I would cut Merkley some slack on this with his being new to the senate a probably a lot of pressure from the established hypocrites, but I really don't hold out that much hope for him. I only voted for him because he was anybody but Smith.

I see this more a a vote of confidence in President Obama by Senator Merkley than anything else. Obama lobbied for it. Larry Summers, according to the NY Times (here) "promised to use $50 billion to $100 billion for 'a sweeping effort to address the foreclosure crisis.' He promised tough oversight and clear tracking of how the money is used, and new restrictions on executive pay at firms that receive help." I think we need the stimulus. This part will be administered by Obama. That's the difference.

Why did Wyden vote against it?

I think TARP is an issue on which folks of good will can honestly disagree (or not be sure where they stand, as I can attest).

I'm glad we have David Sirota, and he's done much good for progressive causes, but when he's made up his mind... well, be prepared to be denounced as a sell-out if you come down on the other side.

I hope that President Obama uses the TARP money wisely, with the openness and transparency that the Bush administration was so sorely lacking. It's disappointing that TARP happened in the way it did, but I'm hopeful that Obama can bring some good to an unfortunate situation.

I don't fault Senator Merkely for giving Obama the benefit of the doubt here, and I don't fault Senator Wyden for being more skeptical.

During his campaign, Merkley talked about being on the same side as Wyden, yet he votes opposite of him and cancels out the vote from Oregon...the very same point he made when hammering Smith....so either he was lying or he is already being pushed around by the establishment. i dont know how anyone can position this in any other manner.

His vote? It sucks. And I gave him money, too, based partly on his "principled stand". You know what? [rest deleted by disgusted Tyrannocaster]

"Let's get real. How many of you actually know the real status of our banking system and what happens if these funds are not available?"

There is an article in NY Mag about how many wallstreeter's were shopping for survival supplies because they thought the entire financial system was 6 hours from total collapse back when this started.

We say we want to know, but do we really? And if we did, could we handle it?

Obama believes that this is critical and not optional. I give him more credence than Sirota. Jeff did the right thing.

And exactly what are the O's credentials as an economist? He didn't even get particularly high marks as a law professor or editor of the law review. What he was good at is letting people talk and BELIEVE he was generally agreeing with them. That's certainly his right. And I for one absolutely give him credit for being better than just about anyone at it.

There is an article in NY Mag about how many wallstreeter's were shopping for survival supplies because they thought the entire financial system was 6 hours from total collapse back when this started.

These were the same people that also believed if you take fed a bunch of high-risk mortgage to them on Wall Street, what they crapped out was AAA securities. So there's not much reason to believe anything they say, yet they are the people we are giving all the money to to fix it?

Some of us are intelligent enough to recognize the

This got cutoff:

Some of us are intelligent enough to recognize the letter Merkley points to for cover isn't signed by Obama. It's signed by his transition team leader, who basically is just making statements of his own that he knows politicians like Merkley need to hear so they can lie with a straight right now and then later make excuses how they were lied to.

Summers has no legal authority to make a commitment on the disposition of the funds the Congress has ripped off from working people to give to some of the most corrupt people in the country. And all you women who want to line up to defend Merkley and the O, you might want to educate yourself about what kind of guy Summers proved himself to be at Harvard. He's smart but far from trustworthy.

Wouldn't have expected anything better from Merkley. He's totally owned and his entire tenure as a Senator will be saying and doing whatever it takes at the moment to get re-elected in 2014.

I wish everyone would just sack up and be honest about Jeff Merkley...everyone knows he was a 5th tier, place-filler candidate..who barely scraped by in the primary to a guy who has never held political office in his life...he happened to run in the one year that the DSCC had a ton more cash that NRSC and in a year when a horribly unpopular GOP president was on the way out with a Jesus-like Democratic candidate on the way in..in a state that just registered 200,000 new Democrats this year alone and voted for Obama by a 17 point margin...and Merkley still barely won. He's not Ron Wyden, he's not Kitzhaber..he's not even Kulongoski. Most Oregonians wouldn't trust this guy to mow their lawn in ordinary circumstances..he just happened to be the "D" on the ballot in this apocalyptic year for Republicans...but we all know this dude doesn't belong anywhere near the US senate and he won't be there after this term is up. He was bought, paid for and delivered by the DSCC..he will spend the next 6 years paying them back..and then be replaced by a real Senator...of either party.....but one thing is for sure..Oregonians will not be fooled twice by this jackass...

CatNip has hit the nail on the head with the hammer it requires. Merkley will be an embarrassment. The biggest reason Oregon elects bluish leaning yellow candidates is because the GOP just insists on choosing candidates whose legs are too short to keep their knuckles from dragging on the ground.

