If the bank bill is so important, shouldn't the vote have been 435 - 0?

[HardWorkingDem]

I'm sort of confused here - with the removal of politics, if this bill is so important to putting country first, should not the vote been 435 to 0?

What is it that the conservatives want? I'm sort of confused here. Wouldn't a passage have been better for Bush/McCain? I'm lost.

[Xenotime]

1. It should have been at least 100% dems. That would have passed it.

[HardWorkingDem]

2. On the flip side though...

What bothers me is, if the bill was as good as it could have been, then why didn't the Dems vote 100 percent for it and with the two thirds of Rethugs that didn't, were they thinking about farther down the road if this bill didn't work?

[wellst0nev0ter]

3. It Would Have Been Political Suicide For Some To Support It

try explaining why it's more important to bailout corporate crooks but do nothing for the eventual victims. I would have been out holding the torch and pitchfork myself.

[HardWorkingDem]

4. Under that thought....

do you really think the 2/3rds of repthugs that voted against this have the best interests of the every day person at heart? Or was it something else?

Something smells to high heaven here and I can't figure it out.

[wellst0nev0ter]

5. It's Tough Being A Republican As It Is

They were planning to vote against a successful bill and hammer at Democrats at supporting corporate socialism while they get to credibly wear their "small government" badges.