PeterDavid.net

Personally, from early on I'd been hoping for the leak to actually have come from Margaret. It wasn't in Toby's character, and CJ was too much the obvious choice. Although, there's still the chance that Toby's taking the fall for CJ, especially since it seems that Richard Schiff is in this week's episode.

As it comes to the series in general, I think this season (the debate notwithstanding, I much disliked it) is back on track, though I doubt we'll see season 8. Episode 7.2, "The Mommy Problem", is definitely better than anything from seasons 5, or 6, with the possible exception of "The Supremes".

Well, I haven't seen West Wing much for the past couple of seasons, largely because of Sorkin's departure - the first season without him did improve from a rocky start, so it wasn't as bad as Picket Fences post-David E. Kelley, at least; but it was still lesser. We did tape early 2004-05 episodes, which I would have watched with my Mom; but as it turned out, she passed away before we got to that part of our viewing schedule. That affiliation probably made me less inclined to check the show out, as well ....

But, it is interesting to read here what has been going on; and you've sold me, PAD, with your view of the show as ultimately being the story of Josh. I hadn't really looked at it in that way before, but it does follow. Unlike Toby's actions. Between that and the lack of Bartlett and other changes - on top of no Sorkin - I don't know that I would like the current West Wing. Though, I have admired both Alan Alda and Jimmy Smits' work .... Maybe - if I can remember that it's now on Sundays - and after football season is over ....

Chalk me up as someone who has stopped following the show.

I'd describe my view of the show thusly: I think the show is at its most fascinating when it focuses on what it's like to work for the President.

The campaign storyline involving Vinick and Santos veers the show off into territory that I'm not fond of.

Don't get wrong: Josh Lyman is one of my favorite television characters, and is right up there with Bartlet and Leo as a favorite of mine. But I'm just not a fan of the campaign storyline. First of all, I agree that Vinick is the more fascinating and compelling candidate. Beyond that, it just feels like this is too much a deviation from what I loved about the early seasons, where we'd see what the staff working for the President would do when faced with personal and professional crises.

The campaign storyline is a slice of American political life, but I guess I do think the show should focus on the Bartlet presidency, and should end when that presidency ends.

I did see the debate episode, and I was generally pleased with the acting and writing, but I just cannot stop comparing it to the first three years of Sorkin, and it just pales.

It's still a very well done show, but in comparison...it just pales.

Can anybody back, or refute, Santos' claim that the solution to America's health care problems is to put everyone on Medicare ("the most efficient health care system in the world")?

i waffle on the Tobey leak story being untrue to his character, if for only this reason: that comment Bartlet made about Tobey always thinking he was smarter than the president rings so true for me. That was such a real, true character moment, and yet, it may have been come by through some pretty wobbly character twisting. So, yeah.

Ain't that new book about Lincoln about how he brought on some of his staunchest political opponents to serve in his cabinet? Couldn't Vinick do the same? We keep Josh on Vinick's staff somehow.

I'm gonna get pretty sick of the show if Santos wins, I think. I am liberal to the core but would love to see some new twists and turns in the show's storytelling, and flipping the political affiliation seems rife with potential in that regard. Plus, Alan Alda. Come on. AWESOME.

I agree with you, Peter, that letting C.J. twist in the wind seems out of character for Tobey. Him being prepared to resign immediately make sense, particularly given the Social Security episode when he did just that after a blunder!

As for the inaccuracies, I actually thought that made sense, since Tobey ostensibly got the information from his brother. Last season I remember C.J. asking Tobey if his brother ever bragged about something like the shuttle, and he hinted, pretty heavily it seemed, that he did. Given that, I wasn't surprised that details were inaccurate.

I agree that Margaret was the obvious choice -- when confronted, CJ wouldn't lie, and she denied it. Margaret *sounded* guilty.

The producers seem to be tipping their hand toward Santos, though. His integrity is in question because of his backers, his agenda is too counter to Bartlett... and we just spend much more time with Santos.

