I’d like a cite, then. I only ever recall it being on “The day of the California Primary”.
Edit: Specifically, I remember it being “The day of the California Presidential (duh) Primary.”
-Joe
I’ve been wondering about that too. I think that the memorable opening line was something along the lines of “The following takes place between 3 am and 4 am, on the day of the Califonia Presedential Primary…”
(Both Democrats, and Republicans run their primaries on the same day in most states, including Cali, right? So it wouldn’t make much sense to say the day of the Democratic primary as if the republican one was Thursday.)
However, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there was indeed a reference in S1 that Palmer was going for the Democratic nomination… though I admit I can’t remember when. Sorry Merijeek
Kinda my point. I think a good chunk of it is people assuming he was a Democrat because he’s black. I’d just like to see something definitive one way or the other.
(checks official 24 site)
Oops, there it is. I thought they were very careful about avoiding the party labels on the show. Guess not.
-Joe
Season 1, Episode 18, 5:00 - 6:00 PM.
Around “5:07”, this is a portion of the dialog between Sherry and David Palmer (with Mike Novick present), as they are reviewing a tape recording that shows David’s son has been set up for the murder he’s accused of:
Sherry Palmer: Because you’re gonna win today. You’ll have enough delegates by eight o’clock. You are the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, whether you like it or not. And if you decide to self-destruct, it will take years for the party’s platform to recover.
David Palmer: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Why don’t we let the electorate decide on that? And I don’t consider telling the truth self-destructive. And how bad will it be for the Democrats if somebody else comes out with this first and I have to go on the defensive?
I actually started watching 24 in Season 2 (and then went back and saw Season 1 afterwards). And I liked the fact that in Season 2 they never mentioned anything about party affiliation – so in my mind, Palmer could have been either. I thought it was more fair and balanced that way.
People can bark about the torture angle all they want, but I think the show has done a decent job of not trying to push a heavy-handed partisan viewpoint. One might claim, for example, that the show espouses a more liberal view because the “good” presidents have been Dems (David Palmer, and one could justifiably conclude Wayne his brother is in the same party) and the “corrupt” ones Republicans (Logan, and to some extent his predecessor Keeler, at least in his willingness to blackmail Palmer at the end of season 3). But actually there have been shifty characters in the administrations of BOTH parties.
Wayne was more of the snake-like politician in season 3 (David’s chief of staff), and David Palmer seemed more willing to go along with his tactics. In season 4, Keeler seemed more noble, and Logan a wishy-washy indecisive fruitcake. In season 5, Logan (presumably Repub) of course was the corrupt creep. And in Season 6, Wayne is now the noble idealistic one, with his vice president being the war-hungry tyrant. Tell me they aren’t mixing it up!
The one thing that seems pretty consistent in the show – lots and lots of power-hungry and less-than-honorable people in politics, on all sides of the political spectrum. 'bout sums it up, don’t it?
Eenterestinnk…
Of course, episode synopses on the official site aren’t as satisfying as references from the episode itself - but this gives us somewhere to look. I may try finding my S1 dvd set and popping in the appropriate disk… which would be #6 I guess.
ETA: Go Monstre!!
BTW, this dialog that I referred to – I’m pretty sure it was the first mention of party affiliation on the show. The opening titles on the shows did say, “the day of the California Presidential Primary” (rather than “Democratic Primary”).
Right, we should stop sending soldiers to Iraq and go after the likes of Sartre and Camus.
I think it’s also worth mentioning that despite the large amounts of torture, it fairly often doesn’t work at all. Case in point: Jack tortured the crap out of his own brother this season, and never heard anything but what his brother wanted him to hear. And various innocent people have been tortured, although I don’t remember if any of them ever ended up falsely confessing due to the torture.
Another stereotypically-liberal angle was the whole storyline earlier this season with the president’s sister and her Arab-American buddy, both in the sense that they were having their civil liberties pointlessly violated, and in that the agents kept assuming that various of the people they were holding were terrorists.
But the assumption was additional torture would eventually work. That’s why Papa Bauer bumped off bro before that could happen.
I honestly don’t remember a single tortured person who didn’t have something they were hiding that eventually came out. Even Heller’s hippie peacenik son was tortured but appeared innocent enough…until about 12 episodes later, when lo-&-behold, there was something he didn’t reveal! I should add that the umbrella term “torture” should include the means of coercing someone by either threatening family members (Saunders) or actually shooting them (Henderson)
This was, from my recollection, a first, but even then, Sissy Palmer has been the single most irritating character this season thus far. Anyone who brings up “due process” and such is typically portrayed as obstructionist, naive, and/or thoroughly unsympathetic. Hey, I agree with that position, but even they pissed me off the way they were portrayed.
Fundamentally, when it comes to larger foreign policy issues, the show weighs in on “ask first, shoot later” so is conspicuously more centrist than hawkish. But when it comes to our hero, there isn’t a law that he doesn’t mind breaking to get the desired results. When it comes to traffic regulations, breaking & entering laws, and hijacking & robbery, it makes for compelling television. But even after being tortured himself (presumably for months), Kiefer has still shown little hesitation in resorting to it this season when it suits him.