One thing though CatNip. I hope you're not kidding yourself about Wyden. He's as much about only doing what it takes to advance his career as Merkley. Check out who his biggest contributors are and what interests he supports when he actually drafts legislation. Most of his seemingly brave progressive stands, and most notably his anti-war positions, happen because a lot of good Oregonians are just all over him when a vote is nigh. It's a sad joke amongst the politically active folks I know that Wyden's staff will never tell you as an average constituent out here where he is on any controversial issue, even 5 minutes before the vote. EXCEPT, that is, on those matters he knows will obviously pay political benefits to him.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether this was the right vote or not, but anyone who thinks Jeff Merkley is going to "sell out" to Wall St needs to have their head checked.

News flash for you cynical types! Unless one of them has some sort of personal scandal (which seems unlikely) both Wyden and Merkley are going to look pretty safe six years from now, regardless of how they vote on something like this.

In other words, if you disagree with a particular vote, just say so - and state your reasoning. There's no reason to question someone's motives without just cause.

(Full Disclosure: I was Jeff's personal assistant for 14 months and may, in fact, know more about the kind of person he is than you do...)

so, so dissapointing in the worst way. i praised merkley and believed he was speaking in good faith when he (after some nudging) spoke out strongly against the bailout.

best case scenario is that merkley only made this horrible vote because he owed obama big time, and now he's payed him off. that doesn't make it right, or even ok.

I don't agree with Merkley's vote, but maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt. He had high level conversations that led him to believe that homeowners facing foreclosure would finally get some help from the bailout. I hope he is right.

I don't believe he voted this way just because he owed Obama, and I certainly don't think he was a 5th-tier candidate. Anyone who can knock off a guy like Smith who enjoyed enormous Democratic support has some serious skills.

Merkley will be a great Senator, IMHO. I just think this was an unfortunate first vote to split form Wyden. People were destined to make a big deal of their first split vote, but this one certainly carries no shortage of irony.

I think both votes make sense. One is based on risk reduction and the other is based on politics. I don't mean that to sound negative, they're just different realities. Obviously, compared to Carter's not trying to handle the politics and Clinton's not initially handling them well, it's totally understandable that someone try to do so. The other argument is well supported by the British experience. They payed far more, per capita, for their bail-out, and the abuses of it by the high-street banks has been truly appalling.

I guess I would mention that the last bit soon becomes the political bit. My only problem with Merkley's position is that he's asking corporate America to do the right thing. I would feel better if he would ask more explicitly and will feel better if he rides heard on correcting any abuses.

Leadership lackey?

There seems to be the assumption among the critics of Senator Merkley's vote that Barack Obama is going to continue the exact same policies as George W. Bush. That he's going to just give away this cash, willy nilly, to high rolling GOP political donors.

Steve - I think the parallel announcement yesterday of the size and shape of Obama's stimulus plan is evidence that, at least on that front, the policies will be substantially different. With TARP, however, it's not so clear. Consider:

Within hours, if not minutes, of the Senate vote, Treasury was essentially forced to nearly double down on its $25 billion investment in Bank of America. So it's very likely that a big chunk of the new funds will similarly go to further bailing out institutions that have already received funds but continue to falter - thus continuing the Bush Administration investments.

That he's going to just give away this cash, willy nilly, to high rolling GOP political donors.

You're right - but only because the financial services and hedge fund sectors have become primarily Democratic Party donors in recent years, and that sector is as or more solidly planted within the Obama Administration as they were in the Bush Administration. And wasn't it only last week that Robert Rubin, the guru for several of Obama's highest level economic team appointees, resigned in disgrace from Citigroup?

I'm just saying, the Democrats in this case have a miserable a record of oversight, so at least on this issue I'm not inclined to cut anyone much slack - though I do agree with the comments above re. the political factors influencing this vote (which I would imagine have as much to do with his DSCC benefactor Chuck Schumer as Obama himself).

Kari, nothing could be further from the truth:

Don't poke the trolls. They're just poor unemployed Gordon Smith staffers who don't know why their guy lost.

And you know the Merkley apologists are desperate when they start labeling those who have the truth and honesty on their side as "trolls".

Candidate Merkley on 10/1/2008 when he saw political advantage in parroting Wyden:

"I have dedicated much of my life to advocating for consumers and I believe it is just wrong to spend $700 billion of taxpayer money to bailout the very Wall Street financiers who created this crisis"

The lesser Senator from the Ministry of Truth in Oregon now:

"I have roundly criticized the first $350 billion ... because it didn't attack the challenge of families facing foreclosure,''

No, he attacked the very essence and premise of the full $700 billion bailout, not just the first $350 billion as he is re-writing history here. None of the vague promises in Summer's letter, not signed by the O, contradict the essence of the $700b billion vote. The financiers who gave us this crises are still going to make out quite nicely because, in the end, the argument in Summer's letter is that we have to play nice with them to get a little trickle down to working people.

Carla, is this belief due to conversations you have had with him. Your insight would help. Otherwise, his very own website says differently that what you are asserting.

http://www.jeffmerkley.com/2008/10/merkley_stateme_7.php

I don't think Obama can conduct the kind of oversight necessary to see this thing doesn't end up a free for all.

