Bush White House Is Pissed At "The West Wing"

...According to Washington Whispers, the Bush people are upset witht the depiction of religion on a recent show, & believe it was a swipe at George W. Bush...

...White House and GOP insiders say they feel like suckers after falsely believing President Bush 's re-election would be met with acceptance from Hollywood. Their tip: Last month's West Wing episode in which the Alan Alda character blasted pols who use religion for political advantage. "Just when Hollywood was trying to get back in our good graces," said one insider, "they used that offensive script." Bushies think the script was targeting their boss. But Lawrence O'Donnell, a former Democratic Hill staffer, tells us he was just writing a good story, and he adds that the Alda character is a Republican presidential candidate. Then he let Bush have it. "If the White House worries that when that subject comes up it is somehow aimed at the president, well, you know, who told them to use religion in campaigning so much?" asks O'Donnell...

...For those that haven't been following the show this season, the Republican nominee to replace President Bartlet is a pro-choice Senator from California, Arnie Vinick (portrayed by Alan Alda). In an episode entitled "In God We Trust", Vinick's chief rival in the primary, a fundamentalist Reverend (ala Pat Robertson), drops out & refuses to be considered for the Republican VP nomination because of Vinick's pro-choice stance.

However, the Reverend invites Vinick to "worship" at his church on sunday. This is a problem since Vinick hasn't been to church in years, and the press is starting to smell controversy. It is revealed toward the end of the episode that Vinick is somewhere between an Agnostic & an Atheist. When confronted by the press he says this...

Senator Vinick: "Look...I respect Reverend Butler, & I respect his church too much to use it for my own political purposes. That's exactly what I would be doing If I went down there this sunday. The truth is that it would be an act of political phoniness. I may be wrong but I supspect our churches have enough political phonies in them."

Reporter: "Senator, do you or do you not..."

Senator Vinick: "I don't see how we can have a seperation of Church & State in this government, if you have to pass a religious test, to get in this government. And I want to warn everyone in the press & all the voters out there, If you demand expressions of Religious Faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you, but a lot of them will, and it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes. So every day until the end of this campaign, I will answer any question anyone has on government, but if you have a quesion on Religion...Please go to church. Thank You."

...The above dialogue is what pissed off the White House.

•  That was a brilliant episode

  Of course they were pissed off.

  And of course, we loved it.

  Whoever writes that script needs to be a campaign advisor for one of our Democrats.

  by Plutonium Page on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:15:25 AM PST

  •  While...

    Lawrence O'Donnell, who wrote the episode, is not a speechwriter/consultant type, Eli Attie, who's written a number of good episodes this season, was a long-time speechwriter for Dick Gephardt.

    by profmatt on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:22:33 AM PST

    •  And Gene Sperling...

      ...who was head of the National Economic Council under Clinton, has also written some episodes (although I don't think any this season).  

      by Dana Houle on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:16:00 AM PST

      •  DeeDee Myers

        . . . Clinton's press secretary, is responsible for the GREAT character of C.J. and some great episodes.  I always can detect DeeDee's influence.

        by Cream City on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:35:22 AM PST

    •  Attie wrote for Gephardt?

      I thought he was a Clintonite through and through.  He wrote for Gore in 2000; still writes for him occasionally.

      by tlaura on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:39:01 PM PST

  •  I loved it

    The coup de grâce delivered at the end of Vinick's statement was incredibly satisfying. So much so, I've watched it several times to get that good feeling over and over again.

    Video here.

    by bumblebums on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:44:53 AM PST

    •  Wow

      I have to confess, that was the first clip I had ever seen of the show. Is it always that good? I'll have to start watching.

      by Zackpunk on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:19:16 AM PST

      •  it has been SO GOOD this season

        ...must-watch TV for me, after opting out almost all last season.  Love the Vinick character -- you could almost stand to lose to this guy for all his candor and realness.  Love the Santos character, Jimmy Smits, for his integrity, his passion, his Democratic ideas.  Seeing the choices and tradeoffs in campaigning has been illuminating (nothing new, but great drama seeing it play out).  I've been getting honest-to-God shivers out of many scenes and much dialog.  Interesting to know that O'Donnell is involved; I hadn't known that.  Great work, Larry, though I do miss seeing you as often on McLaughlin Group.

        by worldwideellen on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:35:06 AM PST

        •  You said it!

          Best.Season.Ever.

          ...well in a long time...IMO.
          I just don't want it to end.

          by MichaelPH on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:44:31 PM PST

          •  wow, you really think so?

            "WW" is probably my favorite show, but I think the writing has really deteriorated overall the last couple of years. Though, isolated episodes/story arcs have been good - the Palestine episodes, for example.

            Some of the primary election story threads have been good, but IMHO not good enough to make this more than a mediocre season. I think the show is on its last legs, but even mediocre "West Wing" is better than most TV.

            by snookybeh on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 04:10:00 PM PST

            •  I think the writing's better

              In previous seasons, the writing has been -- how shall I say -- such a mind-diddle.  Great fun for us wordy folks, but all up between the ears.  The dialog in past seasons, I think, completely overwhelmed plot and character.  This year I (we?) have become involved in the people and their challenges, and have thrilled to moments and phrases that have carried meaning.  

              Aside: Dincha love the scene where Bartlett and Vinick sit an eat ice cream from two-gallon containers?  Scene is so improbable, and yet, you wish it weren't improbable.

              by worldwideellen on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 08:53:46 PM PST

      •  Consistently one of the best

        shows on TV.  I generally refuse to book any engagements for Wednesday night.

        by mkfarkus on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:27:04 AM PST

        •  i haven't really watched this season...

          ...i started watching, but it was about people running and it seemed too hard to follow.  but they always have pretend nominees that you would actually want to be president!  too bad the real life counterparts can't have integrity and still get elected.

          by ejpoeta on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:46:53 PM PST

      •  Yes -- and you can catch up

        . . . because, in addition to reruns (check out Bravo, among others), several of the early seasons are on DVD.  They were great seasons, better than some later ones . . . but still I never have missed a one, as all are so much better than much else on the tube.

        My family, my friends, everyone knows that my Wednesday nights are not to be interrupted.

        by Cream City on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:37:07 AM PST

      •  Not always

        I'd say the two seasons before this one were so-so, but this one has been awesome. Maybe it's because of the new characters...whow knows. But this season I've been anticipating the episodes like I haven't in awhile.

        by vawolf on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:08:28 PM PST

        •  That's what I said . . .

          . . . to see the early seasons.  Jeesh.

          by Cream City on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:30:01 PM PST

          •  Wasn't replying to you

            Was replying to Zackpunk. Jeesh.

            by vawolf on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:35:40 PM PST

  •  I never watch

    And I happened to watch that night. It was fantastic--an invitation to be lied to indeed. How about the faux religion of Tom DeLay and his enforcers or even Bush with his torture.

    Garrison Keillor said it best: "Christians of convenience."

    by Marshall on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:57:23 AM PST

  •  right on...

    For awhile there I was telling anyone that would listen that Kerry should've hired Aaron Sorkin as a speech writer.  I think that the man behind Toby and Sam could've delivered some inspired oratory for our beleaguered presidential hopeful.

    my blog

    by simplesinger on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:18:01 AM PST

    •  O'Reilly's head would have exploded.

      That would have gone over well in the "Heartland"...Kerry's message being crafted by a Hollywood-type who's got a bust for mushrooms on his record.

      by SFOrange on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM PST

      •  screw o'reilly

        Bush has a DUI and rumored cocaine usage... look how that turned out.

        my blog

        by simplesinger on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:18:38 PM PST

        •  Re: screw o'reilly

          Bush has a DUI and rumored cocaine usage... look how that turned out.

          You're forgetting: IOKIYAR

          by JayBat on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:29:50 PM PST

          •  IOKIYAR

            It Only Kounts If You Are Republican???

            by The Termite on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:38 PM PST

            •  its ok if you are a republican

              thats what i got from it anyway

              by hazydan on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 08:50:45 PM PST

  •  Just when Hollywood was trying ...

    Sure hope this doesn't hurt GE's chances at defense contracts.

    Just love that (unattributed insider) quote: "Just when Hollywood was trying to get back in our good graces, they used that offensive script."

    Sounds like someone is a little too accustomed to controlling the media. And a little too touchy when a fictional show lets a script slip onto the air with even a little implied criticism.

    Gotta hand it to O'Donnell, not letting go:
    "If the White House worries that when that subject comes up it is somehow aimed at the president, well, you know, who told them to use religion in campaigning so much?"

    And thhose attemtps to get back into 'our good graces'? Here's an expert discussion ten years after the infamous Dan Quayle vs Murphy Brown dustup (Blitzer Interviews Quayle):
    

    BLITZER: Do you have any problems with the current sitcom, "Friends"? The character Rachel is about to have a baby -- she is unmarried. There is a father though, in that program.

    QUAYLE: We have won half the battle. The fact is if TV is going to portray someone having a child out of wedlock, at least they're going to have the father involved. And that's a very important step.

    
    

    by chimpy on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:05:57 AM PST

  •  yeah

    The problem is that no Democratic candidate would ever say such a thing, if recent history is any indication.  While I enjoyed that part very much, it made me depressed knowing that no "serious" (read: DLC approved) candidate would dare be so reasonable and rational.

    by matthewc on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:04:54 PM PST

  •  First Act as candidate - Hire Aaron Sorkin

    The smartest thing any progressive candidate could do is hire Aaron Sorkin (and several of the other West Wing folk) as speech writers/policy consultants.

    West Wing has more vision and intelligence than any politician we've ever had, with the possible exceptions of Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt or Kennedy - and is clearly up in that league.

    Wouldn't it be nice to have that level of leadership again?

    by AikidoPilgrim on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:45:22 PM PST

  •  Regrettably

    It plays better in the controlled environment of a television drama than in a real-life campaign.  If a candidate said that he'd be skewered for implying that his opponent's faith is a sham.  A lot of Americans want their president to be pastor-in-chief of the civic religion.

    by fishhead on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:49:34 PM PST

•  Bash you, love me

  Wait, the White House spends the past 4+ years bashing Hollywood, and now it expects love?  Who thought that one up, Wolfowitz? Do they expect those Hollywood studios to throw rose petals at them?

  by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:15:41 AM PST

  •  But what better way...

    to pander to their base, than to blast "Hollywood" for being antagonistic towards a Christian President.

    by Recordkeeper on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:25:14 AM PST

    •  Let's See

      Carter appeared to be Christian, Hollywood was mixed on him. Reagan did not appear to be Christian, they didn't like him much. GHWB might have been Christian, they liked him a bit better than Reagan. Clinton seemed to be more of a Christian. Hollywood liked him. GWB doesn't appear to be a Christian. Hollywood doesn't like him.

      Based on that sample, there doesn't appear to be any correlation between being a Christian and beind disliked by Hollywood.

      by freelunch on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:43:35 AM PST

      •  Don't Get it

        Why is this post a '1'?

        by Slade on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:28:19 AM PST

        •  I Don't Know, But It Shouldn't Be

          There's nothing objectinable in that post, and the people who rated it with 1's are abusing the rating system.

          by Dana Houle on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:29:45 AM PST

        •  I think we're suffering a major...

          infestation of trolls lately. There are all SORTS of "Whaaaa?" ratings being handed out this past couple of weeks.

          by Maryscott OConnor on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:55:49 AM PST

          •  Like Willoby Rating Slade with a One?

