Search Results for: Reichert

Exactly a month ago, after the Seattle Times editorial board transparently feigned bipartisanship by endorsing Barack Obama, I wrote:

As expected, the Seattle Times editorial board has endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States, paving the way for endorsements of Republicans Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, Sam Reed, Allan Martin, Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, all the while leaving their vaunted bipartisan principles intact.  At least, in their own minds.

In fact, with the possible exception of the race for Commissioner of Public Lands, I can’t imagine a single additional closely contested statewide or federal race in WA state in which the Times endorses a Democrat.

I’d be happy to be proven wrong.  But I wouldn’t bet on it.

So, how did my predictions turn out?  As of today, the Seattle Times has endorsed Republicans Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, Sam Reed, Allan Martin, Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, while Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark did indeed get the ed board’s nod for Commissioner of Public Lands.  I ran the table.

Of course, the Times will publish meaningless endorsements of Democratic incumbents in the virtually uncontested races for Lt. Governor, Auditor and Insurance Commissioner (nominally Democratic in the case of Owen and Sonntag), but with the exception of Obama and Goldmark, the editors of the self-proclaimed paper of record for one of the bluest cities in America are once again backing a full slate of Republicans for every high profile contested statewide or federal race.

As is their right, I suppose.

But how thoughtful and meaningful are editorial endorsements when they can be so easily predicted a month in advance?

I’d say, not very.

UPDATE:
I want to be clear that I did not attempt to predict the Seattle P-I’s endorsements, because I couldn’t. No doubt the P-I’s ed board tends to lean significantly more liberal than the Times, but they are still media establishment types who overwhelmingly favor incumbents.  And, as naive a notion as it is, the P-I seems to genuinely embrace nonpartisanship as a lofty ideal, whereas the Times merely manipulatively embraces it as useful rhetoric.

There’s yet another Republican campaign finance scandal brewing in Washington state, one with the potential to lead to felony charges, and so I eagerly scanned the headlines this morning to see if our dailies had figured out the huge story that was falling into their laps.

As Josh first reported yesterday, Dave Reichert is getting his TV ads on credit, an arrangement that now appears to amount to at least a half a million dollars in illegal loans.  And what is the headline the Seattle Times chooses to slap on the story?  “Burner loans campaign $140,000 for ads.”

Really?  That’s the big story here?  Are the Times’ editors that dumb, or are they just incredibly dishonest?

See, Darcy’s short-term bridge loan is legal, and extremely common.  It’s nothing but a cashflow maneuver that permits the campaign to continue spending money as fast as it’s raising it without drawing down reserves to zero.  Darcy doesn’t have the personal wealth to fund her own campaign, and you can be damn sure she plans to pay herself back.

But Reichert’s media credit card, that’s a clear violation of FEC rules:

If you loan money to a candidate or political committee, you have made a contribution, even if you charge interest on the loan. The outstanding amount of the loan counts against the contribution limits. Loan repayments, therefore, decrease the amount of your contribution.

Nevertheless, if your loan exceeds the limits, it is an illegal contribution, even if it is later repaid in full. Endorsements and guarantees of  bank loans are also considered contributions. Endorsers and guarantors are liable for equal portions of a loan unless the agreement states otherwise. You alone, therefore, may not endorse a $10,000 loan to a candidate committee. There must be four other individual endorsers so that each one is liable only for $2,300, the per  election limit.

The point of these regulations is obvious; if Reichert can buy advertising on credit, with payment not due until after the election, that means he can pay off 2008 expenditures with money raised for the 2010 cycle… something apparently Reichert did to a much smaller extent last time around.  Now Reichert going much deeper into the hole, booking ads worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more than he has cash on hand, or any expectation of raising between now and November.  And whether it be from the TV stations or his media buyer, that constitutes a massive campaign contribution far in excess of federal limits.

This is clearly illegal, and the campaign must know it, but like other Republican campaigns in Washington state this year, Reichert has apparently determined that the inevitable fines after the fact are just a part of the cost of winning.

That our local media can’t (or won’t) see this scandal, is truly stunning.

UPDATE:
To be fair to reporter Emily Heffter, she didn’t write the bullshit headline.  And to be fair to the Times, at least they attempted to report on the story, even if they haven’t yet recognized its significance.  Meanwhile, crickets from the P-I and the TNT.

