Cherry Picking Your Scapegoat

This post is just a reprint of the second half of this older post:

How Two Sides can both be right about Objective Truths
Now I will show by example how opposing viewpoints about objective truth can both be right. I will take the recent financial crisis as an example. That there is a meltdown of sorts is pretty much an objective truth agreed upon by most everyone. Over the past months I've heard two claims that were made with utmost certainty:
1. Republicans, especially President Bush (And more recently President Reagan), are 100% to blame for the crisis.
2. Democrats are 100% to blame for the crisis.

My argument is based on the fact that, whether they knew it or not, each of the above claimants is implying "according to my values and priorities" in their statement. When you take into account the implied reference point, their claims can both be verified objectively

I will do so. According to this Denver Post article and this WSJ article there are about eight causes of the financial meltdown. Some of the causes had both beneficial as well as deleterious effects. In no particular order:

1. Enactment of laws that encourage home ownership (most notably, the CRA of 1977 and the 1993 expansion of it) (D)
   
2. Political pressure on Fannie and Freddie to buy/guarantee subprime loans. Followed up by lax oversight. (D)
   
3. Deregulation of banks which allowed them to get too big and have too high a debt load (R)
   
4. Overregulation of banks which give them a false sense of security. (D)
   
5. Low interest rate policy of the Fed which fueled mortage debt (D/R)
   
6. Preditory lending practices (R)
   
7. Government created credit-rating oligopoly (providing the market with misinformation) (D)
   
8. Short Sellers (R)
   

This is a gross simplification, but each of the causes above can be loosely associated with one political party or the other. To be fair, each cause can be attributed to both parties...but I'm trying to make a larger point. I've marked each cause with the associated party.

Now a bubble can only burst when it reaches a certain level. Take away any one or two of the above factors, and you might have averted the crisis entirely. So if you order the list above according to your priority, the last few items (that the other guy caused) are the entire cause of the meltdown right? This sort of cherry picking can be justified from a subjective point of view and it is very very common. But wouldn't be better if we acknowledge the valid considerations of both sides?