40% of Democrats opposed the original bailout package, compared to 66% of Republicans. That's a difference to be sure, but the vote was obviously not down party lines. Furthermore, Bush was a strong supporter of both packages, and was vocal in his disappointment when the first failed to pass.
Facts exist independently of your opinion; you don't get to make them up to fit your argument. Please try to remember that.
In a congress that passes bills by majority, a clear majority of one party supported it and a clear majority of the other opposed it. House Republicans are consistently the most conservative caucus in Congress, and deserve praise for when they do the right thing as much as they deserve the opposite when they are wrong.
That doesn't parse. You're treating two different types of majorities as the same thing.
It's fairly common that bills will be voted on down party lines, which means all Republicans vote one way, and all Democrats vote another. The standard deviation from this is generally pretty small, which is why the small majority held by the Democrats in both houses is such a big deal.
Two-thirds of Republicans repudiated the pressure coming from the Bush administration and voted against the bailout. Democrats were only able to muster a simple majority in support of the bailout. That's as close to non-partisan behavior as you're likely to see in our government.
It's true, that Republicans are more likely to uphold free-market principles than Democrats are, and this vote does demonstrate that, but it also demonstrates that that R next your representatives name is no guarantee that he is fiscally conservative. I prefer to vote based on personality and not on party and would prefer that both parties were destroyed and sent back to the abyss where they belong.
Facts exist independently of your opinion; you don't get to make them up to fit your argument. Please try to remember that.