I'm surprised at the hiatus during sweeps: I would have expected the election, and obligatory recount, to be ratings grabbers.

The campaign/Josh/Vinick/Santos storyline is practically a different show from the original behind the scenes with Bartlett one. I like this one, too. When the writers were straddling the line, they weren't making anyone happy. It's good that they've carved out their own separate niche. It has definitely reinvigorated the show.

I really like the new direction, it was a pleasent surprise as I was convinced after season 5 that the show was lost without Sorkin, but at some point in season 6 I realised it had got really good again.

That said, the 'live debate' episode was awful. Unlike the live episode of ER, it wasn't technically impressive, or a particulary impressive acting feat, since there was just one set and three people talking - it's no more and somewhat less than theatre actors do every night.
So that leaves us with just assessing it on the basis of it being a good episode or not, but because of this 'live' gimmic this too suffered. There we're points in the debate where I just yearned for them to cut away to Josh or Bruno watching it on a monitor and making comment. But instead we just got a straightforward debate, with no interesting plot twists, nothing that moves the story forward - I'd imagine one could watch this series and skip this episode and be none the wiser, you'd just think the show pulled one of it's usual 'show the build up, show the fallout' tricks.
The lack of story development would be almost acceptable if the gimmick was particulary impressive, but it wasn't.

I actually stopped watching WW. It had turned into Just Another Damned Evening Drama -- let's just go ahead and call it JADED.

The campaign arc brought me back into the fold because it gave the producers a way to escape from the White House. They clearly have no handle on how to write for Jed Bartlet or the White House staff, and once they were free to create their own road map for a political drama, West Wing finally became interesting again.

But is anyone really happy with how the show's been handling Josh? He came off to a terrific start last season, as the only one in this newly-narcoleptic White House who realized that it was time to choose a guy worthy of following Jed Bartlet, and I loved the mentor scenes with Leo. He got off to a great start by coaxing Santos into running: good job, there.

But since then?

1) Every critical turning point during the primaries seemed to be a case of Josh emphatically giving Santos the wrong advice and then Santos going off in his own direction;

2) They've invented this notion that Donna would be Secretary of the Treasury today, if not for the fact that Simon LeeLyman so selfishly and diligently kept the poor girl down all those years. Ignoring the fact that she needed to at least meet the man halfway by maybe taking a few night classes and finishing her BA...as well as ignoring all of the subplots over the year in which Josh was clearly nudging her to the next level.

3) They're making him less and less influential as the campaign steams ahead, adding Janeane Garofalo as the new "Co-Josh," whose job, apparently, is to ignore, override or undermine Josh whenever the candidate is too busy to ignore him on his own.

And why the hell didn't they write a scene for him during the debate episode? Okay, "because the actor wasn't available." But the fact that they didn't even put in a throwaway line to cover his absence seems...odd.

Still, I'm glad that I find the show worth watching again. I just wish that NBC would actually, you know, air an episode from time to time...

I very much liked the debate episode. Not the fact that it was live (that didn’t matter to me, either way), but the fact that we were able to watch a presidential debate (albeit fictional) in which the candidates were actually _debating_.

But then, given the scripted nature of real world presidential “debates”, aren’t _all_ such debates fictional?

I would love to see candidates for elected office engage in an actual debate, none of this two minute comment, one minute reply, 30 second rebuttal crap. But would it ever actually happen? I asked a potential gubernatorial candidate if he’d be willing to do such things, but couldn’t quite pin him down on an answer. It boiled down to a “it’s not really up to me” response. Which is bull, of course. It _is_ up to you. You and your opponent.

On the other hand, a friend of mine who’s working on another run for state representative, following a narrow defeat last year, said he’d do a real debate in a second.

So come on, all you presidential (and other elected offices) candidates out there, you gonna let two fictional characters show you up? You wanna be leader of the free world (or on city council, whichever)? Then have the guts to engage in a real debate. Lincoln did it. You don’t think you’re better than Lincoln, do you?

