Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey, so I've been rewatching The West Wing, and I wondered just what an American's take on the president throughout the series is. So if he was running for a second term in the next election, would you vote for him? I'm just curious because from where I sit (far away across the ocean) he seems like he would have made a pretty good president, but then I don't think quite like Americans do in terms of culture and what not, so he could actually be a lot worse than he seems, or you could want to support him but have problems with some of his policies which are strong enough that you wouldn't, or maybe you dislike some of his policies yet he does enough good that you'd vote for him.

For those who haven't watched this show, Bartlett has at this point done several good and bad things, among them...

Good
-willing to use military force when it is necessary (I think that is a good thing, but obviously some would disagree)
-a moral man (apart from the first on the bad list below)
-firm grasp of economics (he has a doctorate and I think a nobel prize in the field)

Bad
-hid a degenerative disease from the people, although the form that he has isn't as bad as others (M.S.)
-susceptible to pressure being placed on his family (not that it is bad for a man to love his family, but he seems particularly weak when it comes to his daughters)

and more in both lists that I'm too lazy to write...I'd just like to get some Americans' views on this, to see if you'd go for him or not as your president.

And I realize that this could be sort of in the same vein as those 'star wars or 40k' threads in that it is discussing a fictional character and trying to apply it to something else, and if it is viewed in the same way by you mods then feel free to kill it, I'm just intrigued as to the results. He seems like a middling enough of a president to appeal to both sides, but we'll see.

I doubt it. He's pretty weak on defense and appears to have presided over a shocking decline in the prowess of the Secret Service.

I love Martin Sheen. It's hard to watch Two Cathedrals and not feel deeply moved. It was a very well written series.

Would I vote for him if it were a real man? Yes, in a heartbeat yes. I think he kinda feeds into that ideal that we have of what we want people in power to be like. He's impossibly smart, witty and charismatic. His first appearance in the show he shows up and schools bible thumpers quoting the first commandment. It's very powerful drama, but not nearly possible in reality.

Democrat, so no.

Funny you should ask this, I’ve just started watching the West Wing for the 1st time as it’s just come onto LoveFilm. So far I’m only half way through the 1st season but sofar I’d say I like Josh Bartlett himself and would probably vote for him if I where American. Not sure about the rest of the White House staff who seem to a collection of assorted bunglers with mad lives, but I suppose that sort of thing is necessary for good drama.

Josh in particular is a disaster, but he is a great character.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valion wrote:
I doubt it. He's pretty weak on defense and appears to have presided over a shocking decline in the prowess of the Secret Service.

Any particular reason you say this? Like I said I’m only half way through the 1st series and defense has only really come up once so far, but it was that very early episode where he ordered strikes (against Syria I think) in response to a plane carrying his personal physician being shot down. He came across to me as being quite hard on defense, especially when he rejects the idea of a ‘proportionate response’ as being useless.

Does something happen later on to change this?

 LuciusAR wrote:
Any particular reason you say this? Like I said I’m only half way through the 1st series and defense has only really come up once so far, but it was that very early episode where he ordered strikes (against Syria I think) in response to a plane carrying his personal physician being shot down. He came across to me as being quite hard on defense, especially when he rejects the idea of a ‘proportionate response’ as being useless.

Does something happen later on to change this?

Do you really want me to spoil it for you?

I tried to watch West Wing. The insipidness was intolerable.

So no. If i wanted a holier than thou know it all I'd have voted for the current guy.

 Valion wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
Any particular reason you say this? Like I said I’m only half way through the 1st series and defense has only really come up once so far, but it was that very early episode where he ordered strikes (against Syria I think) in response to a plane carrying his personal physician being shot down. He came across to me as being quite hard on defense, especially when he rejects the idea of a ‘proportionate response’ as being useless.

Does something happen later on to change this?

Do you really want me to spoil it for you?

Nah actually I'd rather you did'nt. I'll just keep watching.

 Frazzled wrote:
So no. If i wanted a holier than thou know it all I'd have voted for the current guy.

Excluding 'gosh I barely can spell my own name I'm just one of you regular folks' GWB*, that would describe almost every President. To have the chutzpah to not only run for the office, but win, means you have to think of yourself as both smarter then others and probably fairly unique.



*I'm referring to some of his campaign strategies that centered on how he was a regular Joe you'd want to have a beer with.

 LuciusAR wrote:
Nah actually I'd rather you did'nt. I'll just keep watching.

Good call. I actually learned to enjoy the show after I started thinking of it as taking place in a Democrat's masturbatory fantasyscape.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So no. If i wanted a holier than thou know it all I'd have voted for the current guy.

Excluding 'gosh I barely can spell my own name I'm just one of you regular folks' GWB*, that would describe almost every President. To have the chutzpah to not only run for the office, but win, means you have to think of yourself as both smarter then others and probably fairly unique.



