So Obama is mocking McCain’s recommendation that we need a commission to look at the causes of the current financial crisis, saying that we already know what caused it, and that a commission is just a way of putting off doing something about it. No argument there.

But I’m finding it odd that McCain keeps referring to this commission he wants as “a 9/11 commission.”

New York Times, 16 September:

“We need a 9/11 commission, and we need a commission to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it,’’ he said. “And I know we can do it and how to do it.”

AHN, 16 September:

Speaking from Florida, McCain said on CNN the nation had been “the victim of greed, excess and corruption on Wall Street” and that “we’re going to need a 9/11 Commission to find out what happened and what needs to be fixed.”

The Hill, 16 September:

“We’re going to need a 9/11 Commission to find out what happened and what needs to be fixed,” the Arizona senator said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

If he wants a commission, then fine — he wants a commission. But what does he mean when he says he wants a 9/11 commission? A commission is a commission. Was there something about the 9/11 commission that somehow set it apart from all other commissions (apart from the fact that it was about 9/11), thus creating a new genre of commission to be known as a 9/11 commission?

If Senator McCain bought a blue car, and referred to it as his blue car, and then bought a red car, would he then refer to the red car as his new blue car?