Should Martin Sheen Lose Presidency?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Do you think that it would be interesting if Martin Sheen's character lost his bid for a second term of office on NBC's television show "West Wing"?



Wouldn't that be what the series needs for a shot in the arm in ratings? Mosts long-running television shows lose a character or two, sometimes KEY characters. In a presidential race the victor clears the decks and inserts his/(her) own staff and supporters. Imagine what would happen to that show's ratings if Tom Selleck won the presidency. All the staff would change. To script a total takeover by another administration, the handing-over of the reins as it were, would be an interesting job for the writers....and for the viewers.



Even people who don't follow the show would tune in out of curiousity...if they promoted it correcty.



Anyway, with Magnum in the Oval Office there would be more helicopter chases! Rick and TC would be installed as Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of of the Treasury. Not sure what Higgins would become.



Anyway. I think it's a great idea.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    It would be great to have a conservative republican president in The West Wing Oval Office. Sorkin could expose it for what it's worth.
  • Reply 2 of 27
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    That's definitely an interesting proposition, and I remember a while back thinking that what might be interesting would be to have the team split up (they are all professional political operatives) among various other candidates for other office, all coming to a head for some kind of election.



    I dunno. The show used to be very good, and now it's dangerously close to making the mistake that all NBC shows seem to make: Ross and Rachel get together.



    Anyway.



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 3 of 27
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    wait a minute.



    Bartlett DID win re-election.
  • Reply 4 of 27
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    I know I will kick myself for saying this,

    but they should make more of his illness. You know, lapses of memory, hand trembles etc, & like vultures coming in for a road kill, the house advisors start to divide into defenders & attackers.

    Maybe the Vice president comes out with a sharp anti-Bartlett stand.

    It could involve security alerts & national threats all the while he is being white-anted by one of the very people he has closest to his confidence & who has been planted by some assasination group to eliminate him from office.
  • Reply 5 of 27
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,899member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    wait a minute.



    Bartlett DID win re-election.




    Yes, he did.



    Now, SPJ:



    "It would be great to have a conservative republican president in The West Wing Oval Office. Sorkin could expose it for what it's worth."



    It just never ends with you, does it? As if he doesn't present his views RIGHT NOW? I am a fan of the show. But, in the last year it has become much more biased towards the Left. All I can think when the characters have their little, silly debates is "Oh my God....there are actually people that think like this". The overall message is that government must and should do everything for everyone.



    The liberal side of the issue always wins out...from needle exchange (as if we should be using tax dollars for that) to the concept that our taxes are "fair". It's not just that they present their side, it's that their is a presumption that anyone who can think MUST agree. Look at the way they portrayed his opponent in the election. They openly mocked him for deciding some issues based on his moral code. Oh no! The whole sequence of episodes was nothing more than a cut at Bush...trying to equate him with Ritchie....Bartlett's opponent.



    The show was much more balanced in seasons one through three. This year it has swung to the Left. It is really bothersome, because they used to debate issues...and sometimes, just sometimes, the scene would end with the more conservative position winning out. Everyone on the show is now portrayed as being smarter more smug than everyone else.

    All Republicans are portrayed as rich, stupid civil rights hating demagogues.



    I still watch the show for its wit and humor. But, I still cringe when they start their self-righteous bulllshit.
  • Reply 6 of 27
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001



    The liberal side of the issue always wins out...from needle exchange (as if we should be using tax dollars for that)







    Please explain to me when you count the cost of treating the diseases spread by the use of dirty needles, that this issue is liberal? Really, I would like to know how you figure the more expensive and more wasteful treatment of these diseases is better than creating a situation in which they are controlled. Sure you can argue on the moral high ground that the government should not be doing anything that supports the use of drugs, but I could equally argue the moral high ground that wasting medical resources on diseases spread by dirty needle use and not using these resources on treating sick impoverished children is even worse. The government in any reasonable country finds any and all ways to reduce the disease threat to the population, and while i hate doing this B. Franklin did write: "On ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."