Back to “West Wing.” It’s kinda interesting that PAD sees the series as the character journey of Josh Lyman, given that the original focus seemed to be on Sam Seaborn. After all, Rob Lowe got top billing. Still, PAD does make a point that there’s been a consistent Josh thread throughout the series. Wonder if it was planned, or just happened.

So, PAD, what are your thoughts on the current season of “Smallville” and “Lost”, and on “Supernatural”? Myself? I give high marks to all three.

Rick

The West Wing being benched during sweeps (except for one episode) pretty much means that it's on its last legs. If it's benched again during sweeps, that's over.

I agree with PAD about Lyman as the show's focus (though Sam Seaborn was also a major character early on) but as another posted pointed out, Lyman seems to not have much of a future no matter which candidate wins. Santos does not seem to be taking his counsel all tha seriously.

From what I've read - probably in TV Guide, back when I subscribed - President Bartlett was originally going to be somewhat peripheral on "The West Wing". The focus of the show was going to be JUST on the west wing staffers - as in the pilot episode, where Bartlett doesn't appear until the final few minutes. But, once that episode was completed, they saw what a character they had created, between Sorkin's writing and Martin Sheen's performance, and changed their approach. So, that aspect of the show's focus changed from how it was first conceived; but I don't know if it was ALWAYS intended to be Josh's story. From what I've heard, Lowe did expect Sam to be ultimately the main character, seeking salary commensurate with Sheen's when Sheen got rewarded with a new deal, IIRC, and eventually leaving because Sam wasn't getting much storyline (fair enough). The producers' ideas do seem more in line with PAD's evaluation, but I've never heard anything offical along these lines.

I have been trying to watch it, but one thing has always bothered me, "Why can't any of our REAL candidates be this good?" You look at Bartlett and now Santos and Vinick, and these guys have integrity, morals, and principles. All we ever get from the real parties are jerks who are more interested in the latest polls, than in what they want for the country.

Charlie

In my universe, John Goodman is still president and Zoe was never found.

And I'm still depressed Emily Proctor didn't stick around.

I'll grant that Ainsley Hayes is, without a doubt, one of my favorite West Wing characters. ("They won't let me smoke in the building, but they'll let Ainsley Hayes pee in Leo's closet?")

But...if Emily Procter had stuck around, we wouldn't get to see her firing guns in a Miami ballistics lab, then get this near-orgasmic smile on her face. ;-)

I've watched some of the Season 6 reruns on Bravo, and I don't think it was a quick veer from CJ. Looking at Toby now, knowing that he's the leak, the actor was pretty obviously (and in my estimation, pretty skillfully) playing Toby as someone who was on edge and basically guilty. Now, whether the astronaut brother bit was enough to justify the surprising character development is a different question, but I'm pretty convinced the actor knew Toby was the leak all along.

I agree that the show really has been about Josh more than Bartlett, and it was designed as such. (According to IMDB, Bartlett was only supposed to appear in one episode in five.)

Can anybody back, or refute, Santos' claim that the solution to America's health care problems is to put everyone on Medicare ("the most efficient health care system in the world")?