            You call out ratings abuse, and then Willoby gives the guy a 1?  There's stupidity, and then there's meta-stupdity...

            by Dana Houle on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:57:58 AM PST

            •  Agreed...

              this was what prompted my GCW diary the other week.

              We need to act to put these clowns into check here.

              Mitch Gore

              January 20, 2009... the end of an error.

              by Lestatdelc on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:10:05 AM PST

            •  The really funny thing

              Is that willowby just gave me a 4 for a comment that's not very much larger or better than that one.

              by Slade on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:57:41 AM PST

            •  Mmmm....

              Meat stupidity...slobber

              Sorry, couldn't resist :)

              by vawolf on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:10:46 PM PST

          •  And sometimes it is an accident

            Could be troll, could be misunderstanding and could be squirrely-scrolly mouse...

            It happened to me last Saturday morning while going thru Delay's judiciary "reform", etc.  I tried to give RHunter a 4 for a well-thought comment and used my scroll-wheel...it turned my 4 to a 1 because I didn't click on the page before scrolling down.  Georgia10's comment that she agreed/+ additional thoughts with RHunter, got the intended 4 it deserved.

            I got called out for giving RHunter a 1, but by that time I was off playing soccer-mom.  

            Fortunately, RHunter looked at my previous comments and ratings history and didn't take offense.

            I only found out about my gaff through a comment search fluke (I'm just full of mistakes), but I know that it can be accidental.

            What made my honest mistake hurt was that I have a great deal of respect for both RHunter and Georgia10's commentary...and they both inadvertently got the wrong impression.

            by polydactyl on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:53:06 AM PST

            •  Thanks for the support

              I have no idea what the cause was, but I'm not too worried about it. If accidental so be it. If intentional, I would love to hear from the critic why.

              As someone who occassionally moderates and metamoderates on slashdot, I appreciate that this one works as well as it does without the controls that /. had to install.

              by freelunch on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:02:35 PM PST

      •  I think you have inverted my meaning...

        I don't think "Hollywood" has much of a bias regarding the religion of politicians. But the Christian Right has a very strong aversion to Hollywood. It's a whipping boy for a major portion of Bush's wing-nut base. Bush/Rove loves to exploit the sense of victimhood in the born-again community -- that sense that they're all Daniel in the lion's den. If you listen to the television and radio evangelists, you know that they think Bush is making America safe for Christians, and doing his level best to prepare the world for Christ's return.

        by Recordkeeper on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:50:12 PM PST

        •  Doesn't make it true

          The claims of many self-described Christian leaders are often made without actually paying attention to whether the claims are true or not, from Young Earth Creationism to activist judges to whether they themselves are actually followers of Jesus's teachings. I see no reason to accept those claims just because they make them.

          by freelunch on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:26:17 AM PST

          •  Doesn't make what true?

            What exactly are you saying? The only statement I've made, that I purport to be true, is that among the Christian Right, there is a propensity to demonize Hollywood -- a propensity that Bushco plays to. I don't think much of what radio/television evangelists, or their followers say is true. In fact, I think it's lunacy.

            by Recordkeeper on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 09:07:23 AM PST

            •  Not aimed at you

              My complaint is with these so-called religious groups who allow the false claims of their leaders to bias their understanding of the world. The fact that their leaders are telling lies or presenting the truth in a nearly incomprehensible funhouse mirror version is of no interest to them at all. They prefer the lies of their leaders to the truths of reality. I merely make an effort to object to such attitudes and, furthermore, point out that such an approach cannot be Christian.

              by freelunch on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 11:05:20 AM PST

  •  They expected to be...

    greeted with flowers and chocolates.

    by geedubbee on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:43:46 AM PST

  •  they don't expect love,

    they expect to be MINDED.  However, the spanked child, spanked often enough and hard enough, will eventually return the violence.  One of the few things that gives me comfort these days is knowing there will eventually be a massive backlash to all the abusive and disciplinary tactics being used by these guys.  

    by MarkinNC on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:04:01 AM PST

    •  Eh...

      ...unfortunately these types never get violent with bigger and stronger people.

      They'll take it out on innocent children or women.

      by OrdinaryVanity on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:30:36 PM PST

  •  they bashed Hollywood so much

    they gave them tax cuts.

    by Liberal4ever on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:51:35 PM PST

•  hahahahaha

  It's FICTION.

  It's Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown ALL OVER AGAIN!

  'cept the foolish one is the President.

  by changingamerica on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:15:49 AM PST

  •  hehe

    I used to have a sig, that I saw on a bumper sticker, "George W. Bush: The Dan Quayle Presidency we never had." That seems right to me. :).

    by jj32 on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:24:44 AM PST

    •  Disturbing revelation

      I had a disturbing revelation some months ago, following the death of Ronald Reagan. I was watching  an interview of Dan Quayle on some news show.  It struck me as Quayle was responding to questions, that Quayle was smarter and better-spoken than George Bush!

      by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:34:28 AM PST

      •  The Chair You Were Sitting On

        Is smarter and more articulate than Dim Son.
        

        "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

        by JJB on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:35:44 AM PST

        •  My Chair

          fell apart an hour ago. No kidding. Even with that in mind, you are correct.

          by Nicholas Phillips on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:15:34 AM PST

          •  LOL

            That's happened to me too.
            I'm still laughing, though. Sorry! ;)

            by Margot on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:21:54 PM PST

      •  GWB

        makes Quayle look like a statesman.  The preznit has that effect for a lot of people.  Quayle was far better spoken that GWHB, he just talked about stuff that was stupid.  GWHB's abuse of the english language was famous, but he could deliver a speech.

        by unterhausen on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:10:12 AM PST

        •  So can W., can't he?

          I've always thought W. was pretty good at giving speeches.  It's when he's unscripted that he's wince-worthy.

          by Shauna on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:40:36 PM PST

  •  That's Right

    And as Quayle could tell Dim Son, you should never get into an argument with a fictional character from a TV show.
    

    "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

    by JJB on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:34:58 AM PST

    •  GWHB

      Don't forget George H.W. Bush's dismissive remarks about "The Simpsons" back in Bart's "Eat my shorts" days. From the Museum of Broadcast Communications:

      "U.S. President George Bush and former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett publicly criticized the program for its subversive and anti-authority nature."

      A couple of years later, Bush was voted out of office. "The Simpsons" has not only lasted 16 years (so far) but it generally has more incisive political satire than any other broadcast show, and it's in prime time.

      That Bill Bennett. He was a card. Or, to be more accurate, a trio of cherries.

      by darrelplant on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:07:34 PM PST

  •  I'll say it's fiction!

    Alan Alda a Republican????  Such a thing as a Moderate Republican?????  If Sorkin were still writing for the program, I'd say that he'd gone back to doing 'shrooms.

    If you look closely during the opening credits, it gives Alda billing as as cast member, but Smits is billed as "special guest star."  I think that's a good indication that Vinick is going to win.  And I will no longer watch what was one of my all-time favorite shows.

    Alan Alda a Republican????

    by Bulldawg on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:50:54 AM PST

    •  No...

      Alda is billed first (in alphabetical order) with the regular cast.  Smits gets a "with" credit after the rest of the regular cast, but before "and Martin Sheen."  If anything, that suggests that Smits is the front-runner.

      by profmatt on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:10:50 AM PST

    •  alda is a actor

      that means he can and does take roles that might not exactly fit his own personal beliefs. It's called 'acting'. What a great casting idea his charater was - the beloved 'Hawkeye' liberal playing a Republican.

      I note 1 fact that may indicate that Alda's charater will not win the election on West Wing:

      Alda is in the revival of "Glen Garry Glen Ross" on B'way. It has a run of 20 weeks. Normally, a 1 hour drama on the tv will start shooting in June for fall broadcast. So while it is not impossible to rearrange schedules for the sake of a star's other committments, I'm thinking it's not likely that Alda will be the new 'President' on the next season of WW.

      BTW, while I admire Sorkin for a lot of his work, he did not write all those early WW scripts alone, no matter what the final credit on the screen says. Don't have the time to explain the politics on episodic tv shows, let alone the Guild rules that cover credits, but Sorkin was the Big Dawg on the show, and he stomped around pretty hard, sucking up a lot of credits that should have at least been shared with the staff writers and the rare freelancers who got a script approved. (Look sometime at the credits of any show, it might say 'story by joe blow, teleplay by joe blow and fred smith'. Dont' get me started on the difference between the use of 'and' vs. ampersand - & - as in 'story by joe blow and fred smith'  or 'story by joe blow & fred smith") John Wells is a pretty much unsung hero in keeping the quality of the show high (and last year was a struggle he didn't always win).

      by NMRed on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:21:40 AM PST

      •  Alda's

        under contract with TWW through November 2005 as a recurring player, which is when the election will be decided.  They'll work around GGR, which has a short run for Alda and for Jeffrey Tambor, who (God wiling) will be going back to "Arrested Development."

        by profmatt on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:27:59 AM PST

      •  Yes, I know it's

        called "acting."  I just can't stand the thought.

        by Bulldawg on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:40:45 AM PST

    •  You can't tell from the credits.

      They are probably as accurate as tea leaves or Politburo photos.

      The credits are worked out with actors agents.  Absent other information it could go either way.

      by John Carter on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:23:05 AM PST

    •  Not just fiction

      Science fiction!

      by vawolf on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:14:38 PM PST

      •  Last Night at the Video Store

          I saw the Left Behind movies in the Science Fiction Section.  That gave me a laugh.  The books have their own "Religious Fiction" section at my Barnes & Noble that gives me an even bigger laugh -- it's all fiction.

        by slick riddles on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:39:41 PM PST

    •  Alan Alda Interview

      I saw an interview of Alan Alda about his role in the West Wing. Alda said that many people had said they were shocked!! that he was playing a Republican, asked whether he should be playing a Republican, and even whether it was right for him to be playing a Republican.

      Alda said that he told them that he had played the role of Hitler/a Nazi (I forget which it was) and no one said anything.  He thought he could handle playing a Republican if he could play Hitler/a Nazi.

      by LIsoundview on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 04:01:34 PM PST

      •  "He thought he could handle

        playing a Republican if he could play Hitler/a Nazi."  

        Well, playing a Rethuglican isn't much of a stretch from that then.
        

        by Bulldawg on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:35:41 AM PST

  •  Tragic lack of opposition

    This is what happens when Republicans run out of real-life opposition. Please for decency, for democracy, for the fictional characters, someone stand up to these thugs.

