2008 Election vs The West Wing
Proggresica
07-02-2007, 11:31
Here in Australia, the ABC is currently showing the sixth season of the West Wing, in which half the attention centres around the election. I find it quite amusing over how many similarities it's storyline/s about the different candidates has with the current one.
For instance we have Santos, who in this case is Obama, both inexperienced minority candidates. Bob Russell's equivalent is Hillary- they are both the initial/expected front-runners with White House experience as VP/First Lady. And of course there is Vinick who is a likeable, fairly liberal Republican; Giuliani.
Plus in both the show and reality there are rumours about a Russell/Santos, Hillary/Obama ticket.
Obviously this is meaningless, but I think it is pretty amusing.
Anybody agree/got more?
Nobel Hobos
07-02-2007, 12:23
"The West Wing"
Made by the US. About the US. Ignored in the US.
I love it too.
Let's do the same for Australian politics. We need consultants: I suggest Latham, Fraser and Keating. Let's do a number on the Australian political consciousness and knock this "Border Patrol" or whatever it's called into second place on the australian mde-for-TV ratings.
One year from now. Right now, I'm going for a walk.
You're right. It's brilliant. It's patronizing, elitist moonshine about how politics ought to be. It's the best.
Here in Australia, the ABC is currently showing the sixth season of the West Wing, in which half the attention centres around the election. I find it quite amusing over how many similarities it's storyline/s about the different candidates has with the current one.
For instance we have Santos, who in this case is Obama, both inexperienced minority candidates. Bob Russell's equivalent is Hillary- they are both the initial/expected front-runners with White House experience as VP/First Lady. And of course there is Vinick who is a likeable, fairly liberal Republican; Giuliani.
Plus in both the show and reality there are rumours about a Russell/Santos, Hillary/Obama ticket.
Obviously this is meaningless, but I think it is pretty amusing.
Anybody agree/got more?
You guys are late. The West Wing ended last year...I think.
Also, I think the parallels drawn in that season were for our 2004 elections, not the 2008 elections, but basically, they could serve for any election in the U.S.: a bunch of pandering idiots all greedy for more power.
I never watched the show myself, though. When it first began I wasn't into politics and by the time I was it was far too late. I'll eventually get around to starting via intertube downloads.
Imperial isa
07-02-2007, 13:15
You guys are late. The West Wing ended last year...I think.
Also, I think the parallels drawn in that season were for our 2004 elections, not the 2008 elections, but basically, they could serve for any election in the U.S.: a bunch of pandering idiots all greedy for more power.
I never watched the show myself, though. When it first began I wasn't into politics and by the time I was it was far too late. I'll eventually get around to starting via intertube downloads.
we way behind you in TV shows,the only ones i think we not is 24, the new Prison Break and some other new shows form over there
Khazistan
07-02-2007, 13:19
I never watched the WW. Was Bartlet a democrat or a pub?
Cannot think of a name
07-02-2007, 13:33
we way behind you in TV shows,the only ones i think we not is 24, the new Prison Break and some other new shows form over there
I forgot that Murdock was Australian until I was trying to figure out why you where up to date on Fox shows...
I never watched the WW. Was Bartlet a democrat or a pub?
Democrat. I think it would have been interesting if on the re-election Bartlett had lost. Or at the very least at the series finale
Not because of the OMG LEFT WING BIAS! but it would have been narratively interesting.
Imperial isa
07-02-2007, 13:47
I forgot that Murdock was Australian until I was trying to figure out why you where up to date on Fox shows...
Democrat. I think it would have been interesting if on the re-election Bartlett had lost. Or at the very least at the series finale
Not because of the OMG LEFT WING BIAS! but it would have been narratively interesting.
Murdock + Fox :eek: i did not know that ,i only know he owns some newspapers and some TV stations here
Proggresica
07-02-2007, 14:13
Murdock + Fox :eek: i did not know that ,i only know he owns some newspapers and some TV stations here
He owns News Limited aka News Corp which owns Fox and a lot of crappy tabloid "newspapers".
