What this initial and wise vote against the $700 billion bailout is meant to do is to provide time to refine the solution, and it provides time for the American people to become more educated as to why the meltdown happened. 

The primary reason appears to be Democratic policy and some strong arm political tactics combined with false rhetoric to keep that policy in place.

As usual,  the lisping, loud-mouth antics of Representative Barney Frank was just a sitcom style distraction, a sideshow for the liberal media. 

And prior to the Monday vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave a floor speech trying to use the occasion to provide political campaign cover for Obama, blaming the President and the Republican's economic philosophy for the meltdown.  

The attempt at deception rang hollow and backfired on Pelosi.

The media's mischaracterization of Senator McCain and Senator Obama appearances at the bailout meeting last Friday (10/25) was politically motivated. 

U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert posted this more trustworthy version on Monday (9-29-08). This is worth the time to read!

"On Friday, September 19, rank and file Republican members of Congress were notified of a conference call that would include Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. I would never disclose confidences, but it is quite public now that we were told an economic disaster was about to take this country that could be worse than the crash of 1929."

My years as a judge force me to demand factual evidence to support expert opinions. The factual evidence was then and is now less than satisfactory.

The factual evidence was then and is now less than satisfactory. Yes, credit was becoming a real problem. Yes, there were major banks in trouble, but those were investment bankers, not the bedrock community bankers who for the most part have done fairly well since the 1980's about having better security for their loans.

I’ve not been in Washington all that long but one adage I’ve learned is that, “No matter how cynical you get, it is never enough to catch up.”

How could this happen? Where were the safeguards? Why did no one in authority see this coming?

The rank and file were not going to be forced into the biggest move to socialism in US economic history without some substantial proof of the necessity. We did not want to see economic devastation in America. But many of us -- then and many times since -- asked that we be given more to go on.

That Monday, I heard that Democrats were meeting at 2 pm and open to Republicans attending who did not like the Treasury’s proposal.  I went.

We actually agreed on something: that one really shouldn’t just come in and demand $700 billion to throw at a problem when, for all we knew, the recipient Treasury Department may have had some culpability in creating the problem.
 

The House and Senate Democratic drafts contain an indefensible and well-hidden provision. It would mandate that at least 20% of any profit realized from the sale of each troubled asset purchased under the Paulson plan be deposited in either the Housing Trust Fund or the Capital Magnet Fund. Only after these funds get their cut of the profits are "all amounts remaining . . . paid into the Treasury for reduction of the public debt."
Here's the exact, amazing language from the Democratic proposal, breaking out how the money would be divided and dispensed:
"Deposits. Not less than 20% of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).
"Use of Deposits. 65% shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act . . . ; and 35% shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund . . .
"Remainder Deposited in the Treasury. All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt."

What we have here essentially are a pair of government slush funds created in July as part of the Economic Recovery Act that pump tax dollars into the coffers of low-income housing advocacy groups, such as Acorn.
Acorn, one of America's most militant left-wing "community activist groups," is spending $16 million this year to register Democrats to vote in November. In the past several years, Acorn's voter registration programs have come under investigation in Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri and Washington, while several of their employees have been convicted of voter fraud.

Along with other potential recipients of these funds, including the National Council of La Raza and the Urban League, Acorn has promoted laws like the Community Reinvestment Act, which laid the foundation for the house of cards built out of subprime loans. Thus, we'd be funneling more cash to the groups that helped create the lending mess in the first place.

This isn't the first time this year that Democrats have tried to route money for fixing the housing crisis into the bank accounts of these community activist groups. The housing bill passed by Congress in July also included a tax on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to raise an estimated $600 million annually in grants for these lobbying groups. When Fannie and Freddie went under, the Democrats had to find a new way to fill the pipeline flowing tax dollars into the groups' coffers.

This is a crude power grab in a time of economic crisis. Congress should insist that every penny recaptured from the sale of distressed assets be dedicated to retiring the hundreds of billions of dollars in public debt that will be incurred, or passed back to taxpayers who will ultimately underwrite the cost of the bailout.

The idea that special-interest groups on the left or right should get a royalty payment for monies that are repaid to the Treasury is a violation of the public trust. We're told the White House and House Republicans are insisting that the Acorn fund be purged from the bailout bill. The Paulson plan is supposed to get us out of this problem, not start it over again.
Copyright ©2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Regarding executive experience...Governor Palin, in structuring that pipeline deal to deliver natural gas into America via Canada is probably more than Congress has done to improve our energy independence in how long? 
Sometimes experience can be measured, revealed, and trusted not so much in how long someone has  done something,
rather in how one does it.
As someone like that increases knowledge in a given scenario, you simply bank your trust on believing  they will know what to do
with that knowledge.