I never said he was unapologetic for being "part of the reason for the economy being in the shitter" (which is a rather dubious claim to make, since we're talking about 15 year old legislation).
It's not dubious in the least. This is what a lot of people don't understand. Changes in economic policy don't necessarily have immediate effects, good or bad. Sometimes the effects develop over time. In the case of Glass-Steagal, its repeal allowed financial institutions to play risky games with other people's money. It was just about guaranteed that this would return to bite us sooner or later, but there was no reason to think it would have an instantaneous effect, and it did not. Fifteen years later, the odds caught up with the banks and the system crashed and burned.
The underlying problems in the economy actually go back to thirty-year-old legislative and administrative changes.
Bingo!
Someone else who thinks in terms longer than 4 years.