...the proposals appear to have been rejected for a muddled number of reasons which were probably not the "right" reasons even though it may well have been possible to build a sensible case for rejecting them.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9993_the_money_behin.html
The Money Behind the Bailout Vote
According to Maplight.org, House members who voted for the bailout received 54 percent more money from banks and securities firms than members who voted against it. The nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group has also broken down the average donation from those sectors, based on lawmakers' bailout stances and party affiliations:
All House Members//// Average Amount Received
Voting Yes................................$231,877
Voting No..................................$150,982
Democrats
Voting Yes................................$212,700
Voting No..................................$107,993
Republicans
Voting Yes................................$273,181
Voting No..................................$181,688
Republicans who opposed the bill are thought to have done so because they're rabid free market ideologues. So why hasn't the Street showered these guys with money in the past? Were they actually pro-regulation? (I doubt it). Are they simply marginal members of their party? Or is pure free market evangelism scary even to Wall Street? My bet's on the last one, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. (Also, money might not explain everything)
The other interesting detail in these numbers is the small difference in donations to anti-bailout Republicans compared to pro-bailout Democrats (only about $30,000). It's not that Wall Street doesn't like free marketers; it's just a bit wary of anything in the extreme. Or to put it another way, it practices risk aversion at the ballot box. Just not enough of it; obviously, that GOP stock ain't so hot now.
\\\\\
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9992_swing_district_bailout.html
Did Swing District Congressmen Doom the Bailout?
Numbers maven Nate Silver looks at how electoral prospects affected votes on the bailout:
Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.
By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.
...among 26 congressmen NOT running for re-election (almost all of whom are Republicans), 23 voted in favor of the bill, as opposed to 2 against and one abstaining.
There's a huge chance the bailout doesn't work; there's very little chance it makes everything better. As a result it's way, way safer for Congressmen in tight races to vote against the thing.
That said, I do believe there was genuine ideological opposition to the bailout on the left of the Democratic Party and the right of the Republican Party. A host on CNBC postulated that this was a revolt of the Republican rank-and-file who had been told, for many years, that their desire for fiscal conservativism would have to take a back seat to the GOP leadership's spending priorities. I think there's some real truth to that.
still having problms with kyboar, so am not abl to writ up a summary or opinion....