You're approach is very pragmatic, jk, but I think McCain's approach is both wrong and misguided. First, throwing Cox and the Bush Administration under the bus only feeds the anti-Bush narrative that the last eight years have been an unmitigated disaster. It also stokes anti-Republican sentiment that hurts in Congressional races. If McCain is elected, I sure he does not want to confront a veto-proof congress. More important, the narrative is not true. There have been many successes in this adminstration and Republicans should not be embarrased about defending them. I actually think that plays well with moderates (although not the press).

Second, the populist pap that all calamities are foreseeable chaps my hide. Most regulation is 20/20 hindsight as it should be. If congress set about regulating phantom menaces, the cure would be worse than the disease.

Populist pundits like O'Reilly argue that Cox and others "should have known this would happen sooner or later." Well, nearly every driver gets into an accident sooner or later (hopefully minor), and this sentiment is like saying after an accident, "You knew you'd get into an accident sooner or later, so why did you drive your car today?"

The decisions that people made about mortgages, both buyer and financier, looked rational at the time. Rates made payments afordable and 10%-20% annual increases in home values protected lenders. Should both have realized that rates couldn't stay low forever and that home values might decline? Maybe, but the standard should not be crystal ball clarity. Moreover, no one said, "Let's make this loan because we know the borrower will default and we'll all take a bath." Demonizing legitimate business transactions between competent adults is unbecoming a Republican. The exception is clear fraud. For example, Franklin Raines and his ilk should be prosecuted as fully as Ken Lay and the Enron bunch.

This is a must-read from today's Journal on the topic.