Web sites crash for most reps who voted 'no'

Posted at 3:57 PM on September 29, 2008 by Bob Collins (12 Comments)
Filed under: Tech

As of 4:06 p.m. the Web sites for most Minnesota representatives who voted 'no' on the bailout bill aren't working. The ones for those who voted 'yes' are.

Is it directly related to the bailout bill, which failed today? The main House Web site has crashed.

"We haven't seen this much demand since the 9-11 commission report" was posted on the site in 2004, said Jeff Ventura, spokesman for the House Chief Administrative Officer. "We're being overwhelmed with Web traffic about the bill."

Among the "no" voters, Rep. Tim Walz' page and Collin Peterson's page loads a blank page. Rep. Jim Ramstad's site connects but doesn't load a full page. But Rep. Michele Bachmann's page is working.

Among those voting "yes," the Web sites of Rep. John Kline, Rep. Betty McCollum, Rep. Jim Oberstar, and Rep. Keith Ellison are all working.

Ventura told the Associated Press the Web sites are working, but many computer users
are getting the equivalent of a busy signal when they try to visit the site. Once users are on the site, it works at reduced speed.

Still, it would appear many more people are interested in contacting the "no" reps, than the "yes" reps.

(h/t: Willie Vogt)

---

Comments (12)

That's a difficult question, so I picked "I don't have a clue".

Certainly I'm skeptical of the claim that we, as taxpayers, should borrow more money in order to buy bad debt that unregulated financial institutions bought with borrowed money.

But I'm also concerned that doing nothing could be worse than borrowing a couple billion in order to maintain liquidity in the credit markets.

So, without knowing why the reps who voted 'no' voted 'no', I don't know if I'm with them. If they voted 'no' because they think we should do nothing, I think I'm with the 'yes' votes. But if they voted 'no' because they have a better idea and just need time to put a deal together, maybe I'm with them.

Posted by bsimon | September 29, 2008 4:26 PM

---

I feel like the character of 'Jim' in the british comedy The Vicar of Dibley.

"no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no---YES!"

If you haven't seen the show, sorry about that.

I hate the idea of bailing out gamblers, but when I see how widespread the effects are, and I watch my very hard-earned savings disappear, if something reasonable and measured CAN be done we better do it.

Posted by Bonnie | September 29, 2008 4:27 PM

---

I'm with bsimon on this one.

Posted by MR | September 29, 2008 4:28 PM

---

YES! I am buy stocks like crazy today.

This too will pass.

How bad can this credit thing really be, I got 10 Credit card application in the mail this week. 4 On friday alone. At lunch, 5 minute drive, I heard no less than 3 ad's for lines of credit (wells fargo, american equity and one other).

Posted by brian hanf | September 29, 2008 5:02 PM

---

It's pretty clear that the NO voters are basically the ones facing an election challenge - and the wrath of voters who overwhelmingly polled against the bailout. Ramstad's "no" vote is interesting so if he has a better idea to solve this, I'll have to hear more about that. But McCollum, Ellison, Oberstar are definitely safe and all voted yes.

Posted by Bonnie | September 29, 2008 5:33 PM

---

Peterson's safe. He voted "no"

Posted by Bob Collins | September 29, 2008 5:44 PM

---

Well, there goes that theory, I do think it works in some cases. So we'll have to see what Ramstad and Peterson have in mind.

Posted by Bonnie | September 29, 2008 7:55 PM

---

I'm with the NO crowd. If the companies that want help ask for it, they should face very stiff rules and penalties. The senior office holders should be forced to forfeit 6 months pay and stock options. Every institution should submit to a very thorough criminal investigation and prosecuted where the law has been violated. Where no violations have been found help should be limited to 80% of their losses. Also anybody in charge of granting help to the institutions should be barred from joining any Wall Street company or affiliates for five years after leaving the government. This whole thing is an abomination. I am hearing that AIG did not have to go down. There was private help from the outside, Burnanke wouldn't hear of it.

Posted by C. O. Regal | September 29, 2008 8:03 PM

---

It's a good theory, Bonn8e, and probably an accurate one. Political considerations are the primary driver of politicla votes.

What makes this situation frustrating is we don't really KNOW the story or the future. Nobody seems to like this bailout, but I need to know what the alternative is. I get the "let 'em fail" thing, but big things like the credit markets don't fail without pain being felt by schleps like me.

The big banker bosses? They'll be fine; they've probably cashed out by now. But I needf to hear what Plan B is from the "no" votes pretty soon because I think the markets are pretty smart and when the Dow drops 700 points in one day, that's a lot of smart people telling us something -- don't bet on companies succeeding, dn't bet on businesses expanding, don't bet on people like me having any money to spend.

So, yeah, I get all the stump speech stuff I've heard in the last 24 hours, now I need to know how this country intends to play this game of "chicken" without me being the chicken.

Posted by Bob Collins | September 29, 2008 8:10 PM

---

I voted NO.

But isn't it difficult to say, especially because there are so many opinions out there, who to believe?

Also, I don't like the idea of anyone from the Bush administration taking the lead (though the presidency/leadership probably should). But it just seems to me those who were in office didn't care enough about the American people, especially those with less capital i.e. less privileged, so why should we trust them? Isn't this the same administration that said there were WMDs in Iraq?

Seriously, I think 5th graders who knew the generalities, could have figured out this was coming.

1. Skyrocketing Housing prices
2. Massive advertising for 0% down
3. Many news dailies about Corporate Execs. making millions
4. Soaring energy prices
5. Clinton surplus to Bush zillion dollar deficit

I'd rather see those who tried to speak out about all this greed, the need to focus on alternative energy, etc. start making the calls. Does it make sense to trust those who have let us down? Was there anyone in Congress we should have trusted?

Protect the American people. Let Wall Street get what is coming to them. But in the end, in a country with democratic principles, we surely got what we deserved too.

Posted by Brandon | September 30, 2008 12:35 AM

---

I support bsimon.

Posted by Joel | September 30, 2008 11:30 AM

---

If the bailout is really necessary, someone with credibility needs to step up and convince the American people. Paulsen is an unelected bureaucrat, Bush is a lame duck, and Obama and McCain are damning the bill with faint praise.

Why should the common person have anything but suspicion about it, if no one is able to make a convincing case in favor of it?

Posted by Mike R | September 30, 2008 11:55 AM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Save to Delicious
• Submit to Digg
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories

Become a Sponsor