    No this issue isnt liberal, it is one of being able to consider the repercussions of not doing the simple and relatively cheap task of needle exchange (not to mention that at the point when the needles are being exchanged is an ample oppourtunity to point the drug addicts (like bush's niece) to resources for the treatment of their addiction)...



    bruce
  • Reply 7 of 27
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001 The overall message is that government must and should do everything for everyone.



    Well, there are times when we're 50 states, and there are times when we're one people, and the reason I know this is that Florida didn't fight Germany in WWII or establish civil rights....



    Quote:

    The liberal side of the issue always wins out...from needle exchange (as if we should be using tax dollars for that) to the concept that our taxes are "fair". It's not just that they present their side, it's that their is a presumption that anyone who can think MUST agree. Look at the way they portrayed his opponent in the election. They openly mocked him for deciding some issues based on his moral code. Oh no! The whole sequence of episodes was nothing more than a cut at Bush...trying to equate him with Ritchie....Bartlett's opponent.



    While I'm with you that the show isn't what it ought to be, you need to remember that occasionally the West Wing admin gets its ass kicked.



    As for Ritchie...I didn't much care for that entire plotline, considering that it registered with me as Sorkin's dream of an election 2000 mulligan, the kind of "this is what they should've done."



    But you should note, however, that they didn't mock Ritchie for deciding issues based on his moral code. They mocked him for his apparent lack of depth and his oversimplified notion of the way the world works. There's a difference.



    Quote:

    The show was much more balanced in seasons one through three. This year it has swung to the Left. It is really bothersome, because they used to debate issues...and sometimes, just sometimes, the scene would end with the more conservative position winning out. Everyone on the show is now portrayed as being smarter more smug than everyone else.

    All Republicans are portrayed as rich, stupid civil rights hating demagogues.



    I miss Ainsley. I also miss Sam, who was at times fairly conservative--or at least respectful of the validity of conservative opinions. But you know, it's a show about a democrat president. Bush hire a bunch of liberals for his cabinet? Didn't he say he would? (NB: when the senate was split 50/50 he did offer a cabinet position to Lieberman. I read it as a slap in the face.) Did Clinton have tons of republicans on his staff?



    But you're right, in the end. The show is decidedly less nuanced in its representation of the political spectrum.



    Quote:

    I still watch the show for its wit and humor. But, I still cringe when they start their self-righteous bulllshit.



    Self-righteous at times, yes. But what's bullshit to you ain't necessarily bullshit to me.



    As for the wit...it hasn't been there that much lately. Like you, I'll continue to watch it, but the show desperately needs a shot in the arm--like resurrecting Mrs. Landingham.



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 8 of 27
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    NB: when the senate was split 50/50 he did offer a cabinet position to Lieberman. I read it as a slap in the face.



    I never heard that. I don't believe you.
  • Reply 9 of 27
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    I say let the viewers do a write in vote campaign.
  • Reply 10 of 27
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    I never heard that. I don't believe you.



    I'm sorry you don't believe me.



    It's weird, I remember VIVIDLY that he'd done that....even getting into an argument with my father-in-law about it...and now I'm not finding anything.



    I'll keep digging.



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 11 of 27
    Ever notice how unilateral Jed Bartlett is when it comes to military action?
  • Reply 12 of 27
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    I don't actually even watch West Wing....I just proposed this plotline because I thought it would shake up the series and keep it moving ahead of audience expectations before it drops dead of its own moribundosityness. Wouldn't have said anything if I'd known that the character had already done the reelection gig.



    Anyway, Tom Selleck hasn't been seen much lately and I'm sure that the whole Magnum gang would love a comeback in more serious roles.....
  • Reply 13 of 27
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    I think a more important, nagging question is: should Martin Sheen fix his teeth? What happened to him? Anyone else notice this sudden onset of a bucktooth look?



