I've posted before about the bailout, and I do think there are some genuine reasons to do it, but absolutely not without oversight, and additional regulation. Reclamation of corporate bonuses/pay might also be a part of the price tag too.
I spent a good part of today looking at the TED spread, M1, M2, and the commercial paper market as well as looking at business news. And I can't conclude there is a rush to get this done, though it sure looks bad for large banks. Look at the increase in the non-financial commercial paper market volume - Microsoft, for example, just announced a program to lend about $2 billion in commercial paper. So perhaps, even when large lenders collapse, other stronger ones step in to fill the gap.
So let me go outside of my area of expertise and ask, what would you do if you knew you were going to lose the election this fall? Not just lose, but lose congress as well?
Would you try to get a bailout so large it effectively inhibits your opponents' ability to implement their plans, without any ability to regulate the results?
Usually, I'm fairly sanguine about the economy, despite the sub-prime mess. But what I am forecasting right now is a drop in consumer spending leading to a recession. 
IMO, the way out is for the government to spend us out of it on things we need (for example by increasing domestic spending on health care, infrastructure, alternate energy) and cutting spending on things that don't directly improve the domestic economy (i.e. the Iraq war, etc.)
Finally, I'm no expert, and I believe that different opinions must be heard - so by all means weigh in on this. Do you read the commercial paper volume charts differently than I? Do you see something different in M1 and M2 that shows runs on banks? Is your company in a non-financial industry and planning to cut operations because they can't borrow?
Or is there something political behind the smoke and mirror show being put on by Paulson?
If you disagree, where is the data that shows we need to act now?