After a brief hiatus, the Podcast is back—and with a special guest.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels starts the conicnversation on Seattle “inside baseball ” politics Sound Transit’s Prop. 1 ballot measure and mass transportation. The conversation then turns to the piles and piles of money dumped (sometimes illegally) into in the Washington state gubernatorial race. Will Rossi and surrogates succeeded in unifying the haters? And why hasn’t the BIAW been enjoined from spending more money on the race? Goldy laments the lack of editorial outrage from the traditional media over flagrant violations of election financing laws. The panel chit-chats about other races, like the presidential race and the Burner–Reichert race. Goldy, in response to the PI’s endorsement of Reichert, offers the proposition that the Seattle media establishment suffers from mediocrity. With two journalists on the panel, the comment triggers something of a group therapy session….

Goldy was joined by Chairman of the Sound Transit Board of Directors and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Publisher of the Group News Blog, Jesse Wendel, HorsesAss reporter Josh Feit , and Seattle blogging pioneer N in Seattle.

The show is 65:16, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_oct_14_2008.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

A couple weeks ago it became clear that our state’s media-political complex had written off Darcy Burner’s chances in Washington’s Eighth Congressional District, and was already busily writing a post mortem.

Darcy had run a disappointing campaign I was told.  She had done nothing since 2006 to polish her resume, or to erode the credentials of her opponent.  She focused on Iraq when voters really only cared about the economy, and was running far to the left of what is at  best a centrist, if not a slightly conservative district.  But worst of all, she was way “too close to the netroots.”  (Whatever that means.)

I heard this critique repeatedly, from journalists from politicos and from elected officials, sometimes firsthand, sometimes second, and sometimes through the whisper down the lane chorus that crowds the road to conventional wisdom.  I’ve even heard it suggested that I personally have done more to harm Darcy’s prospects than help, my relentless “cheerleading” spurring some in the media to turn against Darcy, if only out of spite.

Darcy and the netroots were going to lose a second blue wave election, and it was our own damn fault.  And, it seemed to me, there were some on the Democratic side of the partisan divide who were taking greater satisfaction in this “epic fail” than one would justifiably expect from their Republican counterparts.

Then, over the past couple days, and obviously promoted by both Democratic and Republican sources, this pre-post mortem started to appear in print, echoed in Eli Sanders’ premature articulation in The Stranger, and then oddly enough, bluntly stated in the pages of Time Magazine under the unequivocable headline: “Will the Netroots Sink a Microsoft Dem?”

Even as Burner’s campaign has become more of a long shot, she is increasingly a cause celebre in the liberal blogosphere. The website Daily Kos calls her “a netroots hero” and sees her struggle as a crusade for liberal bloggers as well. “Taking Darcy down, in their minds,” wrote one of Kos’ main posters, McJoan, about national Republicans, “means taking us down, Neutering us.” But her tight ties to the liberal blogosphere may well be her ultimate downfall.

[…] “Darcy Burner is pretty open about the fact that she wants to go to Congress to represent the netroots,” Reichert’s campaign manager Mike Shields, told the Seattle Times. “That is her constituency, and that is who she raised money from, and so that’s who she’ll do the bidding of.” But Democrats worry about the association as well. “The big question people are quietly asking about her,” says one local Democratic consultant, “is, in building her movement, did she lose touch with the people she sought to serve?”

Notice that the article is sourced almost entirely secondhand, with no effort by the author to talk to either campaign.  In fact, the only first hand sources cited in the entire piece are identified as “one local Democrat” and “one local Democratic consultant.”  (The same person?)  This thesis, that the netroots are an anchor around Darcy’s neck, is clearly being promoted by Democrats as well as Republicans, and has been eagerly embraced by a media establishment that is just as fearful as their political counterparts of the challenge we pose to the status quo.

But the problem with this thesis, that conveniently blames the netroots for the Democrats losing a district that has never before elected a Democrat, is that it is based on three assumptions, all of which happen to be unproved by the facts on the ground, that A) Darcy is indeed “too close” to the netroots; that B) a significant fraction of 8th CD voters have any idea what “the netroots” are, or where Darcy stands in relation to us; and that C) Darcy is in fact losing her race against Reichert.

[Read more…]

The Darcy Burner campaign has seemed awfully cheerful in recent days, and now we know why.  A new poll conducted on behalf of the campaign by pollster Lake Research Partners shows Darcy now leading Dave Reichert 47% to 40% in the hotly contested race for Washington’s 8th Congressional District.  And this comes on the heels of yesterday’s DCCC poll showing Darcy with a 49% to 44% lead.