Imperial isa
07-02-2007, 14:16
He owns News Limited aka News Corp which owns Fox and a lot of crappy tabloid "newspapers".
man he got a lot of fingers in lots of pies
Nobel Hobos
07-02-2007, 15:03
...
Not because of the OMG LEFT WING BIAS! but it would have been narratively interesting.
AND Alan Alda would make a great president. Such a wonderful face. :)
Nobel Hobos
07-02-2007, 15:22
Murdock + Fox :eek: i did not know that ,i only know he owns some newspapers and some TV stations here
Yeah, he owns Fox. He also owns Universal Studios and the Times of London.
And BSkyB in England, Sky channel and Foxtel (with Telstra) in Australia, and whatever they call Sky in China. EDIT: Also the Sun in Britain and the New York Post.
He's the Antichrist, basically.
The only good thing is he isn't an Aussie any more. He gave that up so he could be a US citizen. Says it all really.
Farnhamia
07-02-2007, 18:04
You guys are late. The West Wing ended last year...I think.
Also, I think the parallels drawn in that season were for our 2004 elections, not the 2008 elections, but basically, they could serve for any election in the U.S.: a bunch of pandering idiots all greedy for more power.
I never watched the show myself, though. When it first began I wasn't into politics and by the time I was it was far too late. I'll eventually get around to starting via intertube downloads.
You should watch it. For the time it was on, it was very often the best show all week. There were some plot problems in the middle seasons, which is usual, I guess, but they recovered nicely and went out very well. You will notice a slight leftward lean in the show, but that can be gotten over (though I don't think it would bother you). And as you do watch, remember that the character of President Bartlett was originally supposed to be very minor, with the other characters, especially Rob Lowe's one, the main focus.
Oh, and Josiah Bartlett signed the Declaration of Independence for New Hampshire in 1776. Also, the astronaut Alan Bartlett Shepard is a direct descendant of that Josiah Bartlett. Bit of trivia there.
Imperial isa
07-02-2007, 18:07
Yeah, he owns Fox. He also owns Universal Studios and the Times of London.
And BSkyB in England, Sky channel and Foxtel (with Telstra) in Australia, and whatever they call Sky in China. EDIT: Also the Sun in Britain and the New York Post.
He's the Antichrist, basically.
The only good thing is he isn't an Aussie any more. He gave that up so he could be a US citizen. Says it all really.
Telstra what a joke that, is well good thing he not a Aussie now
Soleichunn
07-02-2007, 21:08
*Wistfull* Telstra reall could have been something.... as a reformed (and properly run) government institution.
Wasn't there an apology to the world because Australia let Murdoch loose on the world?
I have an article about it: http://brainsnap.com/business/australia_apologizes_for_rupert_murdoch
Addendum: With the article it seems a few people repeatedly posted a lot.
Imperial isa
07-02-2007, 21:17
*Wistfull* Telstra reall could have been something.... as a reformed (and properly run) government institution.
Wasn't there an apology to the world because Australia let Murdoch loose on the world?
I have an article about it: http://brainsnap.com/business/australia_apologizes_for_rupert_murdoch
Addendum: With the article it seems a few people repeatedly posted a lot.
but that would never happen as they to busy selling it off
Imperial isa
07-02-2007, 21:27
*Wistfull* Telstra reall could have been something.... as a reformed (and properly run) government institution.
Wasn't there an apology to the world because Australia let Murdoch loose on the world?
I have an article about it: http://brainsnap.com/business/australia_apologizes_for_rupert_murdoch
Addendum: With the article it seems a few people repeatedly posted a lot.
but that would never happen as they to busy selling it off
Maineiacs
07-02-2007, 21:36
He owns News Limited aka News Corp which owns Fox and a lot of crappy tabloid "newspapers".
So it's kind of fitting that he owns Faux News -- a crappy tabloid network.