    And then they came for the workplace dramas, but I wasn't a workplace drama...
    

    by chimpy on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:22:36 AM PST

  •  Actually, it's official now

    that George Bush is foolish. They took a poll(see Netscape's What's New) and the most five foolish people in America are, Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, Martha Stewart, Paris Hilton..and coming in at Number Five, our President, George Bush.

    by Demfem on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:44:25 PM PST

    •  I like the idea of that poll so much

      that I don't dare check (Netscape What's New).

      by Heteraetcaetera on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:48:44 PM PST

•  no pun intended, but

  AMEN.
  I was hoping against hope that Kerry wouldn't take the bait and crank up his own religious rhetoric, but to no avail.
  I hope future politi-hopefuls follow this script and refuse to get sucked into the phony religion litmus test.

  by Rainman on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:16:05 AM PST

  •  it's the me-too, not the religion

    The problem wasn't that Kerry got all religious, it was that it was so obviously fake and "I'm moral too". If he'd had the balls to say "Mr Bush talks a lot about religion, but he doesn't even bother to go to church, let alone try to follow the teachings of Christianity", W would have exploded.
    

    by citizen k on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:33:56 PM PST

•  They deserve

  it if they were stupid enough to believe Hollywood, or anyone who didnt like the amdinistration's actions, was just going to somehow bow down and run and hide, because of his "mandate" which turns out was the lowest margin of re-election for a president ever. That episode was great.

  by jj32 on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:23:33 AM PST

•  To the White House insder quoted

  who the fuck cares about being in the good graces of the Bush White House?

  by pacified on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:27:19 AM PST

  •  typical upside-down inside-out version

    of the truth.  I betcha anything it's the WH that wants a better relationship with Hollywood. They just always say things backwards.  Will never admit how much they care, covet Star Treatment from HOllywood.

    After all, did you look at the talent line-up at the inauguration? Terrible.  Back rock, bad pop, second rate "stars"

    No Marilyn Monroe to sing Happy Birthday to W!  No Springsteen to celebrate him (remember the R's wanted to use "born in the usa" in the campaign)

    So, yeah, they may be willing to write off Streisand but oh no! No Butch Cassidy. No Sundance kid.  No nuttin'  What do you wanna bet they were hoping that the West Wing would replace Martin Sheen with a W soundalike ??? After all, there's been a lot of press about the West Wing wanting to represent the Republican side more-- & that, imo, was probably in response to a l-o-t of phone calls, intermediaries, blah blah blah.

    So yeah, the WH is shocked, pissed, miffed and hurt. Laura was probably watching.  And they had their hopes up.

    by Tulip on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:37:31 AM PST

    •  Come on, they've got Ron Silver.

      His strategist character on The West Wing is back, and I can't see his face and not think of the R convention. There, the writing was uniformly bombastic and the delivery absurd (and the "content," as some of us were shouting one of those nights: fuhgeddaboudit!)

      by cmlorenz on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:05:44 AM PST

      •  Ron Silver... agk!!

        Yeah, ob-noxious.

        But I'm serious.  I bet it's no fun for the cheerleader in chief to have to 'rough' it with the riffiest raff of celebs going.

        After all, how many times can you watch the Passion of the X?  

        by Tulip on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:21:46 AM PST

      •  I can't see Ron Silver...

        and not think about Triumph the Insult Comic Dog going off on him on MSNBC. ("Oh, come on, Silver! How can the Republicans be against gay marriage?! They all have sticks up their butts!!")

        by snookybeh on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 04:23:50 PM PST

•  Touched a nerve

  I guess the talk about religious phonies hit too close to home for Bush. I would love to see real candidates step forward and say something like that. The requisite religiosity is an insult to religious and non-religious voters alike.

  by jbindc35 on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:28:35 AM PST

  •  That was my thought too

    Why get so upset about it unless they see THEIR reflection in that mirror?  

    This just made my day.  

    by Margot on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:27:23 PM PST

•  Offensive?

  I really do have to wonder which they found more offensive... The implication that some politicians lie about religion... Or the fact that the West Wing had a Republican reminding people that we have a constitutionally-mandated separation between Church and State, and that we do not allow religious tests for government officials?

  by RHunter on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:34 AM PST

  •  keeping God out of Government

    seems like it should be the pillar of a conservative.  Conservatives should be for less intrusion, and the gov't getting out of people's lives.

    by pacified on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:31:17 AM PST

  •  We just watched it

    last night. TiVo is your friend.

    And the first thing I said was that it was pure genius to have a Republican deliver that speech.
    He looked so human while doing it too.
    And the preceding scene with Bartlet was great too-- he didn't let Jeb get condescending on him either. That scene was full of nice tension, but also comradere. Two good men.

    by Mozh on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:43:03 AM PST

  •  They covered all the bases

    They also had Bartlett sticking up for religion as part of his decision-making process.  

    by txredd on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:20:01 AM PST

  •  Preaching to someone else's choir...

    Jimmy Smitt's character summed up the 'why' regarding a Republican talking about this on The West Wing. When discussing an anti-immigration proposal with the (fictional) white Democratic Governor of California, Smitt's character said something to the effect of:

    People don't need to hear someone who looks like me talking about immigration issues - they need someone who looks like you.

    The unexpected is always more interesting.

    by WildRice on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:33:34 AM PST

  •  Comical either way.

    Our glorious leader and his almighty administration bent sideways over piece of script delivered by a primetime fictional political character.

    I guess they would come completely unhinged if Barney or SquareBob started offering up critical commentary.

    Don't they have any real world concerns to keep them busy?  

    by attydave on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:41:00 PM PST

•  Is this the same Lawrence O'Donnell...

  who does commentary for MSNBC? I watched him transform over the last few years, into a voice of outrage. He practically burst an aneurism, a few times, over the Swift Boat thing. He went after, what's his name, Mr. Swiftboat, so badly one night, he had to publicly apologize. He just kept calling him a liar, over and over again. It was beautiful.

  by Recordkeeper on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:36:08 AM PST

  •  Yes (n/m)

    by profmatt on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:47:21 AM PST

  •  John O'Neill?? n/y

    by jj32 on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:59:56 AM PST

  •  I don't think HE apologised

    but Pat Buchanan who was hosting the show, apologised for him, I did not hear that he apologized.

    I read the transcript, I wish I'd seen it. It sounded like moderate Bruce Banner turning into the Incredible Liberal Hulk.'

    PUNY REPUBLICANS! O'DONNELL SMASH!

    by bam bam on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:37:44 AM PST

  •  FYI

    O'Donnel has said more than once that he and Kerry are more than political allies. Kerry is his great and good friend. That's why he raged against the swiftliars in particular. He always defends Kerry vehemently against personal attacks.

    by paraphrase on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:26:01 PM PST

•  It was a great episode

  As have been so many with pointed messages this year.

  But excellent as Alan Alda is in the role, I can't imagine he wants to commit to a series again (unless the POTUS role gets put back to what was originally written, as only occasional,
  with the focus on WW staff).

  So I expect the next prez is Jimmy Smits, which means WE GET TO SEE A DEM PRESIDENT AGAIN.  Ah,
  perchance to dream.

  That also oughta tick off the Bushies, with their strategy to win the Hispanic vote, if WW has an Hispanic Dem win the White House, huh?

  by Cream City on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:36:35 AM PST

•  they will really go

  off their nut if Vinick wins.  A weekly twist of the knife that Bush is not a republican...but something different and not all that wholesome.

  And I think that is what the producers have in mind.  A little civil disorder in plain sight.

  by skippythebox on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:42:40 AM PST

  •  My prediction is...

    ...a bipartisan administration.  Probably Vinick and the Smits guy as Pres/VP.  No sophisticated analysis to support this prediction apart from the fact that it would make for some interesting storylines.

    by The Termite on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:08:19 AM PST

    •  asdf

      Alda has said (in pretty much no uncertain terms) that he doesn't want another regular TV gig, which I think kills him as the next POTUS.  As of right now, I'm expecting a third-party candidate (likely the Reverend) creating a deadlocked electoral college, with the House electing Santos (one of its own) President and the Senate electing Vinick (one of their own) VP.

      by profmatt on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:26:12 AM PST

      •  But the House on the WW is...

        ...controlled by the Republicans (Remember when Bartlett signed over control to the Gingrich-like character played by John Goodman?)

        by Geotpf on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 06:20:37 PM PST

  •  Santos

    I think that episode ended speculation as to who would be the next Wednesday night president.  Vinick's speech was great, but it was also political suicide.

    by G Spot1 on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:38:49 AM PST

    •  I actually

      thought his speach was brilliant!  Very good way of trying to heal the divide. To bad it won't happen in real life.  We will just keep pluggin' away until we finally go after each others throats like starving weasels.

      It would be really great if politicians realized that there are just some lines that you do not cross for a vote, and setting up an "us" vs "them" antagonism/hatred that they have for the last 40 years, may be the best way to win votes, but it is the worst way to govern.  All that is at the end of that particular path to power is blood flowing like a river in the streets.

      by skippythebox on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:06:38 AM PST

    •  absolutely right

      There is no way an openly agnostic or atheist candidate could ever get elected president.  Doesn't matter which party they ran under, too many otherwise reliable voters would stay home over the issue.  A GOP nominee would lose white evangelicals, the Democrat would lose black evangelicals and blue collar Catholics.

      by Beowulf on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:09:36 PM PST

•  There we have it.

  Seperation of church and state is offensive to the Bush administration. In fact, the US constitution is offensive to them.

  Nice.
  

  by Frank on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:43:49 AM PST

  •  Except for the Second

    Amendment, of course, w/o the inconvienient "well regulated militia" part.

    by Bulldawg on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:55:41 AM PST

  •  Don't forget...

    we're talking about people who think that "If (speaking) English was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for our kids."

    We make our own "Reality" indeed.

    by seronimous on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:03:38 PM PST

•  cool n/t

  by DrKate on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:45:42 AM PST

•  it's not freedom from religion

  i guess MArtin luther king should have shut up abotu his faith too when he was talking about changing civil rights laws/policies...

  i'm with (gulp) Bush admin. on this. typical secular Hollywood crap.

  not a coincidence that the last two Dem prez were highly conservant and comfortable with sharing their faith...or that Obama can reach so many people because of his deeply spiritual messages that a secular technocrat like Kerry could never do...

  by ihlin on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:48:11 AM PST

  •  aoeu

    We need that straw to build bricks.

    by TealVeal on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:05:36 AM PST

  •  Not inconsistent

    I think you're making a problematic inference here.

    You quite rightly say, and I suppose that I agree with you, that public figures shouldn't be prohibited from honestly explaining when and how their vision and policies stem from their beliefs.

    That is talking about faith.

    The episode suggests, however (based on the descriptions here; I don't watch the show...), that Alda's character was reacting to a de facto  requirement that he put on a pretense of piety.  

    Making this a demand on politicians is problematical and leads to the hypocrisy and political compromise he seems to eschew.

    by Chazz on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:08:56 AM PST

  •  the point being made by the evil secularists

    is not that politicians should be prohibited from speaking about their religious beliefs.

    Rather, that the Constitution makes plain:

    "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

    The founding fathers appreciated the countless ways in which religion might be exploited for political purpose.  

    Some of us evil secular patriots (and more than a few sincerely religious patriots) are grateful for their wisdom.    

    by willowby on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:14:24 AM PST

    •  FYI..

      That zero is for your other ratings abuses and not so much for this post.

      Mitch Gore

      January 20, 2009... the end of an error.

      by Lestatdelc on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:38 AM PST

      •  requesting politely

        that you respect the diarist's right to discuss here the issues he deemed worthy of his time and effort.  Posting solely about ratings is an abuse of the Comments system.

        Feel free to rate me as you're inclined; you don't owe me an explanation, and I don't need one.  
        ****************
        Back on topic, this was probably the best five minutes of West Wing I've ever seen.  Odd to hear myself even thinking this out loud, but the one thing I wouldn't criticize Bush for is photo-ops on church steps... although given the shameless manner in which he's preyed upon those who pray, it's more likely he just can't rouse himself from bed on Sunday mornings.

        by willowby on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:14:42 AM PST

        •  But Willowby, you are abusing the rating system.