Essentially, torture is only bad when our guys are on the receiving end, and torture is always justified for our side because the clock is always ticking…ticking…ticking… I’ll admit that the show does try to be a bit more even-handed about things, but when your general position is “nuking a country prematurely is bad but torture is still the best way of getting what you want”, it still (again, sadly, due to the current political climate) puts you more squarely in the right-wing camp.
Especially Sartre. I think Camus just liked the aesthetics of existentialism.
How about Audrey’s husband? I know he wasn’t involved in evil, but I can’t remember if he had anything to reveal.
-Joe
No, torture proved him to be innocent. :rolleyes:
Yeah, it turns out his business had ties to someone-or-other that proved to be an essential lead in pursuing badguy-&-company (sorry, the details escape me now). But this is a great example because, like Heller’s son, they’re not intentionally withholding information. They’re simply not sharing something that they assumed (quite reasonably) to be totally irrelevant.
Any Intel dig would unearth this connection quite easily, but that’s not Jack’s MO. His MO is “What are you hiding!!!? When did you do this!!!? Why don’t you tell me the truth!!!?”, which naturally gets people defensive, uncooperative, and ripe pickings for some torturin’. When innocent people are accused falsely, they tend ot shut down; in 24’s world, nobody’s “innocent” since everyone has something to hide even if they don’t know it (cue wiretaps & reading our mail).
I think a ton of praise has to go to Sutherland for making his character as likable as it is given all the horrendous things he’s done (he plays tortured–in the haunted sense–quite well, which falls between the lines of the story & script). And don’t get me long, I like the show a lot–that is, until they hit a roadblock and you know someone’s going to get tortured for CTU to jump that hurdle (it would appear Nadia’s next on the block). They’ve been getting better (Season 4 was a torture field day), but it’s still troubling, not only to me, but now even our own military.
24 has never been about telling a quality, dramatic story (amnesia anyone?). Its been about stuff blowing up in really cool ways while the Hero saves the world. Or at least the US.
Generally speaking - left wing people on the show have been portrayed as weak, whiny, and unprepared to deal with the 24 hours in question. (e.g., the “not-amnesty international” lawyer. The Palmer sister. Karen, what’s-her-name. ) Generally speaking, the war hawks have been portrayed as right all along (even when they were impulsive, their instincts were correct).
The finger and cigar cutter was better? 
Kiefer Sutherland is going to be giving an anti-torture speech at West Point Military Academy.
I wouldn’t say that’s accurate.
Even this season, the Vice President is the biggest war hawk, and the portrayal is clearly showing him to be overly impulsive and wrong in his thinking. Karen Hayes is back, now hoping to reign him in – and trying trying to get Tom Lennox’s help in swaying things back. Tom is kind of waffling now between getting his own ideas implemented, guilt over allowing Assad to take the blame, and knowing that the Veep is acting like a bull in a china shop right now.
Season 2 – David Palmer was no war hawk. Nor was he portrayed as weak, whiny, or unprepared. He was going along with the chiefs who wanted a response to the nuke with a military strike, and by god they had the proof (the falsified recording implicating “three middle eastern countries”). It was the business interest trying to start the war to drive up the price of oil that was portrayed as “wrong” in the latter half of season 2 – and Jack finding out the truth and getting evidence that the recording was falsified, and trying to STOP a war – portrayed as “right”.
In fact, the administration that was portrayed as weakest and whiniest was when V.P. Logan took over in season 4 when the Prez’s plane was shot down. I assume that was supposed to be a Repub administration (since Keeler was Palmer’s opponent in season 3). And Logan called Palmer in (former Dem prez) to help him make the tough choices.
WTF?
How does the use of torture equate to being conservative? I’m conservative and I don’t condone the use of torture. Swingin’ a big brush there, Sunny Jim.
In one of the seasons there was a female CTU employee who was framed by the evil-black-woman-who-wasn’t-Sherry-Palmer as a mole, and was tortured but was completely innocent. (Am I misremembering?)
Both season 2 and much of the current season have a “we’ve been attacked… do we go to war, and how much?” theme, and in both cases, the main characters, including Jack and the president, have been on the side of less war.
Like BrainGlutton said: “Well, look at it this way: In America today, nobody but conservatives (specifically neocons) is defending the use of torture by government agents.”
When you have conservatives ranging from Charles Krauthammer to the National Review to Cal Thomas serving as torture apologists, it’s not exactly inaccurate to suggest that the advocacy of torture is more aligned with the right-wing platform (especially as represented by the current administration and its defenders). Did I say all conservatives think that way? Check post #5 for an answer. But finding high-profile conservatives who are vocally anti-torture (especially dating back a few years ago when Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo revelations were first being discovered) are more the exception than the norm.