Coming in from the Cold:

It seems that back in 2002 our good buddies at the C.I.A. video taped themselves torturing prisoners, and then in 2005 they "Nixoned" the tapes. Ooopsie! The New York Times states that, "on Thursday, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, said … the decision to destroy the tapes was made 'within the C.I.A.' and that they were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value." Sounds like Nixon discussing the missing 18 minutes to me.


The Housing Bubble:

In an article addressing Bush's proposal to provide relief on the situation, The New York Times reports that "Administration officials estimate about 500,000 subprime borrowers are in danger of losing homes in the next 18 months as their low teaser rates expire and their monthly payments jump by 30 percent or more. Outside analysts warn the number of foreclosures could be much higher."

That's a lot of people pushed into the streets, folks. Let's hope they all voted for Bush in '04. Currently, the Bush proposal seems to focus on how to bailout the banks and investors, with relief to home owners occurring only tangentially.


Romney v. Kennedy, or My How Things Have Changed:

In 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy traveled to Texas to address the fundamentalist ministers who had gathered there to challenge him and his Roman Catholicism. He faced a group dominated by Baptist preachers who viewed the Pope as, maybe, the Anti-Christ and were convinced that the Pope would take over the White House if Kennedy, a lax Catholic to say the least, were elected president. Texas was, of course, LBJ's home state, and that's why it was seen as the best place for Kennedy to defend himself against the charges that he would deliver the nation into the hands of the Vatican.

Tapes that played yesterday on C-SPAN and PBS are informative. Kennedy faced a hostile crowd. Once he'd delivered his message, the gathered congregation peppered him with hard hitting questions, quoting from Catholic literature, which they apparently knew much better than he did. His critics, a much more liberal group then than their descendants are today, meant to place him on the defensive, and depending on how you read the tapes, maybe they succeeded. It's generally agreed that he failed to sway those critics to vote in any substantial numbers for him, but he convinced enough people so that he was able to win the election, with perhaps a little help from the mayor of Chicago.

Now Republican Mitt Romney has tried the same approach, but things have indeed changed. Romney isn't facing a crowd who believes for one minute that the former governor can place the country into the hands of the Mormon Church (or cult, depending on your point of view). This crowd simply wants to know if the man will be susceptible to their influence and to what degree.

As The New York Times put matters in an editorial today,

Romney was not there to defend freedom of religion, or to champion the indisputable notion that belief in God and religious observance are longstanding parts of American life. He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination.

Demagoguery all dressed up in a pretty white face, quoting the founding fathers. One is reminded of that old saw about the Devil being able to quote the scripture. A little like Milton's hero explaining whether it's better to reign or serve, and don't forget where.

Is today important for some reason? Maybe we should check with FDR.