Did you catch the new "rightwing fair time" last night on West Wing??

Well, I did...it was subtle. It involved the sub-story about suspicions about the Repugs taking over and legislating while the sub-President was in office. They had had several meetings with Repug congressspeople without any of the Bartlett staff invited. Josh confronts the crew-cutted Repug staffer about it...the guy insists they have no plans to legislate because it would be "political suicide" to do so while Bartlett's daughter was a hostage...and then he calls Josh's suspicions an example of "craven" politics....Of course, when the girl is rescued all this is a moot point...BUT...the "high ground Republicans" are still the last word on all this....

So, here we see the Republicans winning the high ground....(in my opinion, in real life, Josh's suspicions would have been confirmed multiple times!!!! The track record in real life is already there ie, Dems being cut out of Bush briefings on security issues, etc., ie. Daschle complaining months ago....)

I was on the side of Josh the entire episode.

"Why," (he says, batting his eyes innocently) "We would NEVER do a thing like that -- it would be Political Suicide!"

Or, to put it another way, he was engaged in political double-speak. His tone and manner were a little too "arch" for me to believe that he actually MEANT what he was saying.

Josh hit the nail on the head, and the Repug was trying to play innocent.

I'm not sure how to take his reply.

It was arch, but based solely on my own observations of movie and TV cliches, I think the makers of the show may have been sincere.

Whenever an exchange like this takes place in a men's room, especially with at least one of the participants standing at a urinal, it always reads to me like the men's room is being treated with the sanctity of a confessional, and no lies are told there. The men are treated by the filmmaker as if they're at their most candid and unguarded.

Note to O'Reilly: If you want your show to be viewed as a "no-spin zone", perhaps a new set design is in order.

about the men's room.

Pity it isn't true...I'd be willing to build giant washrooms and hold all meetings in there...urinals and all, if 'no lies' were ever told in such a place!

:D

I thought the telling line was something to the effect, "Be truthful for once in your life"
Har Har
Thus leaving the audience to interpret his subsequent remarks--
The GOP ghoul was translating public perception problems for the GOP if they moved,but wasn't really being 'truthful'

And the republican speaker of the house came out looking prety good while standing in for the pres.

What was the set-up for next week's episode? "How are we coming on the VP nominees?" asks the pres.

My prediction: Pres. Bartlett chooses Speaker of the House (Goodman) for VP.

I love John Goodman but not as a Republican. He plays the part too well.

The VP was involved in an extramarital affair where he told the woman secrets to impress her and she wrote a book - he resigned.

Before there was a chance to select a new VP the president's daughter was kidnapped by terrorists. The pres stepped down and the Speaker of the House took the Oval Office as spelled out the order of succession in the 25th Ammendment.

The president's daughter was rescued and so the president signed the second letter stating he was ready to resume his office, again, according to the protocol spelled out in the 25th Ammendment.

Goodman confirmed he's only in the first couple of episodes. Though, they could have him return in about 6-8 weeks with future filming. Or his comments could mean that he gets the nod, gets assasinated, end of character.

will be played by Gary Cole

between Goodman and the communications director (can't remember her name). MY PREDICTION: They will slowly progress into a slow dance relationship that 'bridges the isles' so to speak, has interesting intellectual and "other"tension" ultimatly trying to teach us that SOME repugs can indeed have a heart ... and, and then right at the moment that they are likely to consumate thier unholy union, he (being one prime rib away from a coronary...) croaks ...

How's that ?

as the VP nominee. I don't particularly like Devane, and I hope he has only about as large a part as the former VP did.

I thought the Puke in the men's room was lying. Josh nailed him, and the guy was trying to snidely save face.

Bake

T.V. writers always miss it, sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot. They missed it this time by attempting to make the Dems look paranoid and suspicious of the Repubs motives, while failing to explain that anyone would be suspicious if the Repubs that had just taken over were having secret meetings that excluded the Dems. It would have been right on the money, had the Dems gone ahead as Josh suggested and leaked a story stating that the Repubs were trying to take over, then expose the leaker, making Josh or whoever look 'craven'. The in the last scene, we see the crewcutted Repub make a remark insinuating that that was the plan all along; not to get something pushed past the Dems, but simply to make them look 'craven' in time for ther next election. I should have been a writer.

I think you got it- wheels within wheels. The Reps. were trying to trick the Dems. into leaking info so they could accuse them of playing politics during a national crisis.

I liked Goodman as the Rep. Speaker. A very good representation of a tough, smart politician. Great episode. West Wing is supposed to be taking a more bipartisan approach this year, which I think is good. The show has always been better when it focused on the DC process, rather than ideology.

