[raybbr]

You know, Dan I’ve been pondering. All these Bush apologists for this mess forget one thing. Bush had a majority in the House and Senate during all those times he was supposedly “warning” us about the impending fiasco. Why was nothing passed under his leadership to stop it?

[sazerac]

Why was nothing passed under his leadership to stop it?

Same reason the majority democrats can't pull us out of Iraq as they promised, the 60 votes needed in the senate.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

All these Bush apologists for this mess forget one thing. Bush had a majority in the House and Senate during all those times he was supposedly “warning” us about the impending fiasco. Why was nothing passed under his leadership to stop it?

True, but there are caveats.

During the 104th Congress (1995-1997), 105th Congress (1997-1999) and 106th Congress (1999-2001), the Republicans were the majority party.

In the 107th Congress (2001-2003), the Senate was equally divided between the parties, but the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote cast by the outgoing Al Gore.

But, the Republicans became the majority party again in the 108th Congress (2003-2005) and held it through the 109th Congress (2005-2007).

The House was been under the control of the Republicans from the 104th Congress (1995-1997) through the 109th Congress (2005-2007).

As you point out, during the years Bush was supposedly trying to reform Fannie and Freddie, the Republicans controlled the government.

So, if there was malfeasence in the government it was because the Republicans let it happen or were active participants.