Congress rejects the $700 billion bailout

The President's rush to bail out the Wall Street meltdown was handed a severe blow today when, after a weekend of messages indicating that he had pulled together enough votes in each house of Congress for passage, the House voted against the bill. Reaction on Wall Street was drastic; the stock market plunged a record 777 points. Acrimonious finger-pointing broke out between pro-bailout factions as to whose fault it was (one Republican POV was that Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who favored the bill, was responsible for the massive "no" vote of the Republicans. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PersonalFinance/story?id=5908293&page=1 I'm still scratching my head over her awesome powers, being from another party and for the bill, and yet having the ability to make the other party vote the opposite. Why didn't she use this power when she voted against the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act?).

I am not an economist and am making no judgments as to whether the bailout should have been accepted or rejected. What I do think is interesting, and worth discussing, is why people seem to take it for granted that Congress is the rubber stamp for the Executive branch. Is it because they truly do think that the massive, $700 billion bailout was either the only way, or the best way, to deal with this crisis? Or has the general opinion of Congress's independence been so eviscerated by their eagerness in the past 7 years to say "how high?" when the President says "jump" that any show of independent thought is considered irresponsible?

"Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., called her decision to vote no “one of the most difficult I have faced.”

“I agree this bill is much better than the one we started with,” McMorris Rodgers said. But “committing 700 billion of our tax dollars requires a longer, more thoughtful debate.”" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26946382/

Is this more thoughtful debate something that we are no longer capable of expectng from Congress?