WASHINGTON — For House members in close races or vying for the Senate, a “no” vote on the Wall Street bailout Friday was still the most popular choice.
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, a Fort Morgan Republican locked in a tight re-election battle, voted “no,” one of nine House members in the tightest races as identified by the Swing State Project. It considers 13 seats with incumbents to be the most at risk.
Rep. Mark Udall, an Eldorado Springs Democrat running against Republican Bob Schaffer for Colorado’s open Senate seat, also voted “no.” That race is considered one of the five most competitive in the nation.
Udall’s cousin, Democratic Rep. Tom Udall of New Mexico, is running for a Senate seat against Rep. Steve Pearce, a New Mexico Republican. Both also voted “no.”
“If they sense their opponent is working the ‘no’ side hard, they feel they’re safer staying on the ‘no’ side,” said Thomas Mann, a scholar on Congress with the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank. And the risk of the vote was diminished because the House passed the bill, he said.
Mark Udall said his race against Schaffer didn’t factor into his decision.
“I did what I thought was right on Monday, and I did what I thought was right today,” he said after the vote. “Coloradans wanted a ‘no’ vote. They wanted a better product.
“We can have a much better bill that protects taxpayers and takes care of homeowners that are in foreclosure,” Udall said.
“Senate larded it up”
Not enough changed in the bill form the earlier version defeated Monday to change her vote, Musgrave said.
“I stayed with my vote because it still is a bailout, still has a staggering price, still gives the secretary of the Treasury an amazing amount of power,” Musgrave said. “The Senate larded it up to get the votes; that’s why it was still a ‘no’ today.”
Rep. John Salazar, a Manassa Democrat, and Rep. Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Springs Republican, joined Musgrave and Udall in voting “no.”
Democratic Reps. Diana DeGette of Denver and Ed Perlmutter of Golden, as well as Republican Tom Tancredo of Littleton, maintained their “yes” votes.
Salazar said he was hopeful that the bill would have its intended effect on the economy but fearful the country would look back on the vote with regret.
“At the end of the day, my vote was one of principle for my three children, my grandson and the millions of young Americans who are going to inherit the bill for a mess they didn’t create,” Salazar said.
The bill’s impact on the credit markets, DeGette said, was more important than any misgivings she may have had over what it contained.
“I am not happy that the Senate loaded this bill up with pork, but I supported it because it is necessary to not only put our financial markets back on track but also to restore consumer confidence in the American economy,” DeGette said.