I’m sure Reichert fans will self-soothe themselves with the notion that this is just an internal poll, but as I mentioned yesterday, campaigns are not in the business of deceiving themselves.  In fact, this represents a substantial turnaround from previous Burner campaign internal polls, which have never once before shown her with a lead. The partisan propaganda part of internal polling comes not from how they are conducted, but rather, from whether or not they are publicly released.  And there’s a damn good reason the Burner camp is releasing this poll, as the internals are just as promising as the top line.

Reichert’s job performance rating has “plummeted” to 34% “good or excellent” versus 54% “fair or poor.” And Reichert’s re-elect now stands at just 36%, meaning nearly two-thirds of 8th CD voters would consider voting for somebody else.

No doubt this race is far from over, and will likely come down to a point or two in either direction, but the gloom and doomers who had already written off this race based on polls conducted during the now deflated Palin bounce better start rewriting their post mortems.  Given sufficient resources and effective messaging, Darcy is in a position to win this race.  So if you haven’t already given all that you can toward turning WA-08 blue for the first time, well, ever… please give to Darcy today.

UNCONFIRMED TIDBIT:
Reliable sources tell me there is another, as yet unreleased private poll that shows Darcy with a small lead over Reichert.  I’ll publish details if I can track it down.

UPDATE:
I don’t know if this is the third “poll” I’ve been hearing about, as it’s not really one per se, but a source with the Washington State Labor Council confirms that they are doing phone ID work in preparation for their GOTV efforts, and that among union members, Burner is above 50% and Reichert is down around 38%.  Not a scientific poll, but encouraging nonetheless.

I was chatting with a long-time local politico over the weekend, bitching about the P-I endorsement of Reichert, and the old-timer sarcastically responded “Big deal.”  Both the Times and P-I endorsements were “soft,” and besides, newspapers “almost always endorse the incumbent.”

Huh.  It wasn’t the first time I’d heard that little gem of conventional wisdom, and anecdotally it appeared to be true, but I thought I’d start compiling a spreadsheet of newspaper endorsements this season to see how strongly that trend holds up.  So far I’ve compiled results from the Times, the P-I and the Olympian, for all non-open, statewide, congressional, and legislative endorsements… and so far the incumbents are leading by a margin of 41 to 1, the lone exception being the P-I’s endorsement of Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark in the race for Commissioner of Public Lands.

I plan on adding at least the Everett Herald, the Tacoma News Tribune, the Columbian, and the Spokane Spokesman-Review to my spreadsheet, and no doubt the percentages will narrow some when the Times and other conservative ed boards inevitably endorse Dino Rossi, but I’d say the results thus far are statistically significant.

And there are folks in our local media who accuse me of lacking sufficient independence.

From the Seattle Times:  “Reichert, Burner debate over lunch.”

Huh.  Surely they must have talked about more substantive issues than that?

With all the focus on the presidential debate, you may be surprised to learn that there was another debate today, this one between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert at Bellevue’s Meydenbauer Center.  Josh was there, and will post a firsthand report here on HA later, but for the moment you can take a gander at the transcript of Andrew’s live blog.

(FYI, I spoke with Andrew briefly and felt confident that Darcy won… not that it means anything if most voters don’t see it.)

UPDATE:
The Times and the P-I have their quick takes on today’s debate.  I was particularly struck by this excerpt from the P-I:

“I still look on myself as Joe Blow from Kent, Washington, a cop who came to Congress,” Reichert said in his closing remarks.

A) He’s been in Congress for two years; it’s time Reichert started running on his congressional record rather than his self-inflated reputation as “the Sheriff,” and B)  I don’t want just some “Joe Blow” representing me in Congress, especially during a time of crisis… I want somebody exceptional, and Reichert has done absolutely nothing to show us that he is anything but just another “Joe Blow.”

Today is Now You Know Dino Day, a statewide event sponsored by NARAL/Pro-Choice Washington, who wants all our state’s voters to know the truth about Dino Rossi’s stance on reproductive rights.  For example, did you know that Rossi:

• worked against I-120, which codified Roe v. Wade into Washington state law?
• voted NO on a bill that would require health insurance companies that cover prescriptions such as Viagra for men to cover birth control for women?
• sponsored a bill seeking federal money for ineffective abstinence-only sex-education for Washington schools?
• believes pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill doctor-prescribed prescriptions based on non-medical, personal reasons?
• compares women’s health care to sports drink preferences?