    Just seemed to come on this year.



    He'd always looked normal (nothing odd in the teeth/mouth category), then I saw an interview with him about a year ago (during the time he made a guest appearance on "Spin City" with his son Charlie) and his front teeth were HUGE. During the interview they were just jutting out in a way that they hadn't before. The person I was with even commented on it.



    Best I can figure is that he got some new dentures or had them capped and they just poke out/protrude more than his old (real) ones?



    Check it out if you don't believe me.



    I stop by and watch "The West Wing" for a couple of minutes every once in a while and I find myself unable to get beyond trying to figure out how a human can turn so beaver-esque in one fell swoop.



  • Reply 14 of 27
    "one fell swoop"



    I like the sound of that. I'm going to incorporate it into my everyday speech, now.
  • Reply 15 of 27
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    I get royalties
  • Reply 16 of 27
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce

    "one fell swoop"



    I like the sound of that. I'm going to incorporate it into my everyday speech, now.




    Better - "one swell foop". I had a Calculus prof who used to corrupt it that way. The guy was great. He'd be going over some problem that takes about ten minutes and most of the blackboard - making it look easy, which it is, i suppose. At least at that level it is. It's mostly just algebra and hammering out the work. Anyway, he'd get about 80% of the problem done and suddenly say, "I'm getting the hang of this..."
  • Reply 17 of 27
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,899member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    Please explain to me when you count the cost of treating the diseases spread by the use of dirty needles, that this issue is liberal? Really, I would like to know how you figure the more expensive and more wasteful treatment of these diseases is better than creating a situation in which they are controlled. Sure you can argue on the moral high ground that the government should not be doing anything that supports the use of drugs, but I could equally argue the moral high ground that wasting medical resources on diseases spread by dirty needle use and not using these resources on treating sick impoverished children is even worse. The government in any reasonable country finds any and all ways to reduce the disease threat to the population, and while i hate doing this B. Franklin did write: "On ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."



    No this issue isnt liberal, it is one of being able to consider the repercussions of not doing the simple and relatively cheap task of needle exchange (not to mention that at the point when the needles are being exchanged is an ample oppourtunity to point the drug addicts (like bush's niece) to resources for the treatment of their addiction)...



    bruce




    I disagree. The moral high ground argument is valid, though it's not my main one. The point is that my (and your) tax dollars should not be used to give addicts clean needles. It's simply wrong. I don't care if it costs more to treat HIV than it does to pass out needles. This is exactly the kind of federal program we have NO business running. Put the money into prevention programs...that helps solve both problems. It's a question of what our government should and should not be doing.



    Midwinter:



    "But you should note, however, that they didn't mock Ritchie for deciding issues based on his moral code."



    They did one time.



    "I miss Ainsley. I also miss Sam, who was at times fairly conservative--or at least respectful of the validity of conservative opinions."



    Amen. They added balance. Now it is just a liberal mouthpiece.



    "Self-righteous at times, yes. But what's bullshit to you ain't necessarily bullshit to me.



    As for the wit...it hasn't been there that much lately. Like you, I'll continue to watch it, but the show desperately needs a shot in the arm--like resurrecting Mrs. Landingham."



    Well, what I mean is that presumption that any intelligent person would agree. That's how they act on the show. It's also a good representation of how the Clinton administration decided things...by polling data. They panic over every headline and polling point drop and celebrate when a focus group gives the President good marks for a State of the Union. Somehow I can;t see Gerge Bush and Josh Lyman getting along to well. I can't see Bush panicing over polling data like that...can you? I also believe Bradley Whitford is gay. Just thought I'd throw that in there.



