Of course there were differing opinions on the potential effectiveness of the bailout proposal, in its original and revised form. But they tended to come from people who criticized the plan but could offer nothing better, or those that simply couldn't get over the need for some retribution against those being accused of causing the crisis. These were people with points-of-view that didn't add to the discourse on potential solutions.

My argument is that a NO vote at the time was grossly inappropriate given what was happening in the world financial markets. No one can be certain that the markets, particularly the credit markets, would have calmed down even if the bailout proposal had passed immediately after its initial proposal. But one thing is certain-- the almost week long delay between the failure of AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Lehman and Bear Stearns and any meaningful response by the U.S. government resulted the widening and heightened panic in the credit markets. We've now all begun to understand the effect as the absence of credit ripples through the world economies. More experienced people, economists and bankers, knew exactly what was going to happen if nothing was done quickly.

Like most people, I hated the idea that those that played a big part in causing the problem would benefit from the bailout. That is an awful element of the program. But if the credit markets were to have been soothed by strong support from a major government, a YES vote to the best program that could be quickly negotiated between the various political and idealogical factions was what was required. After all the debating and negotiation, the politicians should have swallowed hard and done what was best for the common good.

To me, the NO votes by Ginny Brown-Waite and Bill Nelson among all the others, was the height of irresponsibility in the face of the crisis we were facing. Now we've seen and we're experiencing the results of the political bickering and delay of a response. It has cost all of us a lot of money, it's cost our government a huge amount of prestige and influence, it's done long-term damage to world economies, it's caused serious doubt to arise regarding our idealogy of capitalism, and the effects will be more long-lasting than many expect.

Those that voted NO chose to do nothing to resolve the financial crisis we were facing. I'd equate it to a military commander whose unit was under mortal attack who couldn't decide among several imperfect defensive tactics, and decided to simply stand by and do nothing, permitting those he was responsible for to be injured or killed.