One of the more disturbing things I’ve seen in poll after poll as that more than a third of pro-choice women don’t know that Republicans Dino Rossi and Dave Reichert are anti-choice, opposing not just access to safe, legal abortions, but to contraception and medically accurate sex education.  That’s why over 300 volunteers in 15 cities across the state are waving signs during evening rush hour tonight to let voters know the truth about Rossi… that he is bad for the women of Washington state.

If you want to join the effort, go to the Now You Know Dino website for more information.

The revised Wall Street bailout bill passed by a wide margin this morning, 263 to 171.   That’s a pretty big flip, considering a stripped down version of the bill failed last week, 205 to 228.  Who knew the pirate vote was that big?

As for the partisan divide, Democrats voted for the bill 172 to 63, while Republicans slightly opposed it, 91 to 108… you know, the bill that both President Bush and John McCain begged them to pass.

No word yet on how the WA delegation voted, and whether any of our reps flipped.

UPDATE:
Inslee flips, joins rest of the Democratic delegation in voting yes. Our Republicans, Reichert and McMorris-Rodgers voted no.  (Oh yeah, and Hastings.  I always seem to forget Hastings for some reason.)

UPDATE, UPDATE:
I was looking at the wrong roll call vote (the motion to reconsider), and the House Clerk’s office website was slowwww to respond.  Inslee did vote no.  In fact, it was McDermott who flipped, from yes to no.  I’m waiting for a statement.

The Seattle Times has a front page article on Darcy Burner and her ties to “liberal bloggers” like me, and while I have no argument with the piece itself, I wish reporter Emily Heffter had managed to get a hold of me.  (We played telephone tag last week, but never connected.)

One of the main points I would have emphasized to Hefter is that this popular notion that the netroots represent some sort of radical-left fringe, is nothing more than a Republican meme that has been eagerly embraced by old media stalwarts who understandably fear the very real threat we bloggers pose to the media and political establishment.

Sure, there’s a fringe element to the netroots, but then everything (except perhaps, a black hole) includes a fringe, and as inclusive as we try to be there are often times when pragmatists like me roll our eyes or pull out our hair at the counterproductive and shortsighted antics of our own wacky left.  (And yes, personally, I am nothing if not a political pragmatist, a self-described “1970’s centrist” who, while occasionally radical in my methods and my writing style, is far from revolutionary when it comes to policy.)  Reichert would point toward Darcy’s mere attendance at Netroots Nation as evidence that she’ll do our “bidding” instead of that of 8th CD voters, but in embracing this classic Rovian divide and conquer strategy, who exactly is Reichert branding as “the other”?  As I reported from Austin back in July, we’re not exactly the “dirty fucking hippies” we’ve been made out to be:

I had planned to get to bed relatively early last night, but somehow found myself at 1:30 AM, sitting in an IHOP with Darcy Burner and a bunch of veterans. Vote Vets co-founder and chairman Jon Soltz sat across the table, passionately detailing the Veteran Administration’s many bureaucratic nightmares as he relentlessly made his way through an enormous, whipped cream topped stack of chocolate chip pancakes. On his own unexpected politicization Soltz described heading to Iraq a true believer, only to have reality—political, military and otherwise—rip the veil from his eyes. “It was like learning that your parents are not really your parents,” Soltz explained as he tried to relate the sense of betrayal that accompanied his own disillusionment.

Perhaps the biggest surprise for those who don’t know squat about the liberal blogosphere might be that while 20-year-old slackers in bathrobes are in short supply here at Netroots Nation, veterans and military personnel are out in full force. At last night’s keynote, Gen. Wes Clark called out various groups one by one to stand up and be acknowledged… teachers, medical professionals, candidates, first responders, social workers, etc…. but by far the largest group in attendance were the veterans, and it was for them that the crowd reserved its loudest and longest round of applause.

It is an inside netroots joke that we sometimes refer to ourselves as “dirty fucking hippies,” the inherent punchline being that this description couldn’t be further from the truth. If we are radicals, we are the radicalized middle, a segment of the population historically loathe to forsake economic security for the sake of a mere cause, yet somehow provoked into producing a populist uprising. That veterans like Soltz and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga provide two of our most outspoken voices should come as no surprise from a broad movement that draws support from nearly every corner of American life.

