Republican Oversight?

Republican oversight is an oxymoron.

Should we trust the Republican party when they talk of change?

In Charlie Gibson's War, Todd Gitlin gives us his impression of the Charlie Gibson interview of Sarah Palin:

Gibson: "You've advertised yourselves as the party of change. What would you change in the Bush economic plan?" As she rolled into her preprogrammed cant, drifting away from his question, he had to keep pressing her. Here's what she came up with at last: 1. Reduce taxes. 2. Control spending. 3. Oversight. Now, oversight is only partly an executive prerogative, though it's awfully important. The question she skirted (but so did Gibson) was, why have eight years of Republican rule seen such an abdication of oversight? Where does she intend to find honest regulators when her party--the traditional font of executive appointments--specializes in cronies and other interested parties who buy their way into the ostensible headquarters of regulation? Where was her party when it elevated the likes of Brownie--remember him, the horse association leader who ran FEMA into the ground? Did she call for oversight when she was a mayor or governor?