*I'm referring to some of his campaign strategies that centered on how he was a regular Joe you'd want to have a beer with.

This sort of thing. I'd proffer Bartlett would do the same.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/14/barackobama.uselections2008

You'd never get that from Billy Clinton.

 Valion wrote:

I must admit that sofar the only Republicans that seem to have been featured in the show seem to very much adhere to the worst preconceptions people tend to have of the party (essentially its seems to portray them all as a collection of authoritarian bible thumpers)so in that sense it does seem rather one sided. But I'm aware that Aaron Sorkin is openly a Democrat so I did expect the show to be on their side before I started watching.

 Valion wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
Nah actually I'd rather you did'nt. I'll just keep watching.

Good call. I actually learned to enjoy the show after I started thinking of it as taking place in a Democrat's masturbatory fantasyscape.

To be honest some of the best episodes are the ones where the republicans aren't played up as super evil, like when josh meets with his homosexual congressman/senator friend. There are some really good ones later on but...spoilers.

I like Veep so much better.

I'd vote for 24's David Palmer even though he's a Democrat.

Nope, I'm not a US citizen

West Wing is a fantasy. Yes, Josiah Bartlett is a fantasy President, so of course anyone who likes the show would vote for him.

It does get better, Fraz. I concur with motyak that some of the best episodes and characters feature/are Republicans and conservatives who AREN'T just bad guys, and who put up good arguments which puncture the protagonists' self assurance and confidence.

Most of the time in the show we do get to see Dem/liberal/progressive arguments and positions championed, though.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Most of the time in the show we do get to see Dem/liberal/progressive arguments and positions championed, though.

It isn't just because Sorkin is a liberal either as someone stated above. I mean, it is the story of a Democratic administrations so it makes sense that most of the point of view is from their side. They also play up the Executive vs Legislative angle quite a bit too, even having other Democrats be the antagonists.

Glen Allen Walker (John Goodman) is shown as being pretty boss in the series, as is Joe Quincy (Matthew Perry), Ainsley Hayes, and Cliff Calley. Arnold Vinnick (Alan Alda) was arguably the better candidate for President but lost on a fluke, essentially, and is shown to be a man of great character and principle.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Most of the time in the show we do get to see Dem/liberal/progressive arguments and positions championed, though.

It isn't just because Sorkin is a liberal either as someone stated above. I mean, it is the story of a Democratic administrations so it makes sense that most of the point of view is from their side. They also play up the Executive vs Legislative angle quite a bit too, even having other Democrats be the antagonists.

Glen Allen Walker (John Goodman) is shown as being pretty boss in the series, as is Joe Quincy (Matthew Perry), Ainsley Hayes, and Cliff Calley. Arnold Vinnick (Alan Alda) was arguably the better candidate for President but lost on a fluke, essentially, and is shown to be a man of great character and principle.

Yeah, but the majority of the Republicans in the series that you just mentioned are viewed as pretty boss because they help out Democrats.

 Valion wrote:
Yeah, but the majority of the Republicans in the series that you just mentioned are viewed as pretty boss because they help out Democrats.

What a crock of [censored]. They helped out their country, which isn't the same thing, and they weren't complete dicks about having to work with others outside party affiliation, which also isn't the same thing. You'll find that politicians and others actually don't hate each other nearly as much as it seems like in talking points and grandstanding; it is entirely possible to be friendly with people of a different political bent, and even work for them. Those aren't the only ones either, just the ones I recall the names of off the top of my head. There was also the Republican senator that hated Bartlet, and that Bartlet didn't like either, but both worked together on election reform because it was the one thing they did agree on. The characters listed were not simple ciphers but had depth and there own agency and motivations beyond being there to be RINOs. Bringing Cliff back as a White House employee was a bad decision by the post-Sorkin writers becuase they weren't sure what to do and he was a known character, but it made no sense, I'll grant you that. I suppose it is the prism you want to view it through, going by previous observations made, and honestly it seems like anything short of a Republican character literally beating up Bartlet and besieging the White House would seem like a Democratic plant to you.

 Ahtman wrote:
What a crock of [censored]. They helped out their country, which isn't the same thing, and they weren't complete dicks about having to work with others outside party affiliation, which also isn't the same thing.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset you so profoundly.

Cliff Calley's defining point in the series was a tough-guy speech about being above partisan politics as he selflessly put his career on the line to save Leo...not from firing or any real potential fallout, mind you, just from embarrassment. Because the Republicans were acting purely with evil intent, y'see. When he took over as DCOS, he was basically a Democrat.

Ainslie? Pretty much the same deal. A big speech about how patriotic and wonderful Democrats are, and then she's around mostly to serve as the foil for personal rather than legislative plotlines.

