Backbench Revolt!

My analysis of the economic crisis is predicated on four things about the "bailout" bill:

1. It's a crummy bill: it's laden with pork and favors, and there's not enough control over the expenditure of money.
2. Theoretically, it would be worth considering the Cantor-insurance plan, which is less heavy-handed and offers a way out.
3. None of this matters because the markets are facing a dire liquidity crisis and need a significant cash injection--and government is the only possible source of this injection on such short notice.
4. The government will make most of its money back, at the very least.

There is a "backbench revolt" going on, vis-a-vis this "bailout" bill.

The "rebels" are the opponents to the bailout. They are rebelling against the nominal leader of their party, George W. Bush. This is what the Brits would call a "backbench revolt," and it's somewhat similar to what happened with the repeal of the Corn Laws in England in the 1840s, actually; Peel's Tories, led by a young Benjamin Disraeli, rebelled against Peel for betraying his conservative principles.

There is a game of political chicken being played right now, and there's a lot of money at stake.

- The Democratic-controlled House could pass the bill without Republican support. The bill is hugely unpopular, though, and the Dems don't want to be left holding the bag without Republicans there, too. Pelosi refuses to pass the bill without 110 Republican votes.
- The Republicans don't like the bill on principle: the Democratic-controlled House has added some unseemly pork to it, and it's a very heavy-handed interference in the economy. They would rather the bill not pass at all.
- Someone has to concede: either Republicans have to hold their noses and vote "yes," or the Dems have to take the lead on the bill and pass it in spite of the backbench revolt. If no one concedes, the collision will be far worse than anything else. Thus, chicken.

Why is the bill hugely unpopular? A couple of reasons:

1. No one trusts Congress at all.
2. No one trusts Bush at all.
3. The people who are selling this message are economists and investors, who are considered either evil or shady.
4. The government is doing a terrible job at marketing this plan.

Francis Cianfrocca over at Redstate.com and Steve Conover at The Skeptical Optimist seem to have the best grip on the crisis.