how huge (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:07:03 PM EST
    and if the bailout occurs what will UE be at the end of the year?  6%, 7, 8 or 9.5?

    Riddle me that.


    My Rep (McDermott) voted yes. (3.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:48:11 PM EST
    I too will call to thank him.  I don't have a problem with people taking a principled stance against this (left or right).  I do have a problem with uninformed vites and with deliberate misinformation.

    Only one of Tennessee's Dems voted no (none / 0) (#2)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    I believe. That surprises me.

    Mass. Reps usually vote in lockstep (none / 0) (#4)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:30:23 PM EST
    but not this time.  That is very rare, indeed. Three Mass. Reps voted Nea.  

    My Rep. Voted No (none / 0) (#5)
    by BDB on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:34:03 PM EST
    he's not nearly as useless as I thought and will call and thank him.

    This bill would not have solved the problem, it was just a handout, and could've led to worse problems like runaway inflation.

    There are much smarter ways of spending money, many of which would help the problems we're seeing (to the extent those problems aren't as manufactured as the California energy crisis).  If they come up with a plan that has certain protections for the American public (HOLC, meaningful equity stakes for the Government), is priced right (not paying the leveraged prices), and will actually help the problem, then I'll support it.  But this was nothing but a giveaway that would not solve the problem, IMO, and I have yet to hear from anyone who knows the markets and Wall Street who thinks it would other than those with their hand out (either for bail out money or campaign cash).  If anyone can point me to someone who wouldn't benefit from this plan saying the plan would solve the problem, I'd love to read the counter argument.  

    I'm not a fan of Do Something! Anything! because too often what gets done is wrong.  I've had enough shock doctrine to last my lifetime.  I'm not getting fooled again.

    "Shock Doctrine" is a good slogan (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:38:20 PM EST
    Guess what? Today, you will have it. But not for the reasons you thought.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:01:30 PM EST
    The Dow is currently down 611 points.

    688 and counting. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:06:59 PM EST
    Who wants to take bets on the next bank on the precipice?

    what was next last week? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:08:47 PM EST
    nat'l city?  Wamu, wachovia, what?  As if we have not had several collapses already.  

    In order for this argument to be valid, we would need 3x the failings.  So we would be looking at 18 MAJOR financial institutions failing to keep pace.


    You May Get Your Wish... (none / 0) (#40)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:37:40 PM EST
    I understand that the regional banks are started to get hammered as well.

    Really my wish (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:52:25 PM EST
    is that 250-500bn gets committed to job creation.  Any bill without it is a bill not worth passing.

    I am not saying you do not care about those who have lost their jobs and the hundreds of thousands who are about to EVEN if the legislation passes.  But I find it very disconcerting that so many democrats including the presidential nominee have not addressed the impending UE crisis and the 3 million or so who are unemployed.  

    The lifeblood of our nation have been suffering for the entire year and no one has paid them any mind.  Many posters here act as if UE is going to stabilize with the infusion of liquidity which is simply ridiculous.  The only time suffering is addressed it seems is when it hits white collar workers and if that is what it takes to get some attention to job creation than it is a price we should all be willing to share.


    and regional banks (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:01:33 PM EST
    are not major institutions.  If armageddon is coming than we should expect BIG companies to fold as 6 already have.  

    we have had 16 bank failures this year.  We had 24 fail from 200-2006.

    Is BOA on the ropes?  Goldman (financial)?  Chase?

    During the S&L crisis 2377 banks failed.

    So tell me again, what is more important, committing resources to get people back to work immediately and passing a bailout, or simply a bailout?


    16 failures 2007-8 (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:06:30 PM EST

    Maybe when it's at 9000 something (3.00 / 2) (#22)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:05:39 PM EST
    later this week the House will realize that this legislation needs to be passed.

    It's now down 777 points (none / 0) (#34)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:26:45 PM EST
    Barely above 10,000 -- its at 10,365.

    Deepest drop in history. Steepest drop in history.

    Chuck Todd: "America now knows that government is broken."


    Krugman says the same. n/t (none / 0) (#41)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:38:15 PM EST
    largest point decline (none / 0) (#46)
    by DJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:47:59 PM EST
    not largest percentage decline.  Still bad though.

    Handout to whom? (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:20:49 PM EST
    To whom do you think the money goes?

    I do not think you are well informed on this....

    It is not about paying off big shots--it is about keeping money and credit circulating in the economy--just like blood in the body as has been note by RenaRF.


    Both NorthBay Cal Dems said no (none / 0) (#7)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:38:34 PM EST
    Mike Thompson  D-Napa  some what Bluedog
    Lynn Woolsey D Petalumas  ultra liberal

    both in safe seats.

    They telegraphed their votes in an article in the local paper.

    The offices of Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Mike Thompson reported getting nearly 4,000 constituent phone calls, letters and e-mails about the crisis, virtually all opposing the proposal to prop up the staggering financial markets.

    Of 1,800 e-mails her office received overnight Wednesday, just 10 supported the plan, said Woolsey, D-Petaluma.

