Posted on 03/31/2015 7:38:13 PM PDT by Nachum
The series shows the Democrats to be a bunch of Harry Reids, except even more conniving.
There’s an episode where he goes into a church and flagrantly manipulates the religiousity of the folks into supporting him. Cites his love for his dad...etc. Then he does an aside comment to the camera about how he didn’t really care much about his father passing.
Just totally wicked self-centered egoism. And he revels in it.
West Wing= “gee golly, if only liberals were in charge this is how things could be”
House of Cards= “this is how politicians in charge actually are”
There’s a pleasant quality to the monologued Frank gives to the camera. Mainly because it is the only sincerity he shows. All the rest is him being loathsome and phoney to manipulate people. I recall one episode where he expresses disdain for ideology driven people he has no use for it.
In fact, Democrats are confused about how he can be so powerful without personally having an ideology that’s liberal or conservative-http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2014/02/24/3321891/house-cards-ideology/
They totally don’t get that power and the pursuit of it can interest some folks.
"That [ideological] emptiness makes it much more difficult to either root for Frank or to view his ascension with any sort of dread."Sure, if Frank was a committed progressive it would be easy to cheer him on... The liberal mind is truly frightening.
You may find yourself watching more than a couple of episodes, Utilizer. I watched season 3 on Netflix in two sittings! It is riveting. ( I am an old bat with time to do things like this if I choose).
I am surprised Clinton admitted the show is 99% accurate. I suspected it had a great deal of truth in it but never expected a politician to admit to that.
It’s a pretty good show for a remake. The production values are, of course, much more up to date.
Too bad it dedicated a whole episode to homo propaganda in the middle of this third season. Which is weaker than the first two anyway.
Very appropriate observation from the namesake.
Relativism is a bizarre thing to watch.
“Sure, he’s an amoralist, murdering, lying, sob. But he’s on our side so vote for him.”
Scuttlebutt says it is all about how wonderful mrs bill is/was as SoS during her tenure there, despited the lead actress looking nothing like her.
I loathe mrs bill, and hubby BJ as well, so all the reviews agreeing with that take made certain I never watched it.
The most likely reason is the writers don't have a clue on how to write from the POV of a Republican as the main character. They'd LOVE to have an member of the GOP as the symbol of pure evil, but couldn't figure out to do it. They went with what they were familiar with. Thus, he's a RAT.
The one element that I can't buy is that Spacey's character is a South Carolina DemonRat. If he was from say, New Jersey or Illinois, the scenario would work perfectly. But a white Dem from South Carolina in the 21st century? Even if he's a completely ruthless, power-hunger manipulator who eliminates and destroys people in both parties who oppose him, a South Carolina RAT would become a modern day Huey Long type figure at best. He wouldn't play with the national Dems, especially since he's a white male from the south. Regardless of his actual political views and governing style, a white Dem from South Carolina would also most likely portray himself as a "blue dog" and a "conservative" (or at very least, a "moderate") to rise to power and become a U.S. Congressman from there, which would alienate the national Dems even more.
South Carolina?
I can only conclude he represented the Black district, managing to win primaries despite his whiteness, like Steve Cohen in TN. Probably due to his power and length of term in office.
“The most likely reason is the writers don’t have a clue on how to write from the POV of a Republican as the main character. “
Mmm, makes sense. “The West Wing” tried to do it with Alan Alda as the Republican nominee in the final season, but they just had to make him pro-choice because they can’t respect a pro-life character at all.
Alda's characther didn't make sense for similar geographic reasons. Not only was he a Republican Senator from California, he had been an incumbent for like 20 years and won the GOP nomination as an openly pro-choice "moderate" Republican (though supposedly he was conservative on everything else). Both scenarios are very unlikely in modern-day America (a Republican winning statewide in California for decades and the GOP nominating an openly pro-choice Republican in the post-Reagan era). If I had written the character, I'd change him to an Ohio Republican and make him pro-abortion in private and earlier in his career but claim to be a "change of heart" on the issue to win the nomination nationally.
DJ, and AU, I think you’ve both told me you never watched “The West Wing” but I’m pinging you too.
I’d have trouble seeing him win the GOP nomination being pro-choice but ok, maybe it was a horrible field with Lard A*s former Acting President John Goodman as the main conservative. I have less trouble seeing him continuing to win reelection in CA as an incumbent John McCain type (McCain is conservative to Aaron Sorkin, I’m sure). Only his last couple elections should have been difficult.
What really bothered me was the ridiculous election results, even taking into account the stupid “nuclear accident” that turned it into a close race. Homestate Texas for Jimmy Smits, who’d never run statewide before, because Hispanics. No. Arizona was for Smits but Nevada was super close and in doubt till 3am? Vermont for Vinick? Vermont (even Josh Lyman, their expy of Rahm, flipped out over that) and Maine, a shoutout to Alf Landon? But not NH? Because they loved President Bartlett too much to ever vote Republican again? South Carolina for Smits, because they had a nuclear plant? (That’s where I went “WTF”) Homestate Cali Holds for Vinick despite all the Hispanics because he does better than expected in the bay area? What a bunch of garbage.
The only thing very realistic was Vinick’s subpar performance in the weird debate episode.
Nope, never watched “The Left Wing.”
I’ve never watched House of Cards, but a friend of mine told me that Spacey’s character represented the York County-based SC-05 (which white liberal RAT John Spratt represented until 2010, when it went GOP for the first time since Reconstruction). The SC-05 was like 30% black prior to 2012 redistricting, so, no, it wasn’t a black-majority district. When did House of Cards come out, like 2011? When they first floated the show it probably was perfectly reasonable to depict a white liberal Democrat congressman from SC, but by the time it came out Obama’s policies had made such a character a relic of the past.
Like DJ, I never watched The West Wing either. I don’t think I’ve watched a TV series about the presidency since the short-lived Mr. President, starring George C. Scott, in the first or second season of the Fox Channel (back when The Simpsons was a segment on the Tracey Ullman Show).
I remember watching “Mr. President” as well, though other than Scott, I don’t recall details of the show. Prior to that, I remember watching “Hail to the Chief” with a then just 38-year old Patty Duke as the first woman President (all I recall of the plotline was the military plotting a coup d’état).
You've mentioned that show before, that plot sounds cool, even though it was a sitcom.
I'd never heard of "Mr. President" which I see was also a comedy. Much easier to avoid real politics in a comedy. I'm reminded of the terrible movie "Head of State" with Chris Rock and the late Bernie Mac.
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.