          By doing so, you're making reasonable people look bad, in this very conversation.

          by cmlorenz on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:19:51 AM PST

        •  Nope, You're Wrong

          Ratings abuses need to be called out where they happen, not in some sanitized location where nobody will see them.  And calling somebody out for ratings abuse IS NOT ground for giving that person a one.  They're being responsible in trying to make the place work.

          You've completely warped the notions of responsiblity in ensuring ratings keep this place functioning the way we want it to, and you have an obligation to fix your abuses.  

          by Dana Houle on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:29:36 AM PST

          •  apologies to rimjob

            I have zero intention of adding to noise, and diluting signal, on other people's time and bandwidth.  If you want to take it up with me further,

            happy to discuss why I view comments that refer only to a rating as "unproductive" here

            by willowby on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:56:59 AM PST

            •  No, You Are Absolutely Wrong

              You're continuing to abuse a system that works well for over 40,000 users because it's against your individual sense of how it should work.  As an administrator with responsibilities for moderating these threads since 2003, I'm telling your unambiguously that you're wrong, and your obstinance in deciding that you get to dictate how ratings are used and standards are enforced is verging on behavior that justifies banning.

              It's a long-established convention with approval by all moderators that it's not just proper but encouraged to call out ratings abuse when and where it occurs.  That you insist that your theories are more important than community standards accepted by tens of thousands of users presents you as someone more concerned with imposing your own idiosnycratic beliefs on others rather than living by the standards accepted by everyone else.

              This isn't a debated point, it's a settled practice, and you're flouting it.  Consider this your warning to knock off the ratings abuse; if you don't knock it off and rectify your abuses  I'll recommend that your account be deleted.  

              by Dana Houle on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:29:11 PM PST

              •  no need

                I must say though that this is the most bizarre way of encouraging serious discussion of substantive issues, problems that affect us all, that I've seen online thus far.

                My opinion is fair and reasonable under any objective standard.  Comments that don't devote a single word to the issue the diarist deemed worthy of discussion, and in fact only proliferate more of the same, are the essence of "unproductive".

                This mojo system is a self-perpetuating beast; most of you frankly seem more concerned with protecting your cache than in reducing noise.

                There are far better ways to rid a place (ostensibly devoted to serious discussion) of trolls.  

                Peace.

                by willowby on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:44:32 PM PST

                •  You Didn't See The Discussion

                  It happened 18 months ago.  It's a settled issue, and you missed it.

                  And it's not about mojo, it's about only using negative ratings for comments of the type that degrade the dialouge here.  They're a tool to keep the place from descending into anarchy, but a tool that should be used sparaingly.  You're misusing the tool.  Fix you ratings.

                  by Dana Houle on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:00:17 PM PST

                  •  please pardon my insolence

                    >> And it's not about mojo, it's about only using negative ratings for comments of the type that degrade the dialouge here.

                    but you're kidding me with this, right?  The biggest impediment to dialogue here is the mind-numbing obsessive focus on what digit a given comment deserves.

                    I was under the impression that ratings were not intended to be used for indicating agreement, but for the value of the content.  I find neither value or content in "why did this person's post receive this rating?", and even less in yet another shrill cry of "RATINGS ABUSE".  Especially when that particular brand of nonsense comprises about 10% of every single reply.

                    It's clear the ratings can be trusted to the fair evaluation of the marketplace of ideas.  If user A receives an unfair rating by user B, chances are good that users C, D, and E will set things right.  This is what happened to the original poster above, and is generally what happens across the board.  We can all click on the numbers to see what a comment was given; we don't need 40,000 town criers.

                    Comments about ratings only proliferate more of the same.  They do nothing to improve the dialogue.  If the example on this diary (which users felt the need to take to two different threads and at least three other diaries) doesn't prove that to you, nothing will.

                    That you claim with a straight face this obsessive juvenile focus is intended to decrease noise, not about fragile egos, is the most absurd thing I've heard since the election results.

                    As I said above, no need to "recommend" that my account be terminated.  I'm happy to show myself out, and will continue to have the serious discussions our party needs in other venues that are more concerned with substance, and less with validation.  

                    But I was within my rights to rate comments without substantive content as "unproductive", and I won't change them before I go.  It's insulting and frankly, scares the living shit out of me that you would suggest such a thing.  When the fuck were you appointed keeper of my right to evaluate quality or profess value?  

                    Again, sincere apologies to Rimjob for contributing to the hijack--you deserved better. It was a great topic, and I'm glad you brought the clip to my attention.

                    Best of luck to all in your endeavors for the success of our party, its platform and its candidates.

                    by willowby on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:07:24 PM PST

                    •  Profound Misunderstanding

                      When the fuck were you appointed keeper of my right to evaluate quality or profess value?

                      It's not about quality, it's about utility.  You refuse to show you accept what everyone else uses the ratings for, as and insist they be used for a different purpose.

                      by Dana Houle on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:14:58 PM PST

                      •  well judging by the comments

                        on the various diaries devoted to ratings over the last week, not "everyone" agrees this "utility" makes one whit of sense.

                        You're in a state of absurd denial if you don't see that comments on ratings only proliferate more comments on ratings.  All it takes is a pair of eyes.  I am not the only one reaching for a brick to BASH MY OWN BRAINS OUT every time I run across one.  Or eighty, as on lightiris' diary.

                        You have chosen to continue this unproductive, unsubstantive discussion on someone else's diary.  I asked several times to take it to a more appropriate venue, one that would better serve those interested in discussing it.  And more importantly, give those who DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK WHAT NUMBER JOE CHOSE TO GIVE TO SUSIE a break from the nonsense.

                        Take your so called "utility" to a dictionary, and then take ten minutes to consider its meaning.  Look up "unproductive" while you're at it.

                        Finally, and this is my last word on this...

                        You're hurting America.  Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.

                        by willowby on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:44:39 PM PST

        •  Bunk

          There is not such dictate or guideline that calling out ratings abuse in the thread it occurs in is verboten.

          Mitch Gore

          January 20, 2009... the end of an error.

          by Lestatdelc on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:42:29 PM PST

  •  Lieberman talking points...

    ...(yes I heard him on Meet the Press saying exactly what you're saying, word for word) might as well be Republican talking points.

    If you want to practice your religion, you've got all the freedom in the fucking world.  Have at it.  Go crazy.  But if you want to live in a theocracy, I hear there's a vacant room at the Vatican.

    And while I've got your attention, please refrain from implying that MLK was in any way a proponent of religion in government.  It's a gross warping of his spirit and his message.

    by The Termite on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:17:01 AM PST

  •  Obama knows the difference

     "I am not running for preacher of Illinois."

    -Obama

    by white blitz on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:19:10 AM PST

    •  AMEN!!!

      God, I love that man!! :D
      

      Sean Robertson on Twitter

      by Sean Robertson on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:59:40 AM PST

  •  Big Surprise

    You're always with anyone who's criticizing Democrats and liberals/progressives for not being godly enough.

    Sorry Ihlin, but your pot shots at people for not being with the Republicans in pointing out the slivers in others' eyes while ignoring the planks in their own got tiresome about a year ago.

    by Dana Houle on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:19:47 AM PST

  •  My freedom of religion

    includes the right to be free from yours.

    by MAJeff on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:21:04 AM PST

  •  You didn't watch the show did you?

    The premise of the episode was that false piety was far, far worse than none at all.  In short it was okay for Pres Bartlet to be at church every Sunday and holy day because President or not, he'd be there.  OTOH Arnie Vinick shouldn't show up at church every Sunday just because he thinks the voters demand that of him.  Instead, Senator Vinick decided that he honored religion best by being honest in his ambivalence about it.

    Is President Bush upset because he fears that people will discover his piety is false?

    by akeitz on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:21:37 AM PST

    •  Not that

      He's afraid people will discover he doesn't even GO to church.

      by mmacdDE on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:40:00 PM PST

      •  I disagree

        At first yes he's afraid that people will realize he hadn't been to church in years.  But then he's offered a coward's way out -- he can show up at his rival's church for Sunday services, pay him due homage and in return receive political cover from him.  Instead of taking that easy way out Vinick decides that honesty is truly the best policy.  

        So the premise isn't whether or not the electorate will discover he's not a regular church goer, but how Vinick decides deal with it in his campaign.

        by akeitz on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:57:51 PM PST

        •  The person referenced is GWB, not Vinick

          in the post to which you responded.

          While the plot revolves on how Vinick handles it, the underlying issue is the separation of church & how we're all dealing with it.

          by wont get fooled again on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:42:36 PM PST

          •  Wasn't clear who "he" was was it?

            But yes the inference, about as subtle as an anvil is that the ultra relgious minority in the US tends to demand that religion be shoved down the throats of everyone, believers or not.

            by akeitz on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 05:01:16 PM PST

        •  He wasn't honest

          Honest would be saying, "I'm honored, but I'm not a Christian."

          He didn't say that, did he?

          He went as far as he could and still have a chance at being elected, but he wasn't honest.

          by Geotpf on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 06:29:17 PM PST

          •  He isn't sure if he is or isn't.

            Vinick wasn't sure -- as an agnostic he's in the hazy world between "being a Christian" and "being an Atheist" -- thus I don't feel his speech was dishonest.

            by akeitz on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:07:56 AM PST

  •  Typical Theocratic Crap!

    Nobody is saying that people should shut about anything.

    What's being said is that folks who want a religious test for office (officially banned by the Constitution, btw) are just asking to be lied to. Which, of course, would be taking the Lord's name in vain. (You didn't think it was just about swearing, did you? Swearing is trivial. It's just bad manners.)

    It's not really that hard to tell the difference. Just read or listen to any of King's speeches, and you'll hear the reasoning involved--reasoning that reflects long hours of thought, study and struggle.  But listen to Bush and what do you get? Nothing but pompous posturing.  And he knows it.  Hence the White House's outrage.

    As they say down south, "A stuck pig squeals."

    Guess that applies to you, too, ihlin.

    Oink! Oink! Oink! Oink! Oink!
    

    by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:52:21 AM PST

    •  the direct quote in the Constitution

      From Article VI:

      Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

      I'm offended at the White House being offended! :-)   I think, actually, that the Alda/Vinnick character lifted the "religious test" terminology directly from this clause somewhere in his answer to the press.

      by billlaurelMD on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:34:05 PM PST

      •  doesn't that prove

        that the intentions of the forefathers was to keep religion out of government.  i have never read the costitution, and therefore have never even heard this provision!  i guess its like the bible.... they tell you what they want you to know.  that's no excuse.  we all have an obligation to know what our country is about.  i really need to actually read the constitution.

        by ejpoeta on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:10:13 PM PST

        •  Yeah Read the Constitution

             There's lots of good online versions with explanations -- just google and go.

          by slick riddles on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:28:46 PM PST

          •  thanks! I definitely will!

            by ejpoeta on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 05:52:47 PM PST

  •  "Culture of Life" are we?

    I have no problem with linking a vision and values to spiritual beliefs. In other words, I believe life is sacred, so no death penalty (period).

    That's not what we're getting. We're getting "God tells me this, so that's what we'll do". "Culture of Life", for instance, is a great slogan, but utterly meaningless when coupled with torture, needless war, death sentences, rampant poverty, lack of health insurance, etc. etc.