    She said she and Progressive Caucus Democrats are pushing for a fee on Wall Street trades "that would offset what this is going to cost the taxpayers."  read more

    CNN saying next vote Thurs morning at the (none / 0) (#10)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    earliest. They are considering having the Senate vote first to pressure the House to go along but aren't sure if they can do that.

    Don't Think So.. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by gtesta on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:50:24 PM EST
    I'm thinking that financial bills need to originate in the House.

    Appropriations, yes. I don't see how they (none / 0) (#28)
    by Joelarama on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:10:51 PM EST
    can get around this being an "appropriation."  And the House guards that privilege zealously.

    Yes, it must originate in the House. n/t (none / 0) (#35)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:27:34 PM EST
    Did you see Kaptur's (Ohio)... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Shainzona on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:52:39 PM EST
    speech yesterday.  Kaptur for POTUS!!

    She is one of the demagogues (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:59:52 PM EST
    I hold responsible for the situation we're in right now.

    All it needed is a dozen Dems (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:53:23 PM EST
    to pass.  But don't look for Kagen (WI) to be one who will switch.  He's a first-termer disaster for Green Bay, a real swing district and the focus of visits by both Obama and McCain in recent days.

    I talked to Dems there in recent days, and Kagen   Kagen didn't even have enough signatures to file for re-election, until out-of-town unions swooped in to get them.  And McCain is planning more work there to push the GOP candidate last time, running again.

    The Dems had a stronger candidate there last time, too, a woman.  But they went with Kagen for his money.  It may have been a precursor of sorts.  And it could matter, if he brings down Obama there.  Dems need more than Milwaukee and Madison to win the state, the closest last time.

    Worse, Kagen is the sort of House Dem upon whom the future of our economy and country are counting.  Ugh.

    Hell no on the bailout! (none / 0) (#30)
    by bocajeff on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:16:35 PM EST
    Say yes to higher unemployment, higher foreclosure rates, less savings, less money for any social programs, less money for retirement, but at least we won't be propping up the financial institutions.

    It's far better to strike out with your bat still on your shoulders than it is to swing and let the pitcher get one over on you...

    I'm not really that surprised by who (none / 0) (#31)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:17:57 PM EST
    voted for or against.  It does, rather accurately, though, show the division as exists between the Money Party and the People Party.

    Looked at from that perspective, it's not a surprising result.  

    The Money Party and the People Party... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:39:28 PM EST
    are about to merge.

    Wow! John Salazar did the right thing! (none / 0) (#49)
    by Pedalman on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:54:06 PM EST
    I'm surprised by Salazar's vote.  I'm from the Western Slope of Colorado and ever since his vote on the bankruptcy bill I've been giving him grief about not supporting working folks. Maybe this is a change for him?!

    I see Lloyd Doggett (none / 0) (#53)
    by McKinless on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:07:40 PM EST
    voted against it. Lloyd's a certified Texas liberal, former Texas Supreme Court Justice, and very smart guy. Seeing him and the Udalls against it encourages me we can get a better bill.

    So much of what goes on in Washington (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jake Left on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:35:43 PM EST
    is hidden and convoluted. Sometimes the best way to judge the fairness of a bill or how much it will really help people rather than corporations is to look at who supports it and who doesn't. If Doggett is against it, that is enough reason for me to at least question the bill more. Keep in mind that the one who want this the most is bush. And Pelosi has always been good at giving him what he wants. Should make you at least wonder.

    I don't know what this means (none / 0) (#60)
    by caseyOR on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:43:14 PM EST
    Oregon has 5 congresspeople, 1 rep. and 4 dems. All 3 dems who endorsed Obama in the primary voted "No", and the lone rep. and the only dem who endorsed Hillary voted "Yes".

    Oregon is generally thought to be a lock for Obama. Would the Obama supporting congressfolks have persuaded by a forceful support of the bill by Obama? I do not know. What I do know is that  calls to my representative by constituents were very opposed to the bailout. And my representative (Blumenauer) was a very vocal leader in the Obama movement here.

    If passage of this bill is as critical as many, including commenters on TL, have claimed, then someone needs to clearly and forcefully explain to voters why it must be passed. I am pretty well-informed and have been reading everything I can find about this. Yet, I still do not really understand how this bill would save us and from what.

    Another element that killed it for people here was the conspicuous absence of anything that would help struggling homeowners, the very squishy guidelines about curbs on executive compensation, the equally squishy guidelines concerning equity stakes for taxpayers and, frankly, amazement that we were expected to believe anything coming from the Bush administration and that includes Paulson.

    Maybe this is why it failed. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jake Left on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 04:48:18 PM EST
    Here is Glenn Greenwald's take on why the bill is just another example of what has been sold to us for the last eight years.


    Thanks for the link. (none / 0) (#65)
    by rennies on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 05:26:13 PM EST
    Greenwald is right on target.

    Deb Pryce, retiring Bushie, voted for. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:28:02 PM EST
    Go Mary Jo! (Kilroy)

    Her opponent Stivers is the subject of attack ads.  Gotta be painful about now.  Give the short video a look!