good for Jim

I watched the local news last night, and they spent all this time telling us what Rep. Rob Bishop thought of the bailout bill, and that Rep. Cannon voted with Wall Street, since "the voters can't hurt him any more" as Rod Decker put it. But they failed to mention that Rep. Matheson voted against the bill too.

After the Senate bowed before Mr. 22% and Goldman Sachs CEO Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson last night to the tune of 75-24, the House gets to vote on an even crappier version of the Paulson bill. Thanks, Obama and McCain!

But for our Blue Dog, this bill don't hunt.

"I don't believe this bill is the right medicine to cure the disease," Matheson said. "The Senate version is even worse. It's larded up with more debt and doesn't include long-term reform language that would prevent this kind of crisis from happening again."
[...]
But Matheson says: "Economists aren't able to say that this bill is actually going to solve the credit freeze problem."
He's not convinced the plan will function as designed or that taxpayers will receive an appropriate return on their investment.

He predicts that Congress will have to take further actions to respond to the financial crisis.
"I am certain this isn't the end of the difficulties we face," he said. "Congress will have to return in January to deal with this again."

Probably true, so why did our next president vote for this bill and hamstring their administration with cleaning up yet another Bush mess? And why did the Senate force the issue by voting on this bill last night? I don't get it.