The long awaited (okay, by me at least) season premiere is tonight. I’m not so sure about that title, Sorkin, but I’m sure it all might make sense after the show. Or it’s back to rehab for you.
There are some indications of how the plot will develop at the link, which some might consider spoilers, so if that sort of thing bothers you be careful what you read.
As background, when last we left, Bartlet’s youngest daughter Zoe had been kidnapped, terrorist are suspected, and the President has relinquished command as per the 25th amendment (IIRC) to the Speaker of the House Walken, played by John Gooden. A few episodes earlier Hoynes had resigned because of information he leaked to a woman with whom he was having an affair. Toby’s ex-wife just had twins, named Huck and Molly. Molly is named for the Secret Service woman who was killed during the abduction.
Before handing over the reigns of government, Bartlet held a cabinet meeting to gain unanimous approval for the acting government. His staff is in a similar position of possible mixed loyalties. Walken (Goodman’s character) seems to be a larger than life guy, a real hardass.
I think that about covers it. Now just 12 hours to wait…
PS: I’ve been watching almost all of the early season reruns on Bravo, which have been great. Last week/early this week they covered the attack in Rosslyn, which then went into backstory on how all of the key staff members got where they are and their relationships to Bartlet. Great stuff. Last night Bartlet was meeting with a group of talk radio hosts, and he laid into a Dr. Laura-esque character, quoting scripture chapter and verse to attack her stand against homosexuality.
It’ll be interesting to see what develops this year. And going back and watching the early episodes on Bravo, I was struck by how this plotline was forecast in the first season, with the president describing this EXACT scenario to Zoe. Looks like either some good foreshadowing, or someone decided it was just too good a plotline to pass up.
Haven’t watched last night’s episode yet, so can hardly wait – his takedown of the Dr. Laura-esque woman was one of my favorite scenes the first time through!
You do know, it isn’t Sorkin?
He’s gone.
This is the new writing staff… and I must admit I’m scared. So far, every single episode written by someone other than Sorkin has sucked. And I’m going to watch tonight, of course, but I wonder if they’ve figured out how to write it, or if it’ll suck from here on out.
Trion, I was just coming back in to say we should have a contest on what the title means. I was going to guess a number on a vehicle, but yours makes more sense.
Paul, it was because Bartlet was not reasonably secure in his ability to make the right decisions for the country while he was in the midst of this personal crisis. Toby made a comment in the episode to the effect of “He has to step down. I’d order a napalm strike on the Grand Canyon if that’s what they asked for to get my kids back and I’ve only know them 45 minutes.”
What if al Queda had your kid, and said she would die unless you nuked Israel? There’s the right thing and there’s the parental instinct, and they are greatly conflicted in this situation.
So, (and I’m only doing this because she is a fictional character), how many of us think that Zoey ends up dead? Sorkin showed a reluctance to kill off a major character (like Josh), but has no problem killing likeable supporting characters (CJ’s secret service guy). Zoey is an important character, but hardly a major one, and how the other characters reacted to her death could be an interesting plot line–Walken could argue that Bartlett was unfit to resume duties because of his grief over the death of his daughter, the relationship between Charlie and Bartlett could change, or Bartlett and Abby could have marital problems, and anyone of the other characters could decide the risks were too great and decide to leave.
I think I saw a clip that mentioned Walken trying to appoint a VP. Because he would most likely appoint a Republican, this could foreshadow Bartlett re-assuming the presidency, but then falling ill, thus leaving a Republican in charge. Wouldn’t that be a fine mess?
Six hours, 14 minutes left (by the SDMB clock - mine says five hours, 56 minutes)!!!
My MIL has been taping all of the Bravo re-runs for us on her Tivo. Haven’t had a chance to watch them, unfortunately. We’ve been very busy lately.
I never saw the season finale until last week, although I knew what had happened. I was ready to burst!!
TWoP has some great threads and info (someone checked and there isn’t a real Kinko’s in Dover), along with some (supposedly) insider tidbits, but I do love my Dopers best!
I hope Pierre Escargoaway gets his ass kicked (by the entirety of the WW staff!!) and is deported or something. Razzel-fracken frick-fracken cheese eating surrender monekey!
it has already been revealed in the press that Gary Cole will be playing him. Funny that, since he played Mike Brady in the “Brady Bunch” features, while ex-VP Tim Matheson played an imposter ex-husband of Carol Brady in the second film. Heh.
Anyway, “a friend” saw them filming the Rose Garden announcement scene right outside… “his”… window a few weeks ago. Cole is a Colorado congressman, possibly a Republican, and there will be much ado about his qualifications – they were shooting close-ups of Leo and CJ looking askance at Toby when Barlett mentions something about Cole’s “meritorious service”…
**Kallessa **, it wouldn’t matter what Walken thought about the Bartlett’s abilities. When Bartlett says, “I’m back in charge,” he’s back in charge. He would have to be again unseated by a no confidence vote of the cabinent.
I saw the VP commerical too, and I’m really confused. It would take at the very least several weeks, more realistically several months to select and get confirmed a new VP. Two questions, one on plotline and one on law:
How friggin’ long do they expect Walken at the helm?
If an acting president were to appoint a vice president, would that vice president leave when the acting president was removed by the resumption of power by the original president?
No. An action taken by an acting President, such as nominating a Vice President, is as valid as an action taken by the elected President. A Vice President who is nominated by a President (acting or elected) and confirmed by both houses holds an independent constitutional office. The elected President’s resumption of power would not divest the new Vice President of that office.
Well, an interesting episode. Much as I was prepared to hate, hate, hate Walken because I just usually feel that way about Republican presidents, he acted so annoyingly…presidential. It’ll be interesting to see what happens next week – from the quick glimpses in the promos, it looks like they may wrap up the story line next week one way or another.
** brianmelendez**, assuming you’re right, what would happen if this situation were cast in the standard sequence of events?
The president temporarily abdicates for whatever reason. The sitting VP is sworn in as acting president and then appoints a VP of his own.
When the elected president resumes power, who is the vice president, the elected VP who served as acting president or the appointed VP? If it’s the elected VP, what position does the appointed VP serve? If it’s the appointed VP, what is the position of the elected VP?
Thinking about this makes me very glad this situation has never happened in the real world…
When the Vice President is acting as President, no vacancy results in the Vice Presidency, so the Vice President-acting-as-President cannot nominate a new Vice President. The scenario on The West Wing is possible only because the Vice Presidency is actually vacant after Vice President Hoynes’s resignation.
[nitpick]By the way, the President’s role in filling a Vice Presidential vacancy is nomination, not appointment. An appointment is an act that confers the office to which the appointment is being made. The act that fills a Vice Presidential vacancy is confirmation by both houses, for which the President’s nomination is necessary but not sufficient.[/nitpick]
One fact that the writers evidently overlooked: a new Vice President would then become the acting President and displace the former Speaker:
Goodman is always, well, a good man (sorry ). His president does act with authority and assurance, but I found that they played the character rather too simply as blood thirsty. But I’m certainly going to watch to find out.
And I really liked how they played Walken’s first press conference. I think he did quite well answering the questions without answering anything.