    Oh, and yes....Bartlett is hugely unilateral.
  • Reply 18 of 27
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I disagree. The moral high ground argument is valid, though it's not my main one. The point is that my (and your) tax dollars should not be used to give addicts clean needles. It's simply wrong. I don't care if it costs more to treat HIV than it does to pass out needles. This is exactly the kind of federal program we have NO business running. Put the money into prevention programs...that helps solve both problems. It's a question of what our government should and should not be doing.





    i do believe that the program does more good than harm... but that is my belief, and to me its not a question of what the government implies by its actions -- ie the death penalty must imply by that very argument that murder, murder for murder, is legitamate... even more so, the laws actually governing the legality of drugs (and traffic laws) are enforced and written because the greater societal good that is derived from them is better than that without them... it is societally better if diseases were controlled than not -- and I seriously doubt anyone is confused by the governments position on drug use because of the needle exchange program.



    bruce
  • Reply 19 of 27
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    It's also a good representation of how the Clinton administration decided things...by polling data.



    I think you have a distorted notion of how much is too much polling. Clinton was LITERALly sneaking around behind the backs of his senior staff to discuss polling issues with Dick Morris. They were polling where he should vacation. They were polling what he should wear. What Mrs. Clinton's hair should look like.



    Quote:

    They panic over every headline and polling point drop and celebrate when a focus group gives the President good marks for a State of the Union.



    No offense, but you're a fool if you think that the current admin doesn't do just this (attend to the headlines, conduct polls and focus groups, dial groups, etc). The difference is that the current admin is MUCH more savvy about controlling the news cycle. When the president is asked if he's ever had a drug problem, he simply says "I'm not going to talk about that." If he's asked "Have you ever cheated on your wife," he says "I'm not going to talk about that.



    It's brilliant, since the reporters just drop it and pursue something he WILL talk about.



    The Clinton admin, on the other hand...ugh. They responded to everything. EVERYTHING. Went on the record about every foolish thing in the world. Stupid.



    Quote:

    Somehow I can;t see Gerge Bush and Josh Lyman getting along to well.



    Well, considering Bush makes Reagan look like a liberal, no. They wouldn't.



    Quote:

    I can't see Bush panicing over polling data like that...can you?



    Yes. I will guarantee you that they do. Do some digging around on Karl Rove, if you're interested in this kind of thing. Here's an article on Buh's pollsters and the lengths they go to to convince people that they don't use them.



    Quote:

    I also believe Bradley Whitford is gay. Just thought I'd throw that in there.



    Whitford is married to the mom in Malcom in the Middle. He may be gay. But he's married, and has been for some time.

    [/QUOTE]



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 20 of 27
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,899member
    Quote:

    " I think you have a distorted notion of how much is too much polling. Clinton was LITERALly sneaking around behind the backs of his senior staff to discuss polling issues with Dick Morris. They were polling where he should vacation. They were polling what he should wear. What Mrs. Clinton's hair should look like."



    It doesn"t seem that we disagree actually.



    Quote:

    No offense, but you're a fool if you think that the current admin doesn't do just this (attend to the headlines, conduct polls and focus groups, dial groups, etc). The difference is that the current admin is MUCH more savvy about controlling the news cycle. When the president is asked if he's ever had a drug problem, he simply says "I'm not going to talk about that." If he's asked "Have you ever cheated on your wife," he says "I'm not going to talk about that.



    It's brilliant, since the reporters just drop it and pursue something he WILL talk about.



    The Clinton admin, on the other hand...ugh. They responded to everything. EVERYTHING. Went on the record about every foolish thing in the world. Stupid.





    I'm sure they use it...but I doubt they make many policy decisions based upon it. That's my point. And to my knowledge, Bush has basically said he has been faithful to his wife. I do agree that he answers more honestly and openly. Like the the DUI thing...he just said "That is an accurate story. There were ocassions in my youth where I drank too much. this was one of them". He took the story away from them.





    Quote:

    Well, considering Bush makes Reagan look like a liberal, no. They wouldn't.





    Disagree. Reagan wanted more limited government and more front-loaded tax cuts.



    I was kidding about Whitford. He's still gay though.
Sign In or Register to comment.