    "Culture of Life" is actually meaningless in all circumstances (unless you can show me a nation/government that has opted for something else). Instead of principles, we get slogans. It's no that there's no link between spiritual beliefs and policy, but that spiritual beliefs are not the same as policy, and the only people talking up the link are people making policy opposed to their own supposed spiritual beliefs.

    I have assumed here that you are simply misguided, and not a troll. Either way, I don't want politicians making policy based on anything other than the needs and values of the state, not their interpretation of their religion.

    by thingamabob on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:57:17 AM PST

    •  'Culture of Life'

      Is blatantly lacking in any meaning.  It is intended to sound good, while actually not meaning anything.  Its a nice sound byte.  That way good christians can say... yes.  culture of life. and feel good about supporting a president that actually represents killing innocent iraqis and starving children and families... but says he is religious.  

      by ejpoeta on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:12:35 PM PST

      •  Re: 'Culture of Life'

        The Culture of Life™ is a frame designed to suppress dissent:

        "We are for the Culture of Life and we believe X, Y and Z." Thus, opposing (or even questioning) X, Y, or Z puts you in opposition to life itself.

        What irritates me is that many still seem to assume that pointing out the logical inconsistencies in these things are the way to fight them. "How can he be for the 'culture of life' when he (executed so many|started an illegal war in which thousands have died|rams through tax cuts for the rich while poor children starve)????" Of course these thing are all true, but veracity isn't what the frame is about-- its about giving people a way to feel good about themselves without really having to do anything. "Life is good, death is bad. He says he's for life, that makes him good. By voting for him, that makes me good too." End of story.

        If we diverted a fraction of the energy that we blow on detailing the winger's logical fallacies to creating and reinforcing our own positive frames the Xtreme Right would be lucky to fill a tin shack in Toledo.

        by kingubu on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:26:29 PM PST

  •  You hate secularism?

    Your post smacks of contempt for secularism. BTW, not sure how secular "hollywood" is given the numerous offering which touch on religion (form Ben Hur to Joan of Arcadia).

    BTW, I actually think what you bring up bout MLK is worth discussing (hence my rating up your post which does not rdeserve troll ratings at all), who often spoke of a loving community and his actions were prompted by his religious beliefs and convictions. However, that said, what he was advocating for transcended any religious doctrine. In fact what he advocated for is at the very core of secular humanism as well.

    Mitch Gore

    January 20, 2009... the end of an error.

    by Lestatdelc on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:58:16 AM PST

    •  I wish i could find the study

      but IIRC, there was a study a feew years ago and the percentof characters on primetime TV who claimed a belief in God was greater than the population in General so there goes the Secular Hollywood myth.

      by ETinKC on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:27:25 PM PST

  •  Bleah.

    Faith, or lack thereof, is a private matter.  Public protestations of religiousity have always seemed self-serving first and foremost (ouch, that's a lot of alliteration).

    Politicians, Mr. Obama included, who make a point to refer to a deity in every sentence are, in my view, pandering, plain and simple.  Not that there's anything wrong with that!  Dems should use every tool and tactic available to them, we just shouldn't fool ourselves about the sincerity of the message or the messenger.

    by imatlas on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:42:33 AM PST

    •  faith is never private

      again, this thread reminds me of the stark divide between white vs black Democrats. if you watch Tavis Smiley's State of the black Union on CSPAN, the solution to our problems was God and the Bible, not political parties, Democrats or Republicans. speaker after speaker said that public policies can never be divorced from faith and the moral foundations of the Bible. Disagree with that if you want, i am just giving the perspective of minority folks (and plenty of folks in the South).

      As progressive evangelical Jim Wallis says, "The gospel is personal, but it is never private."

      http://www.homileticsonline.com/subscriber/interviews/wallis.asp

      by ihlin on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:03:19 PM PST

      •  I have tried to answer you three times.

        I couldn't, because if I expressed what your comment really made me feel, we'd be in a flame war.

        But, don't you see how that attitude exposes them to manipulation, by cynical politicians who aren't even slightly religious, but have learned to chant the right set of magic words?

        Even worse, you might get rulers who truly believed that God was speaking through them. Ask the people of Iran how well that works out.

        The solution to your problems... Dear, oh dear, dear me. If Americans think that, they are in for a sad, horrible few decades. They will learn through bitter experience that theocracy is not an improvement on democracy.

        (walks away, shaking head)

        by Canadian Reader on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:44:39 PM PST

        •  i'm not advocating for theocracy!

          can you please read the Jim Wallis interview? i don't need to repeat him.
          

          by ihlin on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:21:09 PM PST

          •  I respect Jim Wallis.

            But he's saying something quite different from what I, at least, gleaned from your post.

            He's saying that Christians should use their faith as a touchstone to decide what public policies to support. Fair enough; everyone has to use what they believe to be right, to decide if public policies are just. What other touchstone could one use?

            He's also saying that Christians should speak out, and act as the conscience of the state. Again, fair enough. That's everyone's duty as a citizen: If you think a policy is wrong, you should always say so out loud, and if possible, do something.

            I have a little problem with his unconscious assumption that non-religious people don't also have a necessary role as the conscience of the state. A sense of right and wrong is not confined to religious people, and it is insulting when they assume it is. But give that a pass for now. It's just one of those embedded false assumptions that a lot of... well, Christians particularly, since they are so much in the majority... have never gotten around to questioning.

            I'm in favor of any organization that chooses to work for peace, social justice, and the common good, whether it's a church or the ACLU.

            I'm not in favor of anyone who says, "Public policies can never be divorced from faith and the moral foundations of the Bible."

            The problem, you see, comes in with, who gets to interpret the Bible and say what its moral foundations are. If it's just Jim Wallis, well... that might not be so bad. He's a reasonable man.

            But it won't be a Jim Wallis. Once you admit the principle that "faith" trumps law, and "the moral foundations of the Bible" should override the Constitution (in Canada, I'd say, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, except we don't have this problem in Canada), then what you get are the worst sort of publicity hounds like Randall Terry, and the hypocritical politicians like Tom DeLay, elbowing their way to the forefront with their synthetic declarations of "faith" -- which fool a lot of naive people who can't tell the difference.

            Churches, plural, should absolutely speak out on moral questions as they see them. Different churches are going to emphasize different issues. Churches will strongly disagree amongst themselves about what action is moral. Non-religious people should also have their voices heard on moral questions. All of this is right and proper, and part of the dialog needed in a vital democracy.

            What kills democracy, though, is to establish one doctrinal view as the only right one. And that is the danger I see the US succumbing to now. A small subgroup of Christians are presuming to speak for "Christianity" -- and essentially denying the validity of all other religious and spiritual traditions.

            And that leads to... well, either the evils of an established religion, if the other traditions submit to being so misrepresented, or if they resist subjugation, which is most likely, to religious strife.

            The reason this is surfacing now in the US, is that you have allowed religion to become a pathway to temporal power. That is why your founders established a secular state -- power tempts religion into corruption, and causes religious wars and oppression. They were right, and the US today is making a mistake to discard their wisdom.

            by Canadian Reader on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 04:28:38 PM PST

      •  not one of the plenty

        "i am just giving the perspective of minority folks (and plenty of folks in the South)."
        Something about that sentence bothers me, but I'm just giving you the Anglo-Saxon perspective on your comment.

        by paraphrase on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:45:16 PM PST

      •  You are presuming

        that all minorities are in agreement with you, and I assure you that this black minority is certainly not in agreement with you.

        by MojitoChica on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM PST

        •  not all miinorities

          just most. did you see the Pew Forum polls that showed the only group who wished Bush could talk about religion MORE often was African Americans? I personally don't care to hear about God from any of our politicians, but I know from my own family/community how important this is. it's an electoral reality that we can't will away. The Tavis Smiley forum was nothing new, but was extraordinary to hear nonetheless Farakkhan and others express the same views on faith and politics.

          by ihlin on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:17:59 PM PST

        •  Not all Southerners, either...

          *speaking as a lifelong Southerner*

          by OrdinaryVanity on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:36:52 PM PST

      •  Sorry to say this...

        but my faith is private.

        And when someone steps into/onto my personal belief system, they tend to get their hat handed to them. Do not ask me if I've accepted Christ as my lord and saviour. Do not tell me that the only path to salvation is through your particular belief system. And do not, I repeat, do not try to tell me that my life choices are not acceptable because your belief system tells you that I'm wrong.

        King's faith inspired him to exapnd the rights of people throughout the country. That's expansion of rights rather than suppression of rights. It came from within him and his relationship with his creator.

        Lately...I see people using faith to repress the rights of the people. I hear of churches telling parishoners to vote against this person beucase that candidate will not legislate repression on the larger American community. But at the same time the same churches are silent on not voting against the candidate who supports the repression of rights even though he/she supports other policies that the churches oppose as well. Why?

        Faith is very personal. And it is a private matter.

        </rant>

        by kredwyn on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:32:27 PM PST

  •  early morning april 4

    shots ring out in a memphis sky
    free at last
    they took your life
    they could not take your pride
    in the name of love
    what more in the name of love

    this is NOT THE DAY to make snarky comments about MLK and agree with Bush in the same post.

    MLK was not an elected official.  Big difference. His politics also flowed from a sincere faith that he backed up with his life.  I won't hold my breath while you try to think of Republicans who can match that.  The sincere faith part, I mean.  The entire Religious Reich seems like a bunch of phonies to me.

    As for TWW, I missed the ep, but if they hit a nerve, good.  Someone upthread said it best--Republicans hate mirrors.

    I was in a Zogby poll a few weeks ago where they asked these two questions:  (1) Who do you want to win between Vinick and Santos; and (2) Whose win do you think would make the better dramatic series, Vinick or Santos?

    I know Bartlet has been our fantasy Dem president during these horrible Bush years, but it might be interesting to see a Republican president on the show with a functioning, intelligent and powerful Democratic opposition party.  You know, one that occasionally stands up to the President and wins a few legislative battles?  That's an equally potent fantasy in my book these days.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:43:03 PM PST

    •  There is a diary on MLK

      dropping fast.

      by SisTwo on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 04:04:32 PM PST

•  I think this is why I couldn't get into The WW

  I'm sorry, but no presidential candidate is ever going to fess up to being "somewhere between an Agnostic & an Atheist." This just doesn't happen. People who run for president are caught in a time warp where the non-believers say stuff like, "My family has been attending [mainstream protestant church] for years." Having a serious public discussion of a politician's non-belief is not going to happen. Besides, what kind of politician "hasn't been to church in years"? This is part and parcel of the campaign process.

  This sort of thing just reminds me of the shallow secular wishful thinking of The Contender.

  Other than that, the real White House reaction: hilarious.

  by Constantine on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:53:46 AM PST

  •  Well....

    ...he didn't "fess up" to the public. You find it out in a private conversation. He never tells the public his religious views.

    by Rimjob on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:56:08 AM PST

    •  Well, not exactly

      The comment about somewhere between agnostic and atheist was the poster's, I think, not on WW.  Scroll back up and see.  It also shows which of the character's comments were in public, i.e., a press conference.

      by Cream City on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:59:01 AM PST

  •  It's too bad that it amounts to...

    ...wishful thinking.  What the HECK does religious affiliation REALLY add to how competent someone would be as President?  Religion and morality are NOT intertwined.

    by OrdinaryVanity on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:57:58 AM PST

  •  Going back to their roots?

