In September it was House Republicans that initially sunk the then-unpopular and now-criticized financial system bailout. Now, in December, it's apparently Senate Republicans that are protesting the unpopular bailout of the auto industry. When it comes to bailouts, Republicans have been on the right side (and the side of the public) in resisting them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28108346/

Senate Republicans say they have grave concerns about the agreement between congressional Democrats and the Bush White House to speed billions of dollars to struggling U.S. automakers.

Sen. George V. Voinovich, a Republican from Ohio and a leading supporter of the emergency measure, says it doesn't have the necessary Republican votes to pass Congress.

Although some Republicans eventually caved on the financial bailout, those that didn't cave have now essentially been vindicated as a growing chorus of criticism about the financial bailout makes news daily. Even many Democrats are now criticizing the previous bailout which has spent just shy of $350 billion in the last two months.

Yet, two months later, Congress is again contemplating a bailout. And, again, it's Republicans that are doing what they can to protect the taxpayers and citizens of this country by trying to stop the government from throwing more and more money (albeit far less than with the financial system bailout) at more and more problems. It's what Americans wanted two months ago and it's what Americans want today.

Hopefully Republicans won't cave this time.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/10/business/main4659844.shtml

House Republicans swiftly rejected the plan and called for one that would instead provide government insurance to subsidize new private investment in the Big Three, demand major labor givebacks and debt restructuring at the companies, and encourage them to declare bankruptcy.

Insurance, as described above, makes sense to me. Why have the government loan taxpayer dollars and effectively nationalize the auto industry when the government can simply insure the investments of private investors? This is similar to a Republican solution to the financial crisis that was ignored at the time... but seems would've been no less effective and wouldn't have resulted in the spending of $350 billion in the last two months.