For those who hope or imagine that Darcy’s close connections with the netroots will ultimately prove to hurt her standing with her district’s suburban voters, well, you should have been at IHOP last night, where Darcy was literally embraced by veterans who trust that she will deliver the kind of leadership, respect and support that they deserve. Yet more evidence that we are in fact a netroots nation.

I’ve watched Darcy hugged by bleary-eyed veterans at 2AM, not because they believe she will do their “bidding,” but because they know that as a congresswoman she will always be there to listen to their concerns, and then do the right thing.  If that’s the sort of embrace that’s supposed to alienate Darcy from 8th CD voters, then I guess our critics are right, and “liberal” bloggers like me really don’t know the district.

U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Bainbridge Island) was one of just 95 Democrats who broke ranks and voted against Monday’s $700 billion Wall Street bailout.  

Inslee was the only member of the Washington State Democratic delegation to vote against the bill. Indeed, one of his Democratic colleagues, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Tacoma), said: “Failure to act by Congress could turn a severe economic slowdown into a panic—a run on banks and all financial institutions that could plunge us into a deep and lasting recession.”

I spoke with Rep. Inslee on Tuesday to ask him about his rebellious vote. For starters, given that he voted ‘No,’ I asked him if he thought Rep. Smith was wrong? Did Inslee think it wasn’t really 1929? (His aide jumped in to let me know the stock market was up 485 points.)

Inslee said, “There is a risk that is real. We could have a substantial reduction in availability of credit. I think that risk exists. But that doesn’t mean any bill will do.” 

So, what was wrong with the bill, and did he have an alternative plan?

More important: If the Democrats couldn’t even pass a tempered Democratic rewrite of Bush’s original bailout, did Inslee really think they’d be able to pass something that a diehard liberal like himself could eventually support?

Inslee laid out three problems with the bill. 

1. He said it was “based on deficit spending,” and he could not support any more of Bush’s “exploding” deficit.

“It’s strike three,” Inslee said, adding it to a list that included Bush’s war in Iraq ($600 billion) and the Bush tax cuts.  

2. He said the bill was missing any “hard provisions” to guarantee that the public would get a return on the $700 billion loan. “We’re increasing the value of these corporations,” he said. “When we do that we should have defined shares, a defined X number of dollars in equity. This bill does not do that. And knowing the history of the Bush administration, they’re not going to be aggressive about ensuring [we get a return].” 

3. Finally, he said the bill didn’t address the real losers in 2008, not Wall Street , but middle class homeowners who were facing foreclosures. “The only way to do that is through bankruptcy courts,” Inslee said.  “We have to change the rules,” so borrowers, in concert with lenders, are able to rearrange the terms of loans. 

And is there the will or the votes on the Democratic side to do any of this?

Inslee said: “We get more Democratic votes if we do that.”

Monday’s vote was 228 to 205. 133 out of 198 Republicans voted against the bill. 95 out of 235 Democrats voted against it. One Republican didn’t vote. So, technically Inslee is right: The Democrats have numbers. 

Chastising Democratic leadership, Inslee said:  “A decision was made to get 100 or 80 Republicans to vote for it [65 Republicans voted for the bill]. That eliminates the necessity to do a good bill.” Inslee asks rhetorically: “And did we have a good bill?”

Inslee went on to say, in fact, that the Democrats had the leverage at the moment because “the President has to sign” a bill. “We have the power to negotiate with the White House.” 

Asked to distinguish his ‘No’ vote from the 133 Republicans who voted against the bill, including all three Washington State Republicans—Reps. Dave Reichert (R-Auburn), Doc Hastings (R-Pasco), and Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-Spokane), Inslee said he couldn’t speak for his GOP counterparts. 

However, a consistent theme on the GOP side was an aversion to big government. In a statement to the press, Doc Hastings, for example, said: “On the question of increased government intervention in the marketplace, I am just plain opposed to such a massive intrusion into the economy and the marketplace.” 

Inslee wants more regulation, not less.  

Later in the day, I asked Inslee if the idea being pushed by presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain—higher limits for insured bank deposits—an idea that’s breathed life into a Senate version (and that’s intended to make the House reconsider)—would win him over.   

His aide gave me this response: “That would be a step in the right direction, but he says he will make final decisions on his vote only after he sees the whole package. Higher FDIC credits could be an element of the new deal, but the Congressman and his colleagues are wrestling with a lot of other promising suggestions out there right now, too. His vote will depend on what the final package includes.” 