    I think adding an agnostic/atheist, pro-choice Republican to the cast is a stroke of brilliance. And it goes back to the utopian roots of the show. Part of its political impact, even during the Clinton years when many of us still felt great things were possible (even if we'd already been disappointed by the man himself), is to point out the discrepancy between possibility and reality in this country. With the new ensemble of writers, WW has gone over into realpolitik more often than it did in the earlier years, when Bartlett's idealism reigned supreme. But wouldn't it be great to see a SANE and RATIONAL Republican - one who actually believes in science - in the White House, even if it's only for an hour a week? Wouldn't the contradictions be too delicious? I hope Alda sticks around for this reason, but also because I don't think Smits works well with the ensemble cast.

    by mindofwinter on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:50:58 AM PST

  •  I don't know about you

      but I get enough reality in day-to-day life.  It's ok with me if a TV drama plays a little fast and loose.

    by slick riddles on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:11:58 PM PST

  •  maybe not now

    
    no presidential candidate is ever going to fess up to being "somewhere between an Agnostic & an Atheist."
    

    
    But Thomas Jefferson never hid the fact that he was nominally a Unitarian and more likely a Deist.

    One wonders if Jefferson would be considered a godless liberal by the mouth breathing fundie crowd.

    by tomaxxamot on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:19:00 PM PST

•  fantastic episode

  It had me snapping my fingers throughout. (yes I applaud like a beatnik). My favorite part was both sides of the discussion between Barlet and Vinick. Vinick implied that Barlet was using religion as a grandstanding opportunity. Barlet shot back that he had been started going to church long before he became a politician. Vinick claimed he had too.

  The really wierd thing about the episode for me was a Jimmy Smits flashback. Any old foggies remember LA Law? There was an episode where he was defending someone in a condition similar to Terri Shiavo. He described what death by dehydration would be like for her. I wonder if the Shiavo circus has given him flash backs to that LA Law episode.

  by white blitz on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:00:04 AM PST

•  Something I picked up on the internets

  I hear Bush doesn't go to church very often.  Maybe if some religious figure actually called him on it, he would use Alan Alda's line.

  by ankylosaurus on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:00:14 AM PST

  •  actually

    From what I understand (too lazy to re-research this), Bush isn't even currently a member of a congregation. At least not in DC. Maybe -- maybe -- in Wac(k)o.

    Well, now that I think of it... since he spends so much of his time with his Fisher Price Chainsaw(TM) on his Ranch(TM), perhaps it's no big deal that he doesn't go to church in Washington...

    by swilldog on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:01:51 AM PST

•  if they're pissed off about the West Wing

  That means the show is doing something right! Good job, WW!

  by catnip on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:05:25 AM PST

•  Methinks the lady

  doth protest too much.

  by Cheez Whiz on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:08:43 AM PST

  •  I was just scrolling down

    to see if anyone has used the exact line I was going to.
    Now I don't have to. :)

    by Mozh on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:50:13 AM PST

•  Does the Bush White House

  want some whine with their ?

  It's a bleepin' TV show.  It's fiction, and what's going on right now on TWW would never really happen.  Me thinks the White House could find something more important to worry about...like say:

  • (Wakeup Call) Three hotels in Southern OR are "still waiting" to be paid a total of $19K in expenses incurred by the Bush admin during a campaign swing in fall '04 (AP).
    
  • Rumsfeld, Sanchez tied to torture policy to treat prisoners "like dogs", by Troutfishing
    
  • How do YOU cope with health care costs? by SusanHu
    
  • Republican(s) Off Message link Way to take a stand!
    

  "I am not going to impose my beliefs on Americans if they don't buy off onto it because this is too huge a program."--Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT)

  by Newsie8200 on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:13:05 AM PST

  •  Unpaid bills-

    (Wakeup Call) Three hotels in Southern OR are "still waiting" to be paid a total of $19K in expenses incurred by the Bush admin during a campaign swing in fall '04 (AP).

    Yeah, I remember when this first went down, and I have to say I'm not surprised that the bills are still outstanding.

    The really annoying part- this happened in Jacksonville- a wee tiny former timber town, which is relying on tourists to keep limping along. Much of Southern Oregon is in pretty bad shape- one would have thought that the Bush campaign would pump some money in to plump the town up and make it look good. And the Bush campaign was certainly not hurting for money...

    ISTR that Jackson County went for Kerry.

    by Lainie on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:59:12 AM PST

•  It proves they think the world revolves

  around them; "Just when Hollywood was trying to get back in our good graces," said one insider"
  Hollywood is  a place occupied by many people, ideas and agendas who don't join together for anything let alone trying to get in 'bush's good graces.' What arrogant idiots!

  by pacificcoaster on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:15:58 AM PST

  •  Cudos to the Insider (WTF)

    by WWWWout on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:40:38 AM PST

•  It proves they think the world revolves

  around them; "Just when Hollywood was trying to get back in our good graces," said one insider"
  Hollywood is  a place occupied by many people, ideas and agendas who don't join together for anything let alone trying to get in 'bush's good graces.' What arrogant idiots!

  by pacificcoaster on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:17:41 AM PST

•  Once again

  Gee, I find it so enlightening that the White House has time to bitch about a The West Wing episode.  Perhaps Congress can pass some kind of law about it this week and they can go about pruning the Constitution in their usual manner.

  Um, guys, North Korea and Iran are ramping up for battle, Iraq is in complete disarray, we've got soldiers dying every day, the economy is on the brink of untold, potentially devestating events and China is getting poised to stomp us into oblivion in about five different ways.  Can you please get your fucking eyes on the ball?

  by Pennsylvanian on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:17:58 AM PST

  •  Touche'

    Perhaps Congress can pass some kind of law about it this week and they can go about pruning the Constitution in their usual manner.

    by kmortara on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:15:22 AM PST

•  Maybe Congress

  can pass a law to pull the plug on the television

  by rutland on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:32:42 AM PST

  •  *GASP!* We can't do that!

    Why, if we pull the plug on television, we won't be able to keep feeding our constituency lies via FauxNews!
    </snark>

    by Lainie on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:02:50 AM PST

    •  perhaps just pull the plug on

      anti bush shows.  sort of like mccarthyism with the  blacklist.  could you imagine if the wh started a way to blacklist outspoken actors and writers.  oh help us all!

      by ejpoeta on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:21:22 PM PST

•  Party of the Constitution

  Reminds me of what Bill Mahr said Friday: If the Republicans are going to be the party of Religion, the Democrats HAVE to be the party of the Constitution.

  Another comment was the no one out there is sticking up for secular America. And I agree. It's about time someone starts talking about separation of Church and State.

  I wish someone in real-life would have the nerve and guts enough to say what Alda's character said on TV.

  Oh yeah, and someone needs to explain to the Bush administration the difference BETWEEN real-life and TV. I'm not sure they get it...

  by cscs on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:39:00 AM PST

  •  Respectfully disagree....

    As long as we play along with the false idea that Church and State are enemies, we're doing the Republicans' heavy lifting for them.

    Religion is corrupted by politics, politics is corrupted by religion, and like it or not, they're both pillars of American society. "Sticking up for secular society" means sticking up for the idea that separation of Church and State is good for both Church and State. And it means defending religious freedom from fundamentalism.

    Most Christians in America are actually fairly laid-back, tolerant folks. We do no good by pretending that the right-wing noise machine represents the Christian majority -- all this does is to scare liberals away from speaking out in their churches. Did you know that almost every major religious denomination in America opposed the Iraq war? If not -- why the hell didn't any Democratic representatives tell you?

    Religion is not our enemy -- intolerance, arrogance and theocracy are our enemies. And we need to make that a lot plainer to America.

    by Valentine on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:52:40 AM PST

    •  I think religion...

      ...is corrupted by religion, and politics is corrupted by politics.  And they're both corrupted by power.

      Trace religion to its noble source and you find God.  Sacred concept.  Trace politics to its noble source and you find leadership and advocacy.  Sacred concept.  Both sacred concepts are profaned in their execution, and for identical reasons: establishments of religion and politics are both means to accrue and project power.

      This is dangerous enough without mixing the two.

      by The Termite on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:01:24 AM PST

      •  Such a good comment...

        ... that I'm rating and telling you so.

        by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:45:19 AM PST

      •  Sounds good, but what does it mean?

        What can it mean to say that something "corrupts itself?" What does it mean to say that the exercise of power is, in itself, a corrupting and negative act? Maybe you think America can survive without a government that is capable of exercising power and shaping its people? If so, I disagree; I think our leaders must take an active role in promoting justice and tolerance and nobility. I don't think the mob does very well on its own. And I think that the proper exercise of power can heal wounds, and cure corruption. America once pulled off the New Deal and the Marshall Plan, and we can do well again in the future.

        As far as I can tell, you're just expressing a cynical belief that everything rolls downhill. I sympathize, but I can't really concur with that opinion. I think both politics and religion are human institutions that are terribly vulnerable to corruption, but which serve needed and valuable functions when they are infused with wisdom, intelligence and courage. We can do that.

        As it happens, the best way to protect religion from corruption is to protect it from the harmful urge to mix politics and religion, and to confuse temporal and spiritual striving. So we Democrats are in an enviable position; we can serve both Church and State by promoting the same principles of tolerance and separation of powers. It just takes enough thought and persuasion. Or we can declare war against an abstract God and lose election after election. It's really up to us.

        by Valentine on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:13:27 PM PST

        •  We don't disagree

          I'm simply pointing to politics and religion as a profane manifestation of sacred ideas, and mankind's tendency to generally profane the sacred.  I'm not trying to imply that good people with noble intentions and sound means shouldn't engage in either pursuit; both institutions are here to stay and need idealists working on the inside to prevent dangerous imbalance.  I am saying, however, that given how prone each of these institutions to corruption and abuse of power, society is in danger when they co-mingle.

          by The Termite on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:39:08 PM PST

          •  Agreed....

            ...and I think it's even a problem that goes beyond simple collusion between two powerful authorities. Religion and politics are the worst of all possible bedfellows.

            In a lot of ways, religion is about irrational inspiration and irreducible faith. And faith is a force that propels people to keep striving (for achievement, self-improvement, or humanist ideals) even when success seems impossible. Mystery is real, and the universe rewards the rejection of despair, though it's something you have to experience to believe. By reminding us that the "impossible" often isn't, faith sets us on roads to success that we can't comprehend at the outset. It's a light in the darkness.

            But good governance is all about skepticism, reason, doubt and compromise. The right keys to inspiration are the wrong strategies for hard work. We need faith to move us forward and give us strength. But it is hideously easy to corrupt faith in striving into faith in leadership -- or, if you like, faith in God into faith in priests. And when you decide faith means believing what George W. Bush tells you, you are in deep temporal and spiritual shit.

            It's necessary that we never surrender our faith in progress. We were given this life to use it. But it's also necessary that we never sign over our reason to demagogues or self-appointed saviors. For me, the trick is always to convince people that they need both faith and reason, and that they need to know the difference -- which is why I spend so much time soapboxing the issue on dKos. If there's anyone in the world who can learn to balance these forces, it ought to be a bunch of idealistic intellectuals with a constitutional inability to shut up about anything.

