A Republican 'West Wing'?

[E-DUB]

There is that argument that any honest portrayal of what conservatives do and why they do it is bound to be perceived as insulting. And
Refuge's post reminded me of an old line where a US House member is told that the other party is merely "the opposition". The Senate is "the enemy".

 

[Gaith]

Keep in mind Vinick was supposed to win, but Leo's death (because of real-world John Spencer's death) would have swung people to support Santos.

The NYT did report that, but it's apparently been disputed by EP John Wells, as well as by (according to this site) the claim's original source, Lawrence O'Donnell.

As I said in my original post, I'd like to see a Republican govt that provided a good example of what a Republican govt could really be instead of the current shitshow (and whichever way you slice it, it is a shitshow). I'd like Republican viewers to see what a real Republican can be, and hold the people running in elections to a higher standard, even if only a subconscious level.

TWW's audience was mainly highly literate, high-earning (by broadcast TV standards) liberals. Given the increasing partisanship of the culture, I highly doubt a similarly highbrow show in which the Dems were losing antagonists would gain much of a fandom. I certainly wouldn't watch it.

 

[Australis]

The show opened with the Dems in power, my idea would do the same only with the Rs, so no losers, just the way it is.

Also, the runup to the next election, which would be at the end of season 3, would start in season 2, and that's when Candidate Seaborn would be introduced, and assembling his team, and the stump speeches, and so on, intercut with the new R candidate (b/c term limits), and then the team going a little backwards (s2) then getting ahead (s3) and winning (end s3) and the transition (s4&5) and starting to get their agenda on-track (s6&7). After that it writes itself. Well, almost. It needs Sorkin's poetry.

 

[Refuge]

The show opened with the Dems in power, my idea would do the same only with the Rs, so no losers, just the way it is.

Also, the runup to the next election, which would be at the end of season 3, would start in season 2, and that's when Candidate Seaborn would be introduced, and assembling his team, and the stump speeches, and so on, intercut with the new R candidate (b/c term limits), and then the team going a little backwards (s2) then getting ahead (s3) and winning (end s3) and the transition (s4&5) and starting to get their agenda on-track (s6&7). After that it writes itself. Well, almost. It needs Sorkin's poetry.

I can't help but think to Guy evoking 'Yes Minister' in that politics is best portrayed with satire and humour. When both sides can laugh or feel that 'gotcha' moment it doesn't feel as personal it's more... ahhh

 

[Australis]

I don't disagree in any way, but have you watched TWW, especially the first 3 seasons? Not only do they float big ideas, but the language flows, almost poetry. There's reasons Sorkin's regarded as a great writer - he might be a sumbitch to work with, but damn, he's good! Also if you haven't seen it, The Newsroom (3 seasons) and Studio 50 On The Sunset Strip (1 season). They both wobble a bit in places, and his female characters in those 2, for some reason, don't convince me, but they are still very good.

I can do Sorkin's Masterclaass, for scriptwriting, and I'm seriously considering it. Could be a useful tool in one's bag.

 

[Nyotarules]

They did, the show is called Scandal

 

[Australis]

Read the blurb, sounds terribly soapy.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Read the blurb, sounds terribly soapy.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[MacLeod]

The show opened with the Dems in power, my idea would do the same only with the Rs, so no losers, just the way it is.

Also, the runup to the next election, which would be at the end of season 3, would start in season 2, and that's when Candidate Seaborn would be introduced, and assembling his team, and the stump speeches, and so on, intercut with the new R candidate (b/c term limits), and then the team going a little backwards (s2) then getting ahead (s3) and winning (end s3) and the transition (s4&5) and starting to get their agenda on-track (s6&7). After that it writes itself. Well, almost. It needs Sorkin's poetry.

From memory Bartlet won his first term in TWW by winning the EC but losing the popular vote, I'm sure there was a line that more people voted for the other guy in S1 but it has been a while soo my memory might be playing tricks.

I can't help but think to Guy evoking 'Yes Minister' in that politics is best portrayed with satire and humour. When both sides can laugh or feel that 'gotcha' moment it doesn't feel as personal it's more... ahhh

What might also have helped in Yes, Minister, is that I don't think it was stated which party Hacker was from.

 

[Refuge]

Wasn't Scandal just more Democrats in power?

 

[MacLeod]

I don't disagree in any way, but have you watched TWW, especially the first 3 seasons? Not only do they float big ideas, but the language flows, almost poetry. There's reasons Sorkin's regarded as a great writer - he might be a sumbitch to work with, but damn, he's good! Also if you haven't seen it, The Newsroom (3 seasons) and Studio 50 On The Sunset Strip (1 season). They both wobble a bit in places, and his female characters in those 2, for some reason, don't convince me, but they are still very good.