John Goodman's character was a little better, but he was part of such a laughably horrendous story arc that it's pretty much a wash.

 Valion wrote:

Ainslie? Pretty much the same deal. A big speech about how patriotic and wonderful Democrats are, and then she's around mostly to serve as the foil for personal rather than legislative plotlines.

I disagree on her, I think that whole episode as meant to show the worst of both sides, how those in the White House assumed she killed puppies and was just a talking head, while her (what I'm assuming were meant to be quite far right) friends spent all their time mocking and insulting staffers that they'd never met, and she was meant to be the bridge between the two worlds, to make them realise that both sides aren't as bad as the other thought they were. And also was her speech saying 'all democrats are amazing' or 'the people I met today', I'm pretty sure it was the latter.


But then you get the republican characters who are not developed at all and just shown to be tossers for no real reason, like the speaker in the later seasons. There is no reason, and no way, that anyone would be that needlessly impossible and frustrating to work with when they are relied upon to help serve the country by working on and eventually passing legislation. I forget the character's name, but he is definitely one of those 'eeeevil republican' characters which aren't really necessary.

 motyak wrote:

 Valion wrote:

Ainslie? Pretty much the same deal. A big speech about how patriotic and wonderful Democrats are, and then she's around mostly to serve as the foil for personal rather than legislative plotlines.

I disagree on her, I think that whole episode as meant to show the worst of both sides, how those in the White House assumed she killed puppies and was just a talking head, while her (what I'm assuming were meant to be quite far right) friends spent all their time mocking and insulting staffers that they'd never met, and she was meant to be the bridge between the two worlds, to make them realise that both sides aren't as bad as the other thought they were. And also was her speech saying 'all democrats are amazing' or 'the people I met today', I'm pretty sure it was the latter.


But then you get the republican characters who are not developed at all and just shown to be tossers for no real reason, like the speaker in the later seasons. There is no reason, and no way, that anyone would be that needlessly impossible and frustrating to work with when they are relied upon to help serve the country by working on and eventually passing legislation. I forget the character's name, but he is definitely one of those 'eeeevil republican' characters which aren't really necessary.

Yeah, it may have been the latter. I haven't seen that episode in quite a while.

The final season got a bit better at balance, but even then, Vinick, who was shown as a good guy, was shown as a good guy primarily through the lens of abandoning positions extremely popular with the Republican base. He was a pro-abortion atheist from California, after all. And that's pretty much how it went through the whole series; the good Republicans were the moderate-to-left-of-center ones.

Which I'm fine with, by the way. I've watched enough of Sorkin's shows to know he writes 'em all with a liberal slant.

 Valion wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
What a crock of [censored]. They helped out their country, which isn't the same thing, and they weren't complete dicks about having to work with others outside party affiliation, which also isn't the same thing.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset you so profoundly.

Do you just always assume when people point out that you are wrong that they are upset? I'm not upset, I just know horsegak when I see it.

 Valion wrote:
Cliff Calley's defining point in the series was a tough-guy speech about being above partisan politics as he selflessly put his career on the line to save Leo...not from firing or any real potential fallout, mind you, just from embarrassment. Because the Republicans were acting purely with evil intent, y'see. When he took over as DCOS, he was basically a Democrat.

It is like you watched a completely different show, though I imagine in your mind, you did. Cliff (pre-Sorkin leaving) constantly was shown playing up the positive points of Republican ideals. Just because he didn't hate other people doesn't mean he was a secret Democratic schill. And the hearing were about far more than 'embarrassment', and even if it were it is politically far more serious then you spilling a drink at a party. It is the difference between winning and losing elections and millions of dollars in funding. You also forget that it was the Republican head of the committee that made the choice not to bring up unrelated material. That same Senator later completely took Josh and Sam to task for being partisan hacks, and just as much a problem as any Republican roadblock. Eventually, again post-Sorkin, they made his character awful, but at that point most of the characters were pretty screwed up.

 Valion wrote:
Ainslie? Pretty much the same deal. A big speech about how patriotic and wonderful Democrats are, and then she's around mostly to serve as the foil for personal rather than legislative plotlines.

Again, you completely missed the point, but Motyak already covered most of this ground. It is odd to imagine someones thinking process equates civility with being a plant. Ainsley never left the Republican Party the entire series and was even at a Republican think tank at the end of the series.

 Valion wrote:
John Goodman's character was a little better, but he was part of such a laughably horrendous story arc that it's pretty much a wash.

You seem to have a penchant of equating patriotism and putting country first as a weakness, and non-Republican. I know a lot of Republicans who take both of those things quite seriously, and I would never think they were 'fake' Republicans just wanting to make Democrats look good. There are even Republicans that like the show because it puts such a high premium on civic virtue.