            I figure we're a pilot project for the rest of America. :)

            by Valentine on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:32:02 PM PST

    •  Church and State

      We do no good by pretending that the right-wing noise machine represents the Christian majority

      Tell that to the 11 states that overwhelmingly voted in November to prevent gays from gaining basic civil rights.

      Right now, I think the Republicans have MADE Church and State enemies. They are pushing and pushing and no one is standing up to them. Until people -- Democrats AND Republicans -- start standing up and defending the Constitution from the religious wackos in the Republican Leadership, it will be too late.

      No doubt that intolerance, arrogance and theocracy are our enemies.

      Unfortunately, that's what everyone keeps voting for!

      by cscs on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:33:18 AM PST

      •  Not "everyone."

        Only a thin majority voted for Bush. Perhaps less, depending on whether or not the vote was corrupted. Of that thin majority, I believe most were terribly misled into supporting an Administration that does not reflect their own beliefs and priorities. It's a shame that so many people vote against their own beliefs and interests, but how can we win elections by declaring war against voters? That's bitterness and defeat speaking, not hope and optimism.

        I don't think most Bush voters are hateful and intolerant. Seriously, I don't. I think they've just been confused and misled and lied to and pressured and, in general, fucked up. Sure, a few of them really do organize their lives around hate, but the vast majority of them can be persuaded to a better point of view. Declaring war against the Bush Administration is the right idea. But declaring war against the "Red States" or "Red State People" or, God help us, "religion" is a recipe for letting the Republicans continue to define and defeat us. If you tell someone you're their enemy, they'd be damned stupid to vote for you.

        And just because people can be led by the nose into voting for anti-gay-marriage amendments, that doesn't mean they are fundamentally hateful or intolerant people. It really doesn't. It only means what it means -- that the Republicans successfully packaged and sold a lot of bullshit intolerance to people, under the pretense that homosexuals hate the things they loved. Those amendments weren't even about oppressing homosexuals. They were about winning elections. We've got to reverse this damage, not just point it out. For the Democrats, being right just can't be enough. We've got to help others be right, too. We've got to make things better for everyone. Religious people will not stop worshipping God, so we'd better try harder to explain why God loves gays, and why God wants us to work together and help each other and sacrifice for one another. It's not as impossible as it sounds.

        We can't just throw up our hands and say, "Okay, it's smart people against spiritual people! Everyone choose a side!" Most people have both intellectual and spiritual lives, and we do NOT want to perpetuate the phony Republican war between the two. Democrats simply can't be 'against religion.' And you know why? Beyond all the strategic and tactical reasons? Because it's small-minded and wrong.

        by Valentine on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:27:59 PM PST

        •  I'm not saying declare war on religion

          It's not "smart people versus spiritual people." That's not what I'm saying.

          It's people who want religion in government versus people who don't.

          There's no middle ground here. This is a secular country. That doesn't mean religion is bad or good or anything. It means you keep government out of it, and vice versa.

          You can have hope and optimism without a religious context.

          It's about jobs and health care and foreign policy. It's about making this country a fair and just place for all to live.

          The only mention of religion should be "do whatever you want. It's your personal business." I don't want my Democratic candidates talking about how God loves gays. That really makes me uncomfortable, and I really don't think that's what the Founders had in mind.

          And I completely disagree re: the anti-gay vote. The people who came out in droves and voted 70%+ against gay rights are very intolerant people.

          As an aside, by "everyone" of course I didn't mean "everyone."

          by cscs on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:21:10 PM PST

        •  "They were about winning elections"

          But part of that election-winning strategy was about oppression.  It was about divide and conquer and creation of a common enemy.  It is innately human to consider oneself "better than" some other group.  This was a pre-packaged group to hate.  It is the 21st century equivalent of the Communist boogey man.

          But other than that, I agree with you.

          by sj on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:48:00 PM PST

      •  plenty of Democrats

        including blacks and Latinos, voted for those amendments. But they still voted Kerry too.

        by ihlin on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:20:09 PM PST

        •  Why?

          Religion. That's why. The church says gays are evil.

          All the more reason to keep it out of politics.

          by cscs on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:28:43 PM PST

          •  asdf

            "the church" does not say that gays are evil.

            Some conservative denominations think gays are evil.

            Other progressive denominations do not.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:46:48 PM PST

            •  Yes

              I was, of course, generalizing. My point is the reason people think being gay is so bad is because of the bible and religion.

              It's a sin. That's what Bush said, right?

              Your point is taken, though. I was too general.

              by cscs on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 05:03:41 PM PST

              •  Being Gay isn't a sin...

                ...it's the sexual acts that are considered sinful.  Thus a celebate gay person is perfectly fine in the eyes of the church.  There are many many wonderful priests who happen to be gay -- Father Mychael Judge who died on 9/11 was openly gay, but most are in the closet.  

                Of course the whole no sex without procreation thing is what sometimes causes messed up sexuality for both gay and straight Catholics.  And as you rightly point out, far too many people automatically and wrongly make the leap from "gay sex is wrong" to "being gay is wrong".

                by akeitz on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:18:35 AM PST

        •  That may be true

          but it's also true that people of color voted for the amendments in LOWER numbers than white people.

          by MAJeff on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 04:55:54 PM PST

    •  Democrats are the party of Religion

      just the party of all religions including the right not to have one.  We are the party of freedom ans that includes freedom of religion.

      by ETinKC on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:31:31 PM PST

•  Silly

  I haven't seen the episode in question, but it sounds like I would have to suspend my own disbelief.  Here are a few things I find quite at odds with reality or any plausable version of reality:
  

  1. That the American people would ever elect an openly atheist/agnostic president
     
  2. That either major party would even come close to nominating an openly atheist/agnostic candidate
     
  3. That an openly atheist/agnostic person would ever be elected to either house of congress
     
  4. That, if it came out after they were elected, an atheist/agnostic would be able to keep their job as congressman or senator

  It's entirely possible that we have atheist/agnostic politicians currently holding office, but none of them are too eager about making it known.

  by fwiffo on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:39:54 AM PST

  •  All very reasonable

    And the story line is that it was an evolution. He went to church all the time. Then his wife gave him a collector's Bible, and he read it. He then started having doubts. Literal interpretation of the Old Testament and all.
    Then his wife got sick, and he stayed home on Sundays to care for her. After she died, he never went back. Sounds plausible to me. The time line of the whole transformation fits in his last senate term, BTW.
    In the episode, it comes out accidentally, due to him trying to figure out what to say about that invitation to the other guy's church.
    

    by Mozh on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:55:24 AM PST

  •  Um...

    I don't think we hold anyone but presidents and Southerners to much of a religious standard today.  Jesse Ventura, for example, is an atheist, and has made some (later regretted) hostile statements about religion. Granted, he was a governor and not in Congress, but I'd really be surprised if religion was all that big a deal for state representatives of non-southern states.

    Now, it'd be stupid, in the current political climate, for an atheist representative to be outspoken. But if he represents a fairly well-educated or liberal district, it wouldn't make him unpopular with the voters.  It'd just make him unpopular in Congress.

    by eyelessgame on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:26:19 AM PST

    •  But...

      Nobody knew that he was an atheist until after he was elected, and he didn't keep his job.

      When asked if he would run for office, Ron Reagan remarked that he was unelectable because he was an atheist. There's also polling to support the notion that atheists are unelectable:
      http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/455.html
      http://www.geocities.com/closetatheist/opinion19.htm
      

      by fwiffo on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:14 PM PST

      •  And it was the poster...

        not the actual "fake" candidate of a television show that was filmed how long ago(?) who pointed out that the candidate might be somewhere between agnostic and atheist.

        We probably wouldn't have elected Martin Sheen's character either...

        by kredwyn on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:14:17 PM PST

  •  He's not openly agnostic

    He's hiding it from the public.

    It may blow up in his face and cause him to lose the election, however.  For one thing, he told Bartlett in person about his feelings about God (how stupid can you be?).
    

    by Geotpf on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 06:33:10 PM PST

•  LOL!

  What a joke. Yeah, all of "Hollywood" gets together and confers on scripts for The West Wing -- it's like a Boy Scout Jamboree, except with a coke habit -- and then the whole pagan gang decides whether "Hollywood" should to "try to get in the White House's good graces" or throw Our Leader a nasty ole curveball.

  The most ludicrous part of this whole laughable scenario is the idea that "GOP insiders" would be startled by an insult from the writers of The West Wing. It's just pathetic that the writers feel the need to play Moral Equivalency Hot Potato with Bill Clinton in order to defend themselves. Clinton used religious language to bring people together, not to whip up hatred and division. Like Clinton or hate him, it's just ignorant to draw any parallels between his rhetorical use of religion and Dubya's. Their approaches to the topic were almost completely opposite.

  But clearly I'm so much of a dirty hippie that even "Hollywood" fails to please me.

  by Valentine on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:40:30 AM PST

•  What are Republicans talking about?

  What pisses me off about the West Wing is that they've melded today's Republican created problems - massive deficits, high unemployment, economic stagnation - with a Democratic president.  NO WAY we'd have those problems in a Democratic administration.  I know this is fiction and all, but it should be realistic.

  by G Spot1 on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:41:34 AM PST

  •  We sure would

    If a Democrat gets the presidency in 2008.  We'll have to clean up the messes and be the grown-ups.  

    by Margot on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:37:32 PM PST

•  Last line in the story....

  "There's no one in our modern political history who has used his religiosity more deliberately and actively and falsely in campaigning than George Bush, second only to . . . Bill Clinton ."

  by ssg012 on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:46:17 AM PST

•  WW is my weekly relief...

  from the insanity of this administration.  OK, it's only for an hour, but I feel good at least while I'm watching it.

  My prediction:  Vinick is Pres, Santos is VP.

  by deBOraaah on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:47:23 AM PST

•  Cognitive Dissonance makes my head explode

  I haven't been able to watch the West Wing other than the occasional peek since Bush declared war on intelligence and reason in 2002.

  The cognitive dissonance of seeing a reasonable Pesident in charge (while knowing what was really going on) made my brain bleed.

  by thingamabob on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:50:41 AM PST

  •  Amen brotha

    I used to watch West Wing but it became so amazingly painful.  I would first bask in the fantasy and then feel majorly down when I remember the vast difference between WW and our reality.

    by nika7k on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:13:08 PM PST

•  Like I said...

  ...there's no rigor behind my prediction so if I were a betting man, I'd go with you.

  But I wouldn't put any stock in Alda's protestations.  Everyone has a price, and the chance to play the President on an Emmy-winning show is potent stuff.  May be a negotiating stance, may be an orchestrated diversion on the part of the producers and the network.

  by The Termite on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:53:34 AM PST

  •  Ooops...

    ...wrong spot for this post.  Apologies.

    by The Termite on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:54:22 AM PST

•  Of course

  Bush could never live up to the standard of intelligent, inspiring, ethical government.  He's not going to like West Wing.

  by Subversive on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 10:58:26 AM PST

•  Fiction is truer than truth (or journalism anyway)

  Interesting how it takes a drama show to make the wonderful, political, editorial point that 'the easiest thing for a politician to lie to you about is his religious beliefs' (paraphrase). So true. And yet, this truth isn't really acknowledged (as far as I know) in the mainstream news/political/editorial world.

  by Em on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:01:10 AM PST

•  Since no one's said it yet

  If the foo shits, wear it.

  by justme on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:34:09 AM PST

•  Too bad

  There are more real-life GOP Senators like Vilnick.

  by baldandy on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:34:59 AM PST

•  King George

  "Good graces?"  What obscenely blatant monarchical pomp.  Everyone kneel down and kiss the royal signet ring or off with your head!

