It definitely was a bipartisan bill - Bush, McCain, Obama and Pelosi all supported it. Many Republicans and Democrats both split ranks on this one.

I guess it's no surprise that there was greater opposition in the House, since Representatives are elected every two years, versus every six in the Senate. I think you had a lot of Representatives (both Democrat and Republican) who realized that voting for the bailout wouldn't play well back home. And with an election coming up in five weeks, they didn't want to anger their constituents.

Here's the vote from the congressional clerks page.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

So, let me get this straight: the politicians voted on this not according to what they thought would be best for the country, but according to what they thought their constituants back home would think would make the politicians look the best and get them re-elected?

I...hmmm...I thought all of this political maneuvering was above politics. Like McCain suspending his campaigning to rush back to Washington (DC) was best for the country and not what would help him or make him look better for those casting votes.

What minutia am I missing?

I think it was a hard bill to pass, it was rushed, and it was not explained to the public nearly comprehensive enough. I think the safest thing to say was that the voting was largely driven by politicians responding to phone calls from uninfomed constituents (on both sides).

So, badly presented, rushed, all bad for getting it voted through.

I suppose not all the resons for scuttling the bill have been all that noble, but I think with every pass they've had at this they've tightened the belt a bit (reduced the risk to the taxpayers.)

They all know that what they need to do is find a way to stabilize the economy, make sure the cost to the taxpayer is minimal (over the long run, with even a possibility of profit) and it can't be (or at least can't be perceived as) a bailout for the wall street fat cats while low-income home-owners and the like get screwed.

Too big a bailout, and the republicans lose their tax cuts and the democrats lose their spending increases. Depending on their political point of view, one of the two is going to be needed to turn the whole economy around and improve services.

My guess is that there are a lot of economists running around the halls in Washington trying to sell a lot of different solutions, and lobbyists are working overtime. There's just too much information out there for anyone in congress to be sure that either plan is good enough.

Personally, I'd rather they took a week more and got it right, rather than throw a trillion dollars down a sinkhole.

Dow dropped 777 points today.  Oy.

****************

There's no doubt that the bailout would've helped stock prices, at least in the short term. But is that enough to justify the huge price tag for this bailout? That's the big question, but my gut feeling is no.

Believe me, I worry about the stock market plenty - my 401(k) includes stocks and I'd like to retire before I'm 100! But history shows us that the stock market has its peaks and valleys, but generally moves upward over time. I have confidence that historic trend will continue, even without a $700 billion bailout.

Oh, and having read excerpts from Pelosi's speech today, I'm not sure that she could sell ice water in Death Valley.

I don't think she can be blamed for the bailout plan's defeat (if "blamed" is, indeed, the appropriate term). But she certainly didn't do her side any favors by blasting Republicans right before asking Republicans to vote with her.

Heck, even my dog knows you play nice if you want a treat!