The Lion and Gun

It seems McCain's 'Resurgence' plan to have the government refinance mortgages initially indicated that the money would come from the bailout and that the government would purchase the mortgages at below face value, forcing irresponsible lenders and investors to take a 'haircut'. Now, as we've seen, he's changed his mind and decided to take the money from elsewhere and not punish lending institutions for their reckless decisions. My question, then, is simple: Why? Obviously this wasn't an oversight in what looked like a hastily-formulated plan; McCain and his advisers considered and rejected one common-sense provision that would remove some moral hazard from the proposal and another that would have squared it with his promise to freeze federal spending. Why? For me the question isn't rhetorical -- presumably there was some reason, even if not a very good one, for the decision. I don't buy that this was somehow a cave-in to banking lobbyists. So what does that leave? Does it make sense either politically (I don't think so) or economically (I'm doubtful but less sure)?