Archive for the ‘CNN’ Category

Brown people, papers please.

Friday, November 30th, 2007

The Republican candidates for President debated last night on CNN.  I watched the whole thing (torturous), and have now read plenty of coverage on the web since the debate, and for the most part what’s been covered is CNN’s behaviour as hosts.

I’m not going to weigh in one way or the other regarding CNN.  Rather, I want to point out something that Mitt Romney asked of Rudy Giuliani.  This was during the immigration debate that anchored the first 20 minutes.

First, Romney said this (all quotes are taken from the official CNN transcript):

ROMNEY:  It [New York] called itself a sanctuary city. And as a matter of fact, when the welfare reform act that President Clinton brought forward said that they were going to end the sanctuary policy of New York City, the mayor actually brought a suit to maintain its sanctuary city status.

Giuliani doesn’t actually refute Romney’s claim that he supported New York being a sanctuary city, mostly because Romney is right (here’s a YouTube clip from 1996 of Guiliani stating his support).  Instead, Giuliani says, essentially, “I know you are but what am I?”

GIULIANI:  …in [Romney's] case, there were six sanctuary cities. He did nothing about them.  There was even a sanctuary mansion. At his own home, illegal immigrants were being employed not being turned into anybody or by anyone.

Here’s the Boston Globe story that ran on the illegal immigrants that “were being employed” at Romney’s mansion.  (Note, they weren’t being employed by Romney, because that would be noteworthy.  It’s what I like to call guilt by near-ssociation.  In a nutshell, Romney hired a company that employed illegal immigrants.  In theory, end of story.  (I honestly doubt there is a single person who has not in some way employed an illegal immigrant, be it by staying at a hotel, eating a piece of fruit grown in the United States, etc.).

But Giuliani says something very scary.  He says that these illegal immigrants were “not being turned into anybody or by anyone.”  That’s some batshit crazy talk.  And, wonder of wonders, Mitt realizes it.

ROMNEY:  Are you suggesting, Mr. Mayor… if you are a homeowner and you hire a company to come provide a service at your home — paint the home, put on the roof.  If you hear someone that is working out there, not that you have employed, but that the company has.  If you hear someone with a funny accent, you, as a homeowner, are supposed to go out there and say, “I want to see your papers.”

From there, the two of them cross-bicker without Giuliani ever answering the question, until a moment later DILF Anderson Cooper says, “We got to move on.”  And on they move.

Best as I can tell, what Romney lays out is what Giuliani believes, that we should ask for papers if confronted with a brown person (or “someone with a funny accent”).  (A Wikipedia search for “Papers Please” links directly to the page on ”Civilian checkpoints.”)  And I suspect that most of the Republican candidates on that stage last night believe the same, that if you encounter somebody who has the outward appearance of a stereotypical illegal immigrant, you have the right to question their citizenship, essentially to ask, “papers please.”  (Here’s the Wikipedia page on “Identity documents in the United States.”)

But I believe it is because Mitt Romney essentially agrees with what Rudy Guiliani was suggesting (and contrary to what Romney portrayed to be true as he pearl-clutchingly admonished Giuliani for his racially insensitive faux pas) that has prevented the Romney campaign for addressing this loose end.

Romney believes that a national ID card should be issued to any non-citizen.  The question is, how do we know who is or isn’t supposed to be carrying said card?  I guess we can just start with the brown people and see how far that takes us.

Should you desire a laugh or a cry, here’s a link to a YouTube clip of this part of last night’s debate.  (Pregnant women should not watch this as it may cause birth defects.)

CNN debate, plus… I’ve done that.

Tuesday, July 24th, 2007

Last night, CNN hosted the first-ever YouTube debate.

Overall, I thought it was pretty good.  Barack Obama was great on the fly, Hillary Clinton was a bit steely but good.  I really want to support John Edwards, but I have some very sad emotions about the guy that I don’t really feel like delving into right now.  That said, I feel like crying when I watch him.  Everybody else was pretty decent.  Gravel’s crazy, but I think it’s worth keeping him around.  Richardson is probably good, but he’s pretty horrible in these debates.  Dodd and Biden are better in the Senate, rather than jumping up to the presidency…

The travesty is CNN’s coverage of the debate today.  There’s lots of congratulatory segments.  “Hey, look, it worked!  Aren’t we great?!”  But there’s also a plethora of reallllly stupid coverage.  Like, this gem concerning the dress of the candidates:  “Dark suits, intimidating.  Bright jacket, fresh!!”

And their note to Mike Gravel.  “Angry only works in small doses.”

The kicker, though, is the focus groups they put together.  The ones where “ordinary citizens” watch the debate with little dials in their hands.  When they like something, they can twist the dial towards the little plus, and when they don’t like something, they twist the dial to the little minus.

I’ve done that.  I’ve been in focus groups where you hold onto the dial while watching political speeches, debates, etc., and the consultants run around screaming things like, “react more!!” and you twist the dial in response, and they say, “good, good, keep reacting!!” and you twist the dial some more.  Why?  Why was I there?  Why did they have me there?  Why did the political consultants believe we were genuinely reacting?  And why did politicians (and why do they continue to) pay consultants for this?

Why was I there?  I was there for the money.  $75 for two hours, cash.  Why did they have me there?  Because I answered an ad on Craigslist.  Why did the consultants believe our reactions were genuine?  Because the floor would fall out on them if they didn’t believe us (most of us were bullshitting the entire time… I’m assuming they didn’t have the microphones in the elevator otherwise I’m sure I wouldn’t've been invited back).  And why do politicians continue to pay for this?  Uhh… good question.  I have no clue.

“Of course these finds are unscientific, but…”