> I don't give campaign promises much weight in this discussion. Huh? 03 wasn't campaign season. And Mccain wasn't running for re-election every time he went

> I don't give campaign promises much weight in this discussion. Huh? 03 wasn't campaign season. And Mccain wasn't running for re-election every time he went after Fannie and Freddie. I'm not claiming that Repubs, notably Bush and McCain, did a lot - I'm pointing out that they did do what you claimed that they didn't do. And, that they weren't pushing the other way, as Dems were. As I've written before - manslaughter vs murder. > You can try to argue that Bush -- the guy who had control of both houses of congress and was able to sell an unpopular war -- was politically powerless do do anything, but that's just not persuasive. I'm not claiming that he was powerless. I'm claiming that he didn't care that much. However, there's a huge difference between that and throwing gas on the fire. > To use an analogy, maybe it was a Democrat who lit the cigarette and fell asleep Except that that's not what happened. Dems insisted on pouring gas on the fire and fought anyone who tried to intervene. Bush didn't fight back much. That's wrong, but it's not nearly as wrong as actively pushing bad policy. > He decided not to make it a major issue true > and he benefited tremendously from that decision false. He didn't take a hit for trying to deal with it, but that's not the same as benefitting. And, Dems did benefit from it.