Reply #5: I don't trust Bush either but then again I also don't trust most of the 'CONs...

[WePurrsevere]

because they don't normally care jack for "Main Street" but are all about "Wall Street" (Corporations and BIG money). If they don't want this then logically it has to benefit them and/or their big $$ buddies in some way.

Then it occurred to me... maybe Bush wants this for the opposite reason that the others don't... he's a "lame duck" so he doesn't have to worry about re-election or his corp donors anymore so maybe now he's looking out for himself in a different way and is worried about his legacy.

Anyway, this morning I read an article in Slant that helped make some sense of my some of suspicions as to why the votes may have gone as they did (although I think there are more reasons then just this for some): Failure To Lead

While some lawmakers pointed to ideological reasons for rejecting the rescue package, everyone says that the surge in angry calls and e-mails from constituents opposed to the measure played a pivotal role. As the LAT notes, there was no grass-roots movement in favor of the bill, but there were plenty of groups that angrily opposed the measure. "People's re-elections played into this to a much greater degree than I would have imagined," said Rep. Deborah Pryce, a Republican from Ohio who is retiring. Other lawmakers were clearly worried about how their vote would play with their constituents a mere five weeks before Election Day. Although members may cite other reasons, "it was old-fashioned politics that killed the bill. … oo many lawmakers weren't willing to risk losing their jobs," declares USAT.

The WSJ goes inside with a look at who cast the "no" votes and says they "came from a strange-bedfellows coalition" that spanned the ideological spectrum. Many of these nays came from representatives of low-income districts, but the one thing many had in common is a tough re-election fight. While the majority of Democratic freshmen and all of the first-term Republican lawmakers voted against the bill, the overwhelming majority of those retiring from Capitol Hill voted in favor. But the LAT also points out that many of the no votes came from safe districts, partly because years of redistricting have created "politically polarized" areas where "members from those districts have less incentive to compromise with the other party."