Motyak wrote:There is no reason, and no way, that anyone would be that needlessly impossible and frustrating to work with when they are relied upon to help serve the country by working on and eventually passing legislation.

I can think both Republicans and Democrats that have done just that in real life.

 Ahtman wrote:
Do you just always assume when people point out that you are wrong that they are upset? I'm not upset, I just know horsegak when I see it.

I'll take your word for it.

It is like you watched a completely different show, though I imagine in your mind, you did. Cliff (pre-Sorkin leaving) constantly was shown playing up the positive points of Republican ideals. Just because he didn't hate other people doesn't mean he was a secret Democratic schill. And the hearing were about far more than 'embarrassment', and even if it were it is politically far more serious then you spilling a drink at a party.

Cliff made a minor explanation of why he's in favor of small government while on a date with Donna, but otherwise, that was it. The rest of his involvement prior to his long absence and eventual return as DCOS revolved around being the "good" Republican who constantly helped out the subjects of the investigation he was conducting, mostly by standing up to Republican committee leadership with lines like, "This is why good people hate us!" He's the apologist.

Again, you completely missed the point, but Motyak already covered most of this ground. It is odd to imagine someones thinking process equates civility with being a plant. Ainsley never left the Republican Party the entire series and was even at a Republican think tank at the end of the series.

It's not "equating civility with being a plant," it's simply pointing out that the show was written by a Democrat with a Democrat's perspective. I have a hard time believing you genuinely think the show was written from an impartial point of view, though, and I can't quite figure out what you're trying to accomplish here.

You seem to have a penchant of equating patriotism and putting country first as a weakness, and non-Republican.

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that, within the fictional universe of the show, the Republicans who did so, did so by breaking with the willfully-obtuse-to-borderline-pointlessly-malicious mainstream Republicans to come around to the Democratic point of view on things which, hey, what do you know, were right all along. Goodman, as I said, was the exception, but that storyline was so laughably unbelievable (which hearkens back to my initial post in this thread about Barlett presiding over a shocking decline in the prowess of the Secret Service) that I consider it an anomaly.

I know a lot of Republicans who take both of those things quite seriously, and I would never think they were 'fake' Republicans just wanting to make Democrats look good. There are even Republicans that like the show because it puts such a high premium on civic virtue.

I enjoy the show quite a bit myself. Own the box set and everything. I think I see the problem, though: you seem to think that I'm suggesting that the Republicans are in-universe plants, rather than what I'm actually saying, which is simply that a very liberal guy writing 'good' Republicans tends to make them not particularly Republican.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Valion wrote:
Yeah, but the majority of the Republicans in the series that you just mentioned are viewed as pretty boss because they help out Democrats.

What a crock of [censored]. They helped out their country, which isn't the same thing, and they weren't complete dicks about having to work with others outside party affiliation, which also isn't the same thing. You'll find that politicians and others actually don't hate each other nearly as much as it seems like in talking points and grandstanding; it is entirely possible to be friendly with people of a different political bent, and even work for them. Those aren't the only ones either, just the ones I recall the names of off the top of my head. There was also the Republican senator that hated Bartlet, and that Bartlet didn't like either, but both worked together on election reform because it was the one thing they did agree on. The characters listed were not simple ciphers but had depth and there own agency and motivations beyond being there to be RINOs. Bringing Cliff back as a White House employee was a bad decision by the post-Sorkin writers becuase they weren't sure what to do and he was a known character, but it made no sense, I'll grant you that. I suppose it is the prism you want to view it through, going by previous observations made, and honestly it seems like anything short of a Republican character literally beating up Bartlet and besieging the White House would seem like a Democratic plant to you.

About a 9 on the tension scale there. Might be a good to remember its just a tv show and not important. Unlike Babylon 5. I'll cut you over Babylon 5.

Fraz, for folks of a liberal bent who are interested in politics and enjoy fast-paced dialogue, The West Wing is like a better Babylon 5. A wonderful and dramatic science fiction world we wish could be.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Fraz, for folks of a liberal bent who are interested in politics and enjoy fast-paced dialogue, The West Wing is like a better Babylon 5. A wonderful and dramatic science fiction world we wish could be.

Why do I have this image of Bartlett, after having disposed of the last Republican Senator shouting, "Power!!! Limitless Power!!!"


Rise, Lord Vader.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Fraz, for folks of a liberal bent who are interested in politics and enjoy fast-paced dialogue, The West Wing is like a better Babylon 5. A wonderful and dramatic science fiction world we wish could be.

Why do I have this image of Bartlett, after having disposed of the last Republican Senator shouting, "Power!!! Limitless Power!!!"

Played ME3? It's really a continuation of the West Wing universe, with Bartlett nearly achieving his overall goals