WW is NOT a liberal show. It's at it's best when it shows how things work, and not when it acts as a shill for liberals

Once I got past the fact it was John Goodman (who doesn't bear much physical resemblance to George W., and besides I always picture him doing the Linda Tripp role from SNL), I noticed that he had the attitude and even the intonation of the words. Kind of how Bush would act if he REALLY were the image that Rove and Hughes have built him up to be. There were the self-deprecating remarks, plus the sliver-of-truth kidding that Bush indulges in (e.g. when Bartlet offers to help him campaign in the future, and Walken makes a joking dismissal of that). For example, when Walken complains that he's not getting any of the "fun" part of presidenting -- Bush has blurted out similar things in times of crisis. (His defenders says he's just trying to defuse tension -- others would call it tasteless, but there you go.)

If it were radio .... Goodman could do a more convincing rendition of Bush than either Timothy Bottoms, or the guy who appears on Leno's show. He didn't go all the way over into impersonation, but he got pretty close at times.

The characters on West wing are pretty much idealized versions of certain types of politician. Bartlett is sort of the perfect liberal president- nobody in politics like that exists. Goodman played sort of the perfect conservative politician- even if you don't agree with him, you know he at least has the best interests of the country at heart.

In real life, no politician, whether Rep. or Dem. is either a saint or monster- they're human beings that fall somewhere in between. I think, unfortunately, we tend to forget that sometimes and view our political opponents as some type of demon in wingtips.

I work on the Hill and have found that you tend to make a lot of friendships with people on the other side of the political fence.

interest at heart? I would suggest that is pure bunk. They have their own best interest at heart and could really give a shit about America's best interests. If they really cared about America we would have Universal Health Care and Roads in good repair plus our entire infrastructure wouldn't be coming apart at the seams. What they care about is money money money money money. It doesn't matter how many people have to die for them to get their money either.

we will need lots of money, money, money, money, money.

With Universal Health Care costs should actually decline drastically because people would go in for regular check-ups and catch most problems before they become too severe. It is using Emergency rooms and waiting til things are irreversible that send costs soaring. Better roads also cut down on maintenance costs for truckers and everyone basically. We would actually use less money money money but even so it would be America's money and not Republican politician's money received from kickbacks from war profiteering.

When Americans get something, they use it, they misuse it, they abuse it.

Universal health care will result in higher costs, not lower ones. I don't oppose it, but be realistic.

I have found in my business that if I have a waterpump on my truck that has developed a leak it is far cheaper for me to repair it right away rather than wait until it goes out completely and seizes up the engine. It saves me a lot of money to do preventative maintenance but I guess to you that is a waste of money and way too expensive. The same holds true for the human body. It is always cheaper to do preventative maintenance than wait til it just gives up the ghost. I would venture the same holds true for roads and sewers and electrical wires and just about anything one can mention.

I interact with Rep. politicians and staffers every day. Generally, they're pretty decent people. Are there self-serving assholes? Sure. Are there individuals who are the salt of the earth? Sure. Most fall somewhere in the middle. The same can be said about Dem. staffers and poiticians. There are Dem. Senators who we would completely agree with, politically, but no way would we want them in our house. Jesse Helms, despite his politics, is actually a very polite, civil man, in person. We're all travelling in the same direction- we just disagree on which road to take.

Most people working on the Hill, whether staffer or politician, whether Dem. or Rep., could be making a lot more money in the private sector. Instead, they choose to dedicate their lives to public service. It's not really about the money.

Some of the guys who've been working around here for a long time tell me that politics used to be more collegial- you used to be able to be friends with members of the opposite party much more than you are today. Things have gotten polarized to a depressing extent.

I think it serves us well to be reminded that Republicans do have the best interests of the country at heart. It's just so difficult to see sometimes.

Our national political discourse sometimes seems like a bunch of monkeys throwing crap at each other. Reps and Dems call each other "traitors", "fascists", "communists." It gets tiresome a lot of times.

Demonizing each other doesn't really serve the best interests of America. Maybe that's why i liked these last few episodes of West Wing so much- two presidents, Bartlett and the Republican, putting politics aside and looking out for America's best interests.

:shrug: Or tax cuts for the extremely wealthy. How about privatizing Social Security or ending medicare? You think invading a sovereign nation on trumped up charges is in America's interest? Bankrupting almost every state really helps everyone all right :crazy:

That doesn't mean I think they're out to ruin America. The Republicans have a platform that they believe will serve America best. The Democrats also have a platform that they believe will serve America best. Is either side completely wrong/right/evil/good? No. What happens, in our robust democratic system, is that we tussle in Congress and come up with laws that reflect a compromise. Neither side EVER completely gets its way. I'm okay with that.

Turn it off!