Today we wake up to find that the US Government is taking over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Those of you who own stock in the two massive financial institutions, please feel free to flush those stock certificates down the toilet. Your shares will be worth nothing once this action is completed.

Now I’m no economist, and I don’t even play one on TV, but I’m thinking the failure of Fannie and Freddie calls for some mighty reforms. John McCain, who styles himself as the “maverick reformer,” has been consistent in criticizing government help in this mortgage crisis, however. No, he’s against help for the little guy and for the big players, as far as I can tell, though his people (except the right wing Christian types) would call his stance “nuanced” and “evolving.” Hey, let’s take a few moments along the road and see just how far John McCain has evolved, shall we?

In December Mr. McCain appeared all set to back bailouts for needy people caught in the mortgage crisis. I’m guessing his stance was spurred by Mitt Romney’s position against any sort of federal intervention and McCain’s need to appeal to the voters of New Hampshire. Remember, McCain’s candidacy needed some help desparately at that point. No worries, though. The concern McCain had for the “little guy” was short-lived.

In March, right on the heels of Obama and Clinton calling for relief for taxpayers caught in the mortgage crisis, John McCain’s position was that anyone in trouble surely must have been acting irresponsibly. The LA Times has the report of a speech McCain made in California in March on the subject, and the New York Times summarizes McCain’s position succinctly:

Drawing a sharp distinction between himself and the two Democratic presidential candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona warned Tuesday against vigorous government action to solve the deepening mortgage crisis and the market turmoil it has caused, saying that “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”

That sounds a bit like McCain is blaming the victim. At the very least, we know some of the “little people” who cannot afford seven or eight homes took advantage of a mortgage market gone wild. I’m having a hard time blaming those little people. They elect people to Congress to regulate the markets so those markets function properly. John McCain, though, is against such regulation, at least until it becomes politically convenient.

In July Mr. McCain grumbled and cried about the pending legislation designed to alleviate the mortgage crisis. That legislation authorized the bailout money for Freddie and Fannie. Here’s McCain’s language from the UPI on July 24th:

Republican U.S. presidential hopeful John McCain Thursday sharply criticized the mortgage bailout bill pending in Congress, calling it outrageous.

In an op-ed piece in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, McCain called the legislation, which President George Bush has said he would sign, a “sweetheart deal” that could potentially cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

The measure, supported by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, would bail out Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE), the two quasi-government lenders that guarantee some $5 trillion in mortgages — about half of the nation’s total mortgage bill.

It shouldn’t surprise readers of this blog that McCain’s own words conflict with his words from two weeks before. From the Caucus at the New York Times:

Senator John McCain said here Thursday that he would be open to federal intervention to save the nation’s two most important mortgage companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose shares are plummeting as they struggle to raise billions of dollars in fresh capital.

“Those institutions, Fannie and Freddie, have been responsible for millions of Americans to be able to own their own homes, and they will not fail, we will not allow them to fail,’’ Mr. McCain said during a stop at the Senate Coney Island Restaurant here. “They are vital to Americans’ ability to own their own homes. And we will do what’s necessary to make sure that they continue that function.’’

There’s McCain, still clinging to the notion that it’s the fault of lenders and borrowers, and government shouldn’t step in. At least he is in that first quote. No matter that the mortgage crisis is leading us to depression. I suppose Hillary Clinton’s comparison of McCain to Herbert Hoover is not so nutty, not if you read McCain’s words. McCain’s words and actions have not evolved much since. Indeed, given the vast amount of votes Mr. McCain has missed these past two years while on the campaign trail, I wonder whether he even voted for this bill.

Now we are in September, and I’m seeing little reaction so far to the government takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae on McCain’s part. Perhaps he won’t react until he sees which audience he’s speaking to. To some audiences, such as he faced last December, he might imply, without specifically committing to anything, that he supports bailing out those harmed in this crisis made out of poor and complacent regulation. To the Republican base, however, he’s more likely to take a a line supporting fiscal morality, that this crisis was caused by recklessness on the part of borrowers and lenders, and they should get what they deserve no matter if they starve or our economy fails. Or maybe McCain will do the bidding of all the lobbyists on his staff who have lobbied for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the past, thus supporting the bailout, but still waging a rhetorical war against the “little guys,” the borrowers.

What will play in this election, though? Shouldn’t McCain be seen as supporting some action in the face of this crisis? I think that’s where he’ll go wrong. He’ll probably even fool himself into thinking he’s had bold positions on this issue in the past, when the facts are that he’s called for the placing of blame, but has advocated not one little position that helps solve this biggest of economic issues facing our country.