And let's note in that vein that Geithner's appointment is at least temporarily stalled so that for now that leaves Treasury in the hands of Bush Under Secretary Stuart Levey.

So as we're seeing yet another wave of dire reports about institutions Treasury is already committed to bailing out, it's far from clear that a new Obama team is in place to change the terms on which the money's been going out the door already, especially under tight pressure. And, as other stories have shown just this week, those terms definitely need changing.

Let's get real. How many of you actually know the real status of our banking system and what happens if these funds are not available? While it is true that Bush and crew implemented this poorly, it is also pretty clear that we would be in a bigger mess if we hadn't started bailing when we did. Now we have a more competent crew without the free-market ideology that screwed up the first half.

Indeed, let's get real. "Bush's crew" - essentially Paulson and Bernanke - wrote up a brief letter setting up the bail out. Congress held committee hearings under the chairmanships of Democrats Senator Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank who excluded anyone likely to criticize what "Bush's crew" was proposing. Dodd and Frank were aided and abetted by other Democrats and Republicans doing what they were expected to do in exchange for the campaign donations they received. In other words, they were in on the fix.

Obama took bundles from Wall Street, so anyone with a lick of sense would at least be skeptical of what position he takes in favor of the bailout. And that goes in spades when we consider three of the fixers for deregulation on Wall Street - Rubin, Summers and Geithner - are key players in Obama's economic team.

I hope that President Obama uses the TARP money wisely, with the openness and transparency that the Bush administration was so sorely lacking. It's disappointing that TARP happened in the way it did, but I'm hopeful that Obama can bring some good to an unfortunate situation.

Jeff has earned my support and my vote in lots of other ways and I remain ardently devoted to him as my Senator. But I hope to see better.

Hope springs eternal on Blue Oregon. More and more that appears all an Obama administration will have to offer.

Just what we need, another wink tinkler in the Senate who can't keep his word or thinks hypocrisy is a positive character trait.

Carl Fisher, I agree with what you state. Merkely owes Obama a favor or two. This was a big one. Makes me believe there are many fewer favors due since this is so significant.

As for the rest of the noise on this blog, 90% of it is conjecture about what will happen. Merkely voted with the PE and payed Obama back in a small way. BO bloggers in large part are reminding him to be true to his promise to be more cooperative with Ron Wyden. So in the realm of political capital, we urge him to be less party-line and more retrospective. Wyden appears to hold the higher ground. Accountability is required regardless of who is President. And Merkely is now being held accountable. All in all, I do not believe his vote was a serious betrayal. The votes were there anyway, and there is more work to be done to stimulate this lame economy.

Merkley is a typical Democrat, no better and no worse. Is he better than Smith? Less evil and/or less insane? I don't know.

One thing's for sure, he's present, and therefore he's a progressive, at least by BO standards.

Seantor Merkley ulitimately sided with the middle class with his vote. He also gave Obama the benefit of the doubt. The Senator is a workhorse known for doing excruciating detailed work. If the Senator gets burned than we will all learn something about the incoming new president. Courageous vote.

I agree with those of the B.O. community who feel that we should give Senator Merkley the benefit of the doubt. This is, after all, a man who stood up and expressed his disappointment in Holy Joe Leiberman's behavior in the election but was willing to vote for him keeping both his important chairmanships... of course, that was before he found out that Joe gave Smith $5K.

Oh, well. Let's keep giving the Senator the benefit of the doubt until we, uh, have to vote for a Republican to a Senator who tells us what he's going to do rather than what he "believes in."

I am so disgusted at congress for raking auto workers over the coals and erroneously reporting that they make $70,000 a year (they took the liberty of averaging out all wages/benefits, including retiree health care, when in fact the average worker salary is $38,000, the national median personal income).

What about banker/finance salaries and benefits? What about the massive gap between CEO/executive salaries and workers salaries? Why doesn't the dEMOCRTATIC (notive little d) congress make an issue of that?

I voted with reluctance for Merkley over Novick, but am already beginning to regret it. I hope he doesn't join the corporate whore Wyden, who I would love to see Novick challenge next year.

Ever posit that maybe the trolls are "told ya so progressive dems" that resent the fact that JM got $300K from Wall Street water boy and DSCC head honcho Chuck Schumer while Steve N. got nada ziltch nothing during the primary? Talk about "Big Rotten Apple" payola...

Voting in secret cuts both ways SM... I 'spose one could say that there is no evidence that JM voted against the Nutmeg State Senator either. Nothing like hiding behind a secret vote to show that you are a principled, stand-up-for-all-to-see kind of guy when it comes to Joe's chaimanship is there???

Hey, look I'm a compassionate insect...I made over 700 calls for JM and I'm thrilled to have him as my Senator. But I have expectations and the DP of O shouldn't forget that the U.S. and Oregon are different places now.