@AJP_Junkmail: "/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
Well there we have it.
Due to the proximity of Christmas, I'm taking the somewhat unusual step
of writing something straight off the cuff; and without re-watching the
episode.
This probably won't be in too much of a logical order, either; at least
in this "first post" draft version.
The first question has to be, was it just me; or was this actually the
first episode of season five, in all but name?  This was (not to put too
fine a point on it) something of an anticlimax, after the tension of
last week's ending.  It certainly wasn't bad, but neither was it really
what we've come to expect from a TWW end-of-season cliff-hanger; whereas
last week's episode was.  I strongly suspect that if Aaron was going to
be with the show in S5, he would have used this, as the S5 opener;
because try as I might, I can't help but see it in that light.
My statement about TWW resembling "Morecambe and Wise", in terms of the
guest stars list; would seem to be continuing to be true.  John Goodman
is a somewhat unusual choice to play the Speaker of the House; this is
(I think it's fair to say) somewhat outside his normal range.  We really
didn't get to see enough of him here, to see how well he's going to pull
it off; but on the basis of what we did see, I'm hopeful that we'll see
good things.
It was very interesting to see the President mention the scene from "Mr
Willis of Ohio", that I quoted last week.  I'm going to go out on a limb
here, and suggest that Aaron had been thinking about playing this
particular hand, since season one.  Remember that in the aftermath of
the Rosslyn shooting, Danny asks CJ about the 25th amendment.
The President, absolutely did the right thing.  As Will said, it was the
ultimate patriotic act.  For the safety and security of the nation, it
is essential that someone with a clear mind, and without a conflict of
interests in holding the rudder tonight.  The question is, however, for
how long will it be necessary for the former Speaker, Glenallen Walken
to hold those powers.  Glen is only the "acting President", and the
(elected) President can take back his office, at any time.
The relevant section of the 25th amendment reads:
"Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his
written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers
and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of
either the principal officers of the executive department or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to
the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable
to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress
shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that
purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after
receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in
session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble,
determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President;
otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his
office."
Now with what I believe is a historically unprecedented situation, a
Republican congress, and the risk that there may be a co-incidental (or
related) relapse of President Bartlet's MS; there would appear to be the
outside chance of some kind of "legal coup", a little way down the line.
I don't think we'll see that, (and I hope we don't - because it's the
kind of cheap stunt you'd expect from a show like "24"); but I can't
help wondering if the conjunction of all of these events, isn't at least
leading towards the floating the idea.
Nancy's suggestion that this is not the work of well organised
terrorists, would seem to be contradicted by the facts.  Firstly they
shot and killed, with a single shot, a more than capable secret service
officer.  Secondly, there is the fact that Zoey was drugged.  One could
dismiss this, simply as Jean-Paul doping her; if it wasn't for the fact
that he was drugged too.  He's not going to intentionally take such a
powerful narcotic agent, in a club.  That doesn't make sense.  We know
he /said/ it was Ecstasy; and logic would seem to suggest that he
believed it was.  So our kidnapper(s) clearly know their target; and
they are in a position to sell the drug to JP.  There is also the matter
of the ransom note.  The trouble with this is, that there is a high
degree of ambiguity here.  Is it a co-incident event? The result of a
"wide-awake" terrorist, capitalising on someone else's actions?  Or is
it a red herring?  Leo tells us that much of the note is a quote from
the Bajhi's "Bin Laden"; but does that make it more or less likely to be
real?  Faxed photographs are fairly indistinct at the best of times, and
here (we may presume) that all concerned are (at least subconsciously)
wanting it to be Zoey.  On the balance, I think the note is real; but
there is much ambiguity there.
Let's also look at the other threads, from last week.  The "torrential
rain in the north-west", doesn't seem to be any further developed;
although there was a degree alarm in my mind, when the aircraft in
Seattle airspace heading towards a nuclear power station wasn't
answering calls.  There is also the issue of the missing cargo
container.  Was that a red herring?  Is it linked to the kidnapping?  We
simply don't know yet.
What kind of executive is Glen going to be?  He seems simultaneously
both a hard-line hawk; and a conservative and considerate diplomat.  He
takes a hard-line when considering the stray aircraft; but yet he also
reminds us that a knee-jerk reaction in a troubled moment, started the
first World War.  This is interesting piece of writing, because it would
be all too easy to paint in broad strokes, a caricatured hawkish
right-winger (almost literally of the same mould as President Arial
Sharon of Israel; and on the basis of the one scene, Glen seems to be
more three-dimensional than that.
Toby and his two baby's, made for some cute scenes; but the pay-off
(Toby's realisation of the President's position) didn't really justify
the time devoted to them.  Perhaps there is more to come here?
Charlie's realisation that Jean-Paul was partially to blame (by doping
Zoey) was nicely executed.  We saw a couple of weeks ago, that Charlie
is very protective, about those he cares for; and his reaction here, was
perfectly in keeping with what we know about him.
The opening scenes, where we see (but not hear) the President being told
of what had happened, were nicely done; though the "dropping of the
drink & photographs" sequence, seemed slightly heavy-handed.  Abby's
rush towards the press room, was good too; although I am surprised that
we didn't see CJ physically restraining her from opening the door.  It
was, however, well done.
Anyway that'll have to do for tonight; I'll post something slightly more
considered, sometime after Christmas.
Until then, may I wish you all a very happy Christmas.
AJP"
    @janbREM: "In news:bsahdp$bkv46$<email_address>,
<quote>
<snip>
I love JG, mainly because of his absolute brilliance in 'Barton Fink'
and 'The Big Lebowski'. I'm confident he'll cope with what's thrown at
him in TWW.
<snip>
I thought the Toby storyline edged towards ER-land, but despite this the
Toby and Leo scene was really very good.
<snip>
Cliched? 'The Usual Suspects' once again comes to mind, but it's far
from the only example. I thought it would have been more like Bartlett
to have thrown the glass either into the ground or wall. Or perhaps it's
the sort of situation where you'd do the odd thing of taking great care
in handing the photos/glass to Leo before slumping against the wall as
realisation hits?
Just want to add that I thought Stockard Channing was good (for me a
pleasant surprise), hit the right note.
Jan"
    @AJP_Junkmail: "<quote>
I think you're right; but we'll have to see.
It was a good scene, but it seemed out of place.  For example, on this,
the busiest night ever; did they really have time to sit and chat?
I expected him to slump down; but I expect they omitted this, because
they wanted to make sure we weren't thinking MS.
Yup, she was good.
AJP"
    @janbREM: "In news:bsbpc5$avqae$<email_address>,
<quote>
I don't think it's too much of a stretch. Toby certainly once the press
release was sorted, and given his new dad status, wouldn't necessarily
be running around like a blue-arsed fly (and I guess it's part of his
job to see how the networks were covering it). As for Leo, there may
well be a lull in proceedings when you're waiting on someone/something.
Several hours did pass by as the episode progressed.
Jan"
    @earnest: "says...
<quote>
Fitz did say that it would take some time for reports to be ready.
James Bremner
Spiders are not insects, 
But in a war they would side with the insects."
    @AJP_Junkmail: "I really am going to "complete" these thoughts.  Honest.  :-)
At that time there will also be a full 5-Star Poll results thread.
AJP"
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 5, "forum_name": "uk.media.tv.west-wing.20140326.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-uk.media.parquet'}