•••

Rep. Inslee’s webcasting bill (a bill that clears the deck so Internet radio sites can re-negotiate royalty rates with the recording industry) passed the Senate today. It passed the House last Saturday. It’s off to President Bush’s desk for a signature.  

The vote is still open for arm twisting, but as of this moment the bailout bill is failing 199 to 223.  More coming…

UPDATE:
207 to 226… Dems 141-94, Republicans 66-132.  Time has expired, and members can be heard hollering for “regular order”… in other words, calling for the vote to be closed.

UPDATE, UPDATE (11:05AM):
The bailout bill fails 205-228.

UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
It should be noted that while there was a bipartisan rejection of the bill in its current form, President Bush could only muster about a third of House Republicans behind his proposal.  Considering the circumstances, this was about as close as we come in the US to a vote of no confidence, and was this a parliamentary system, our government would have just collapsed.  Fortunately, we have new elections already scheduled for six weeks from tomorrow.

WHAT’S NEXT?
The Dow is currently down 450 points at 10,692.  That’s not so surprising considering the gains at the end of last week had already built in anticipation of the bailout passing… and the expectation remains that a bailout plan, in one form or another, will eventually pass Congress, and probably soon.  Just not this one.

Again, I’m not necessarily opposed to some sort of rescue package, I just want one that focuses on the core problems, protects taxpayers, and doesn’t hamstring the Obama administration from effectively acting later, as this ongoing crisis unfolds.  If it takes another week or two to do this right, we’ll all be better off for it.

WA DELEGATION:
Aye: Baird, Dicks, Larsen, McDermott, Smith.  Nay:  Inslee, McMorris-Rodgers, Reichert.

And it should be noted that before the vote, Darcy Burner told the Seattle Times’ Emily Hefter that she would have voted against this package:

“We need to do something,” she said. But she said the compromise package being pushed by Democratic leaders in Congress doesn’t go far enough to protect taxpayers.

Burner said it doesn’t fix the underlying problems that caused the financial crisis, namely too much deregulation of the financial industry. And she said it doesn’t do enough to limit executive pay.

Burner’s opposition marks one of the first times she has come out against the House Democratic leadership, especially House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is championing the bailout package and has supported Burner’s Congressional bid.

It’s not really the first time Burner has opposed the House leadership, but it is the first time the press has reported it.  So I guess it’s easy to understand how Hefter might conflate the two.

And while I’m happy Reichert voted no, just listen to this pathetic interview gave this morning to NWCN, in which he answers every question with a question.  I dunno, it sure looks to me like he was waiting to see whether it would pass or fail before he determined how he was going to vote.

WA DELEGATION UPDATE:
Oops, forgot about Hastings, who also voted nay.  But then, who doesn’t forget about Hastings?

Dear Senators Murray and Cantwell, and Representatives Inslee, Smith, McDermott, Baird, Larsen, Dicks (and yes, Reichert and McMorris)…

Please don’t vote for this Wall Street bailout.  Not this bailout.  Not now.  Not with this administration.

Please… please… be skeptical.  Read James K. Galbraith.  Read Stirling Newberry.  But whatever you do, don’t get bullied or rushed into sinking $700 billion of taxpayer money into a bailout that won’t do anything to fix the fundamental problems at the heart of this financial crisis.  For that matter, don’t accept as a matter of fact that this is a financial crisis… at least, not the kind that requires you to cast a vote this week or risk a second Great Depression.

Ask questions.  Be prudent.  Ask even more questions.  Authorize, say, $150 billion if you really feel the need to do something now, to prop things up through the end of the Bush administration.  But don’t just vote yes on this bill because you’re afraid of voting no.  There is too much at stake, and it is not at all clear that this bailout plan will do anything but delay the inevitable, all the while lining the pockets of the already super-rich.

The problem, in the end, is that Americans simply consume more than we produce, and not a dime of the $700 billion the White House is requesting will do anything to address this core economic flaw.  We either have to produce more or consume less, or preferably, some combination of the two.  Austerity may not be a politically popular thing to talk about out loud… so don’t.  But you need to start talking about it privately amongst yourselves, and have this stark reality inform your vote.

So please… please… take your time.  Remember the Patriot Act.  Remember the Iraq War Authorization.  And don’t let yourselves be rolled by the Bush administration one more time.

UPDATE:
Call your Representative and Senators, 800-473-6711, and tell them to take their time and just say “no.”

UPDATE, UPDATE:
On HuffPo, Dean Baker warns us not to be scared by “phony stories” about a second Great Depression:

[Read more…]