I can do Sorkin's Masterclaass, for scriptwriting, and I'm seriously considering it. Could be a useful tool in one's bag.

That's Studio 60 not Studio 50. I never really got into that particular show as for the Newsroom

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

A great opening scene.

 

[BillJ]

Who needs fiction with the White House we have now?

 

[Refuge]

I don't disagree in any way, but have you watched TWW, especially the first 3 seasons? Not only do they float big ideas, but the language flows, almost poetry. There's reasons Sorkin's regarded as a great writer - he might be a sumbitch to work with, but damn, he's good! Also if you haven't seen it, The Newsroom (3 seasons) and Studio 50 On The Sunset Strip (1 season). They both wobble a bit in places, and his female characters in those 2, for some reason, don't convince me, but they are still very good.

I can do Sorkin's Masterclaass, for scriptwriting, and I'm seriously considering it. Could be a useful tool in one's bag.

I might have to do a re-watch as I only vaguely recall it. Not because of the left/right thing but seriously I can't remember actually absorbing it beyond much, like how I watch Madam Secretary for example, (hubby kind of likes Téa Leoni).

 

[Guy Gardener]

Wasn't Scandal just more Democrats in power?

http://scandal.wikia.com/wiki/Fitz_Grant

Republican

His staff rigged his election, and as a young man he shot down a passenger liner.

The usual stuff.

 

[Refuge]

http://scandal.wikia.com/wiki/Fitz_Grant

Republican

His staff rigged his election, and as a young man he shot down a passenger liner.

The usual stuff.

Good stuff!

 

[Gaith]

Okay, I think I've finally figured out the one West Wing reboot that just might work: a Sorkin-written/produced dramatization of the Obama years, with, say, 6-10 eps per season. There are certainly plenty of juicy stories to be told, but also a lot of hard truths, especially when it comes to corporate/Wall St. influence, and degree to which the administration's coziness to Big Money led Hillary to think she could get away with her Wall St. speeches, and led Trump to seize upon "Drain the Swamp" as an effective (if farcical, coming from the likes of him) slogan.

I think it's important to recall that The West Wing premiered years before social media, YouTube, political blogs and even 24-hour political/news channels became the huge influences they've been for the past decade-plus. Heck, The Daily Show wasn't even the phenomenon it became when the show premiered, and now the Jon Stewart years are a rapidly fading memory. (Yes, the show's later seasons addressed some of these matters, but not in depth or proportion to their real-world importance, in large part because the Bartlet Administration was already comfortably re-elected by that point.) Moreoever, at that point in time, I don't think politics was as personal and pervasive a fact of life as it's since become, and the upshot is that it would be frivolous at best, IMO, to try to paint as rich a tapestry as the show aimed for (and not always succeeding) in a fictional context.

With all our instant blogging, social media sharing, and in-depth coverage of political personalities by late-night comedians, we don't need a fictional West Wing reboot because we're living a real one already, as perverted and odious as it is. But a historical, honest, and challenging re-examination of the historical Obama years? Now that could be something.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

How's this for a Republican West Wing: A prequel, set during the Owen Lassiter years.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I will say about Republicans. I think that if the Republicans could ditch the racist and anti-gay wing of their party, suddenly their message would be a lot more attractive to most moderates. Then they'd be running on an anti-tax, anti-big government, fiscal responsibility platform.

When I debate with Republicans about issues like gun control, tax, etc, they are very good at defending their points. They make intelligent moral arguments I happen to disagree with. The only positions Republicans take that are indefensible are the racist, anti-gay ones, and most younger Republicans don't share those positions.

A story about that aspect of the Republican party, I think could be awesome, so long as they portray liberals as 'Well intended people who don't understand economics' and not like the propaganda you see on social media.

I take the liberal position on a majority of issues, a little more centrist on economic issues because I learned a bit about economic theory. But I have to say, liberals can be arrogant dicks in terms of their attitude toward people who disagree with them. And yes, some republicans aren't any better. But we have to think about what our goal is here. Are we trying to win people over to our position, or are we just trying to feel smarter than other people?

 

[Australis]

I don't agree with 'Well intended people who don't understand economics'. As I posted elsewhere (TL;DR), Left govts in Australia have proved time and again to be better money managers than the Right, and that's over the last 30 years.

But everything else, about showing reasonable Republicans, bang on the money, that's the kind oif things that need to explore.

 

[MacLeod]

I find either side can be clueless when it comes to economic matters. Each side has priorities when it comes to spending, i.e. increased spending on social programs or on the military. And saying you are going to increase taxes to increase spending generally doesn't go down well with voters, similar increasing spending and decreasing taxes isn't good fiscal policy. So it might seem a dumb question but as a voter I have to think "How are you going to pay for it."