The Times and the Post both have pieces about John McCain’s struggle to look like he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to the economy.

Here’s this from the TImes:

His first big speech on the mortgage crisis warned against excessive government intervention; a month later he released his plan for government action to help people keep their homes.

…Mr. McCain’s economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, told reporters Tuesday that the senator, who has often favored deregulation, would push for new regulations as president.

And this from WashPo:

A decade ago, Sen. John McCainembraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace that proponents said would result in greater economic growth.

Now, as the Bush administration scrambles to prevent the collapse of the American International Group (AIG), the nation’s largest insurance company, and stabilize a tumultuous Wall Street, the Republican presidential nominee is scrambling to recast himself as a champion of regulation to end “reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed” on Wall Street.

“Government has a clear responsibility to act in defense of the public interest, and that’s exactly what I intend to do,” a fiery McCain said at a rally in Tampa yesterday. “In my administration, we’re going to hold people on Wall Street responsible. And we’re going to enact and enforce reforms to make sure that these outrages never happen in the first place.”

Both newspapers are correct, of course, to point out the reversal in McCain’s position, and to suggest that the reversal connotes a lack of fluency in economic issues. They clearly are not McCain’s forte.

But another point to make, I think, is what does McCain really mean when he talks about “reforming” Wall Street? What new regulations would he actually recommend?

Because, let’s face it, this is a pretty complicated situation. (One reason why McCain first favored establishing a commission to study the crisis, then gave that up when Obama rightly blasted the typical-Washingtonness of that response.) It won’t lend itself to simplistic solutions.

Moreover, so far as we know, no one at Lehman Brothers or AIG broke the law—they just (yes) got greedy and made bad decisions.

I raise the point because McCain is basing his candidacy on the idea of “reform,” a term he throws around like chicken feed. Sarah Palin will reform Washington just like she did Alaska! (YIkes.)

But what exactly does reform mean, and how would McCain-Palin accomplish that?

As carefully as I’ve paid attention, I’ve never heard him come close to addressing the specifics which should underlie the generalities of his campaign.