Posted on 10/10/2005 6:42:23 AM PDT by Dutchgirl
There are alot of reasons that I am not happy with the workings of my own party, but none of them bear even the slightest resemblance to the characterization portrayed on TV.
It is unintentionally hilarious...in much the same way "Reefer Madness" was.
"Reefer Madness" excited the enthusiasm and curiosity of the very people it was supposed to terrify.
It is the conservatives who are the staunch backers of a policy that has liberated millions of women frm Taliban rule, but the show has Donald Sutherland uncaring of the Nigerian womans plight in the pilot episode, with Geena Davis using military power to have her released.
In trying to portray the "evil" Republicans on the show, they are revealing who they are. Maybe I just have a perverse sense of humor, but I do find myself laughing at this drama and wondered if there were other's like me who were watching for reasons other than what the creators intended.
Haven't seen it and don't plan to.
I made the mistake of renting that straight-to-video movie `The Contender' with Gary Oldman as the maniacal conservative.
And I hit my thumb square with a hammer once. Agree, why repeat either experience?
Donald Sutherland is no Jack Bauer.
Donald Sutherland and Alan Alda playing Republicans. And they wonder why we don't watch network TV.
When will they cast a conservative as a liberal? Never, but the thought is a lot of fun.
I accept in this case because the DEms dont come off good either and they are shown to be ineffectual and powerless. The Republicans are the only ones that are perceievd to have any power. No one can imagine the Dems in control any more.
Besides if you had watched the silly show you would know that the Gina Davis character is an independent who ran on the Republican ticket and served as VP in a Republican administration for several years so apparently they cant all be bad but Sutherland is deliciously evil. And there is a lot of hardball taking place.
If you find William Shatner entertaining, you will probably enjoy Donald Sutherland for the same reason...
I accept in this case because the DEms dont come off good either and they are shown to be ineffectual and powerless. The Republicans are the only ones that are perceievd to have any power. No one can imagine the Dems in control any more.
Besides if you had watched the silly show you would know that the Gina Davis character is an independent who ran on the Republican ticket and served as VP in a Republican administration for several years so apparently they cant all be bad but Sutherland is deliciously evil. And there is a lot of hardball taking place.
It has the potential to be a huge bomb. She's got "adorable" kids and a wimpy husband, her "speeches" are as memorable as Bill Clinton's (the man was president for 8 years and the only quotes we recalls are "The meaning of is" and "I did not have sex.")
Sorry DG, Mary has it right. And for the record, Sutherland's underhanded character is clearly a Democrat. Conservatives revel in the light of day; it's the Democrats that live under rocks or spend their days sleeping in coffins.
Sorry, but the whole premise of the show is stupid on so many counts it is hard to list them, but I will try to list a few:
1. A somewhat misogynistic GOP presidential candidate picks a "moderate" (read liberal) woman as his running-mate because he needed to pick up the women's vote, and this actually results in his winning the presidency, but he doesn't want her to succeed him in the office because they have significant policy differences. This is ridiculous for several reasons, but mostly because the only way a republican candidate wins with a woman as his running mate is if she is a solidly conservative woman, like a Condi Rice, in which case there is no reason to pressure her to step aside.
2. The ailing president tries to convince his VP to resign, which would allow him to appoint a new VP (that the democrats in the senate would certainly block from confirmation). In the absence of a VP, the president pro tem of the Senate is next in line of succession. If a GOP President felt he were about to be incapable of discharging his duties as President, would he try to convince his VP to resign thereby creating a series of vacancies that would put the appointment of his replacement into the hands of the senate where Teddy and Chucky could wreak all kinds of havoc? I think not.
3. The evil conservative Speaker of the House seems to see this as a power play opportunity to move one step closer in the line of succession, but since he comes AFTER the VP, AND THEN AFTER the president pro tem of the senate, he is not going to ascend to the presidency via the line of succession, so the whole nature of this character depends on the Speaker of the House being ignorant of the rules of succession, or at least the ignorance of the audience (but then again with Hollywood that is a given).
4. Geena Davis does NOT carry this role at all. She is simply not believable.
In the one plot synopsis I read, President Lady positions the US armed forces to threaten attack on some African nation because they're about to put a woman, one of their own citizens, to death for adultery. This is such a gross, personalized, feminine, silly soap-opera misunderstanding of the appropriate use of military force, that Hillary's minions should be calling them up and begging the program to cease and desist.
Oh, yeah...and apparently she comes to power because she was an affirmative action VP pick and, when the president dies unexpectedly, they expect her to step aside and not take the reins because...well, she's a girl 'n' stuff.
It sounds like a comic book. A bad comic book. Let 'er rip, I say.
It's so bad it's campy!
Actually, I didn't watch it. My wife did, and she relayed certain details of it to me. She doesn't follow politics as closely as I do, nor does she recognize the bias and propaganda in a lot of hollywood programming (example: she believed the several courtroom drama shows that have cited the $250K tort-reform cap and portrayed it as a total cap rather than a cap only on non-economic damages).
Sometimes I tune in early to see Boston Legal.
But that's because they are playing to the "power corrupts" meme. Evil republicans won the two elected branches of government, that throws checks and balances out the window.
And the "independent" who ran with the republican is picking her democrat opponent for her replacement VP.
And in this show, I'm betting she gets a republican senate to go along. Like the republicans are going to let a democrat sit in the tie-breaking seat.
Or like the military is going to agree to be used to interfere in the court system of another country.
Or like a republican is going to pick an "independent" to be VP to begin with. Or would need to.
Actually, I don't watch the show because it is unbelievable on so many levels. Also, I'm not so much a fan of Geena Davis. I liked a few things she did. But she is one-dimensional.
It's sound ghastly, in a fun way. It's done well in it's first two weeks, but that might just be the curiousity factor.
The creator of the show, Rod Laurie, just got fired. They cited "logistical setbacks", whatever the hell that means. Pretty big news in Hollywood. Very odd to fire a guy with a "hit" show.
I should check it out. I'm the type who watches really bad movies on the Spanish station, even though I have no idea what they're talking about. I love really bad acting.
Correction: Speaker of the House is 3rd in line; Pro-tem of senate is 4th.
.
Found some interesting facts from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Presidential Succession Act of 1792 first established the line of succession after VP. The act declared that, in the event of the death of both the President and Vice President, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate would act as President, followed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Presidential Succession Act of 1886 was passed by Congress, removing the Congressional officers from the list and replacing them with the members of the Cabinet. The order was determined by the order in which each cabinet department had been created - with the Secretary of State being first in line after the Vice President. As six former Secretaries of State had gone on to be elected President in their own right, and as no Congressional leaders had done so to that time, the change was widely accepted.
Presidential Succession Act of 1947 restored the Congressional officers to places directly after the Vice President, but switched their order from the 1792 Act - placing the House Speaker first and the President Pro Tempore second. The Cabinet officers then followed, again in the order in which their respective departments were created with one exception: the Secretary of Defense (a department created in 1947 following a merger of the Departments of War and Navy) was placed fifth in the overall order, directly after the Secretary of the Treasury. This placed the Defense Department in the place that would have been held by the Department of War, its predecessor.
A common story (perhaps apocryphal) holds that President Truman moved the Speaker of the House ahead of the President Pro Tempore of the Senate in the line of succession due to the president's close friendship with Sam Rayburn, who was Speaker at that time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.