Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Registration Deadlines | O They Will Know We Are Christ... »

Friday, October 3, 2008

How the Washington Reps Voted on the Bailout

posted by on October 3 at 12:10 PM

We already know how our Senators voted on Wednesday: Patty Murray voted “yes” and Maria Cantwell voted “no.”

Here’s how the rest of the Washington State delegation voted today in the House:

Jay Inslee (D-1) NO

Rick Larsen (D-2) YES

Brian Baird (D-3) YES

Doc Hastings (R-4) NO

Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-5) NO

Norm Dicks (D-6) YES

Jim McDermott (D-7) NO

Dave Reichert (R-8) NO

Adam Smith (D-9) YES

What’s changed from the last time around? Nothing, except that Jim McDermott switched from a “yes” to a “no” vote. More on that later, but here’s the immediate most interesting aspect to me:

Dave Reichert stuck with his “no” vote, obviously betting that he needs some populist cred in his eastside race against Democratic challenger Darcy Burner. So, what’s Burner’s move?

She was against the bill on Monday. Today, a strong majority of House Dems voted for the bill, given the sweeteners that were added. But, Burner mentors Inslee and McDermott voted “no.” And politically, it could be trouble for Burner to disagree with a Republican opponent (Reichert) who opposes the bailout. Or, maybe she could spin support for the bill into a “real leadership” mantra. We’ll see.

I’ve asked for Burner’s position on today’s vote, and I’ll let you know as soon as I hear…

RSS icon Comments


Dave Reichert is not a Democrat! Please fix NOW!

thenk yew.

Posted by scary tyler more | October 3, 2008 12:10 PM

At least we don't have money for Health Care, Social Security or education. Thank God those forms of communism will soon die!!

Hey, wasn't that a great idea companies opting for 401k's over actual pension plans? How's that all working out for ya??

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | October 3, 2008 12:14 PM

glad to know we can still count on Jim McDermott

Posted by Non | October 3, 2008 12:15 PM

McD's switched vote is indeed interesting. Maybe he caught a load of shit from constituents for his first vote?

Posted by Levislade | October 3, 2008 12:18 PM

Is anyone else besides me disturbed by the idea that Darcy Burner would consider Jim McDermott a mentor?

Posted by Trey | October 3, 2008 12:18 PM

@5 - It would be strange if a progressive Democrat running for Congress in WA didn't consider McDermott a mentor in some way, no?

Posted by Levislade | October 3, 2008 12:24 PM

come on guys, please fix the reichert D thang. NOW!!

Posted by SeMe | October 3, 2008 12:29 PM

The Stranger is saying Reichert is a Democrat and that's good enough for me!!!! Darcy must be a Republican!!!

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | October 3, 2008 12:31 PM

Reichert is an I just likethe ads an idiot. His district is one of the wealthiest in Washington, and his constituents have probably lost a lot of money in the market. I don;t think they'll be happy with him next month.

Posted by Craig | October 3, 2008 12:32 PM

Thanks for nothing Norm Dicks, you ass.

Posted by LT Nixon | October 3, 2008 12:49 PM

IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE STOCK MARKET. The bill was ESSENTIAL for the global economy to continue working.

Posted by Fnarf | October 3, 2008 12:57 PM

What if we let all these companies fail and the government uses 700 trillion to lend to homebuyers and businesses who won't have a private financial sector to turn to for however long it takes them to sort themselves out?

I mean, if ultimately the taxpayer's job is to provide the liquidity the financial sector can't provide to the consumers and producers of the economy, what value to these middle men add? They produce nothing, and they are nobody's customers. They just come crying to us ever 5 or 10 years asking for money to cover their losses. Why do we need them at all?

Posted by elenchos | October 3, 2008 1:06 PM

Jesus Christ, Elenchos, are you a complete idiot? Injecting liquidity into credit markets on occasion has ALWAYS been a part of what government does. To get from there to "why do we need credit markets" is insane. YOU need these credit markets; everyone does, whether you know it or not.

Posted by Fnarf | October 3, 2008 1:19 PM

I need credit. Everyone does. I get that.

I thought I needed a credit market too, but it turns out the credit "market" is just the route that government money takes on its way to being borrowed. So sure, let's have credit without this endlessly broken market. I mean, maybe there's a reason why it needs constant oversight and policing, and the occasional massive cash injection.

I'm told greed is the problem. Perhaps we should first eliminate greed. Once done, we can reconstitute the credit market. In the mean time, wouldn't it be cheaper to lend the money directly from the government? We're not so rich as we once were and need to save our nickels.

Posted by elenchos | October 3, 2008 3:32 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.