Actually, I think it can be refuted. Medicare's great cost-cutting secret is that it doesn't negotiate with doctors over payments, it decrees what Medicare will pay and what can additionally be charged to Medicare patients. Medicare reimbursements are universally less than physicians charge other patients, often by an order of magnitude, and often paying less than it actually costs the physicians to provide the services. The only way for physicians to opt not to accept what Medicare pays is to remove themselves from the Medicare program entirely. Most doctors are unwilling to do that, so they make up the difference in their income by overcharging everyone else. (I know this because my mother recently retired from managing a medical office, and I had to help her set up the annual budget in Excel because, Master's degree notwithstanding, she can't work a spreadsheet. The disparity between private pay costs and what Medicare let them charge was enormous on almost every line item.) If everyone is given the option of Medicare coverage, one of the following possibilities will obtain:
1) The list of physicians who refuse to accept Medicare will expand from the odd curmudgeon to encompass everyone who wants to pay back their student loans; or
2) The Medicare administration will essentially determine how much physicians are paid and what procedures are covered by insurance for almost every person in this country, making medicine the only truly socialized industry in the United States.
Given that a large number of physicians choose their careers at least partly based on the income potential, I foresee #1 as being more likely. This is particularly likely given that private insurance companies will have a huge incentive to reward physicians for choosing #1, because otherwise their customers will have no reason to stay. If you think the pharmaceutical industry gives too many favors to physicians, wait until insurance companies start a gravy train. Also, since Medicare rarely pays physicians enough to cover their overhead, they'd have to engage in cost-cutting measures just like any other financially-strapped industry, such as layoffs and pay cuts under option #2. Pay cuts might not hurt the physicians that much, since they make decent money, but nurses and receptionists aren't precisely raking in the dough.

Medicare's great cost-cutting secret is that it doesn't negotiate with doctors over payments, it decrees what Medicare will pay and what can additionally be charged to Medicare patients. Medicare reimbursements are universally less than physicians charge other patients, often by an order of magnitude, and often paying less than it actually costs the physicians to provide the services.

True, that. My ex-wife, a neurologist tells me that for some of the medicare patients she has had the cost of a visit isn't enough to even pay the staff--she's essentially working for free.

The economic reality that There Is No Free Lunch seems to be a difficult one to grasp. But hey, we've got 50 states, if people think its such a great idea why not institute it in one or two of them--I'd suggest the choice be made on the basis of "Somewhere other than North Carolina, thanks"--and see how it goes.

As for WW--Santos is going to win. Please. How could it be anything but? This is a Democratic fantasy, and that's fine, I have no problem with that. They aren't going to ruin it all by having one of Bartlett's legacy's be that the nation voted for a Republican after 8 years of him.

They just made a mistake by casting Alan Alda. He's a better actor than Smits and it's making us like him better. They will probably end up having him lose because of opposition from the religious right or whatever Republican boogymen they conjure up. Maybe have some Swiftboat Vet type organization aggresively go after Santos and make Vinick look bad or something like that. The last election was their idea of what Gore should have done so they might just make this one be what Kerry should have done.

While I thought the live debate ep. was as boring as the real ones (and yes I DO watch the real debates), I do agree that the show is all about the Lyman. It is for me, anyway.

I miss the old cast interaction, but I will still watch because I like where this may be heading. (If they decide to continue.)

PAD wrote:


> ...or Richard Schiff wanted off the series....

He was quoted as intending to leave mid-season in a wire service story at the beginning of the season.

The only problem is that I'm still more impressed with Arnold Vinick as a presidential candidate then Matt Santos. Here's the weird thing: In terms of what we've watched behind the scenes, I like Vinick better. But purely in terms of the debate, I thought Santos came off far better. So if I were a voter in the "West Wing" universe, I'd be leaning toward Santos. But Vinick simpy seems to have more gravitas, more character, and more on the ball than Santos, all of which I wouldn't have gleaned without watching all the behind-the-scenes stuff.

Peter, does this mean you liked John McCain more as a presidential candidate than Al Gore (or John Kerry, John Edwards or Howard Dean)?

-- Ken from Chicago

Ken from Chicago:

Why would you bring that up? McCain and Vinick share only superficial qualities, being moderate Republicans. But otherwise, they're rather different. You want to have a "gotcha" on PAD? If so, go away.

Re: Vinick...Frankly I think people like him more because we really don't see him that much. Mostly, we see him as a smooth politician, compared to Josh/Santos' being new to the process.

In the big Vinick eats ice cream with Bartlett, people took away how much he sticks to his principles...I took away that a supposedly educated man had gone most of his life without ever realizing the Bible contradicted itself.