  Where's a good bastille day when you need it?
  

  by kenjib on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:37:18 AM PST

  •  Now you know...

    Where's a good bastille day when you need it?

    ...why they don't like the French.
    

    by Helen in MD on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:56:27 PM PST

•  The White House and GOP are very thin-skinned...

  ...Which indicates to me that we should keep coming at them from as many angles as possible, politically and culturally.

  I agree with the poster above, it boggles the mind that they have time to get their shorts in a bunch about this, especially when they'd have us believe that the War on Terra is ALL.  (except when it's well, not...i.e., the crisis with "Soachsecurity," as Bush puts it).

  As much as I've loved The West Wing over the years, and still never miss it, the current episodes do make me a little wistful.  Quite aside from Alan Alda's meta-status as the prototypical goodhearted liberal, his WW character strikes me as a complete fantasy.  In fact, I think that despite the White House's grousing, the writers of the show are making Republicans look a lot more honorable, decent, and principled than they are in our reality-based world.  They even took care to make the Pat Robertson-like character a fairly upright guy -- at least as other people talk about him (including Vinick).   I can't imagine any real-life GOopers like Vinick even getting out of the primaries, because he'd be savaged and slimed by a Bush / Rove type operation.  

  I suppose one could make a case that the Dems on the show are equally based in fantasy, since so many of them, notably Bartlett, are not only super-smart, but are full of piss and vinegar when it comes to a good political fight, and can't wait to jump into the mix.  (>sigh<)

  All in all, I've been grateful to the West Wing for its intelligence and passion, even if it sometimes seems as much of a fantasy as Tolkien at this point.   But knowing that it's giving the White House agita these days makes me love it all over again.
  

  by chumley on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:39:03 AM PST

  •  Hear Hear!

    Yup, your third paragraph NAILS it.  Fantasy Island, baby!

    by Bulldawg on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:02:19 PM PST

•  The perfect complement to this West Wing episode

  Is from Matthew 6:5-6 --      

  "When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
      But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you."

  I only wish that the producers of West Wing would have concluded the show with this quote before the credits rolled.

  by KopeKid on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 11:40:09 AM PST

  •  Thanks, I love this...

    And I would love for us to keep this Matthew quote in play as much as possible, to counter the culture of fake Delay-like piety that we keep getting shoved in our faces.

    by chumley on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:27:40 PM PST

    •  Good idea

      but beware of making the mistake I made. In my Bible, the translation said "Pharisee" rather than "hypocrite." That was the case in several verses where Jesus criticized those with a "holier than thou" attitude. I'd been referring to Bush as "the Pharisee" because of that.

      It was very gently pointed out that equating a Pharisee to a hypocrite is offensive to most of the Jewish faith. Evidently (hope this is correct), the Pharisees were very faithful and taught others. (Some believe that Jesus himself was a Pharisee.) The Pharisees eventually became the leaders of the faith.

      Obviously, I'm no Biblical scholar. If I was I'd have realized that using that term for such a hateful man would be an insult to my beloved sister-in-law who is Jewish.

      I would never knowingly offend those of another faith. If I have, I am deeply sorry.

      by SisTwo on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:17:54 PM PST

•  Woah, woah, woah!

  "Just when Hollywood was trying to get back in our good graces," said one insider, "they used that offensive script."

  
  So now... let me guess... the Bush WH is going to try to "punish" all of "Hollywood" (is that an industry? A region? An economy? Is it anything except a figment of a fevered imagination?) because a popular show mentioned that politicians lie about religion.

  Amiright?

  And all of "Hollywood" was trying to "get back in our good graces"? Collectively? Were they on hands and knees? Collectively? Does this sound like illusions of grandeur to anyone else?

  by Shapeshifter on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:01:13 PM PST

  •  I was just saying that

    to my crowd of worshipers! >snark<

    by Bulldawg on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:03:27 PM PST

  •  Dumb question...

    ...how would the stuffed shirts up in washington get back at Hollywood without killing off their favorite p0rn publishers at the same time?

    by floundericiousMI on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:24:46 PM PST

  •  No, it's true

    I was at the drive thru at White Castle on Sunset Blvd. The drive thru guy said they sent a sack of slyders to Bushco to help get Hollywood back in the good books. It may have been an iffy gambit, because they never heard anything back.

    by peterborocanuck on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:27:49 PM PST

•  If the shoe fits...

  Rethugs hate mirrors.

  by weimar1200 on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:09:12 PM PST

•  WW has turned completely into fiction

  While I too loved the barrage against the Pat Robertson character, the rest of the episode was much too twilight-zone-ish for me. In addition to the above sentiments about a atheist/agnostic candidate (forget for a moment that it's a Republican who allegedly won the nomination through the fundamentalist walls, such a candidate wouldn't have a prayer, in today's world, of winning a general election), let's also tack on the fact that Vinick is pro-choice, pro-environment, and while he expresses an opinion about cutting spending, in the abstract, it's not clear at all that he would govern that way. The additional fact that he was about to offer Robertson the VP nod, before he was cut off, shows more incongruent writing.
  Granted this is fiction. However, I have loved the fact that Bartlett was Clinton without the baggage and with the courage, sometimes, to go to the left when he felt that it was necessary.
  Vinick has no basis in reality. Doubt me? Name me one pro-choice, pro-environment elected Republican. There are less than 20. Now, name one who would stand an even remote outside chance of winning 1 state in the GOP primaries, regardless of who their opposition is. Look at who bush ran against in the primaries. Third-rate neanderthal fundamentalists all of them. bush skated through, lying the entire way. Vinick wouldn't even have won CA in the primaries, assuming that his funding lasted that long. Pete Wilson, a pro-choice republican GOVERNER, didn't even make it to Iowa before his funding and polls ran out.

  This takes me back to who one of the producers fo WW is, Lawrence O'Donnell. O'Donnell, granted did Democratic things, but take a look at the show that he had running for a couple of years. It was about a California Congressmen, Democrat, but fiercely independent. He allegedly had 'trouble' with the abortion question.
  O'Donnell is an ideologue. He believes in the power of the middle. He believes that if only Republicans promote someone who is pro-choice or a Democrat who is anti-choice, then everyone will come over to their way of thinking and we can cut the hell out of the budget without feeling any real pain.
  Ech. Brain-dead fantasies that haven't been thought through.

  I still love the show. But, if Smits doesn't get the presidency, I might just quit watching it. And, for Smits to win it, O'Donnell is going to have to twist through some script turns. The way that he's set up Vinick shows a landslide.

  One more thought. A California Congressmen would not have CA locked up. He wouldn't even be known to 4/5th of the state. He probably represents a GOP district somewhere down near LA. Nobody knows the guy. And, with CA being pretty damm blue (except fot the Schartzennegger fiasco), he'd have a hellof uphill climb to even get known in the entire state, let alone get the electors.
  

  by jonathan94002 on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:11:04 PM PST

  •  Vinick as fiction

    You are absolutely on target. The character Alda plays is as remote from political reality as anything on the SciFi channel! He's a Democrat's fantasy of what a Republican presidential candidate could be--someone who never could get past Iowa in the real world. We all should be thankful that such a creature does not exist.

    by VerbalMedia on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:38:43 PM PST

    •  Why not?

      I wish W didn't exist. I'd much prefer to have Vinick in the White House.

      by white blitz on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 05:10:35 PM PST

  •  Vinnick is a CA senator

    Everybody here (I'm in California) knows who Boxer and Feinstein (and, for that matter, the Governator) are.

    Santos is the House member (from Texas).

    by Geotpf on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 06:35:53 PM PST

•  WW

  People, repeat very slowly: " this is fiction, this is fiction"...
  what happened to reality based discourse?

  What's next? SURVIVOR as a metafor of American
  Foreign Policy?

  Get a life...

  Nobody ever went broke under estimating the intelligence of the american public...

  by town on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:20:15 PM PST

  •  Hey, it works!

    "Survivor" might just be a good parallel for American policy -- except that the other countries tried to vote us off the island, and didn't succeed, so THEY left the island (the war in Iraq).

    by Cream City on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:06:55 PM PST

  •  The West Wing is a special case

    It's the only show of its kind, however imperfect, with a remarkable cast and often brilliant writing. And for the past 4 years it has reminded many of us what there might be to admire and strive for.

    Don't question what it takes to get us through the long dark night of Bush, pal!

    Tomorrow we can go back to beating our heads against the wall of reality.

    by wont get fooled again on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 02:32:40 AM PST

•  It's just silly ...

  for the White House to be upset.  They should know from the election results that 49% of the people voted against them.  Do they expect the opposition to fall over and die?  Politics is a contact sport.

  by slip kid no more on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:21:41 PM PST

  •  Yes

    Do they expect the opposition to fall over and die?

    Well, yes.  They won the ballgame fair and square, and the losers had better just shut up, shut up.

    Poor sportsmanship, don'tcha know?

    by rhubarb on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:31:23 PM PST

•  Are they for REAL?

  "Just when Hollywood was trying to get back in our good graces," said one insider, "they used that offensive script."

  Do those clowns really believe their own blather about a monolithic demon Hollywood?  Yikes.  

  by rhubarb on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:29:42 PM PST

•  If the shoe fits

  The reaction from Bushies betrays how close to the bone it cuts.

  by SFOrange on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 12:57:52 PM PST

•  Hmmmm

  Why would they be pissed off about a little television fiction, UNLESS they know they're phonies and recognize their own hypocrisy.

  ::ding ding ding ding ding::

  High Fives to The West Wing crew!
  

  by 2care4others on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:09:46 PM PST

•  WW be fair

  While Bush was the real nightmare, we at least had a dream President in the fictional White House on TV.  There were many dark days and nights when The West Wing was instrumental in my sanity.  President Barlett was more my president than Bush will ever be.

  So West Wing, don't do it to me.  Don't give me a R in both places.  Even if Alda is a good guy.

  As for realism, let's see what the R reaction is to Vinick's statement.

  And the show has been renewed for next year.  It was questionable until last week.
   

  by dashbro on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:13:55 PM PST

  •  I agree,

    I couldn't wathc it anymore if Vinick wins.  Two-fold pain, horror and unbelievability: 1) Sane, reasonable, charitable, moderate Republican.  2) Hawkeye Pierce as ANY kind of Republican.

    by Bulldawg on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 10:38:20 AM PST

•  My Goodness Gracious...

  ...they fell into that trap lock, stock and barrel didn't they? By acknowledging the episode and being offended by it, they validate the show's entire point. Strategically, the should have just shut up.

  by Doug in SF on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:25:08 PM PST

•  thin skinned tyrants

  for such an autocratic bunch, this white house sure is full of crybabies. i mean--it's a freakin' teevee show!

  how much power will be enough? next thing you know, they'll change their mind about god. after all, he's not even an american, so they'll have to prop up king george as god/emporer for life.

  i believe the term jon stewart would use is "douchebags"?

  by produceus on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:59:09 PM PST

•  The only WW episode the WH would approve...

  is the coronation of jeb! as the next president.

  by Street Kid on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:29:21 PM PST