Top 6 Things To Expect From Trump In The Hall Of Presidents

We knew this day was coming. We knew it back in November once the votes were counted. Donald Trump will have his animatronic figure added to the Hall of Presidents in Disney World.

(There will eventually be a Trump Presidential library, too, although I imagine that will mostly consist of multiple video screens scrolling through his tweets.)

I just saw this photo tweeted out today, March 27, although a bit of research shows Disney World actually closed the Hall of Presidents on inauguration day in January and doesn't expect it to open again until summer. Lots to do to get the newest President added to the stage, you know. Here's some things we can expect from the Trump robot:

- Calls out FDR for being "weak" because he didn't "stand up" for things more often.

- Requests the Obama mannequin's clothing be changed to traditional Kenyan garb, except on the weekends, when it will sport golf attire.

- Slaps Lincoln on the back saying, "Hey, you were a Republican! A lot of people don't know that, you know."

- Asks Washington how he could stand working with "that bastard immigrant Hamilton," exclaiming "He's still saying bad, untrue things about me. Sad!"

- Complains about the wi-fi inside the hall, as he can't get a strong enough signal to send out tweets.

- Goes around to all the one-term presidents, pointing at each and saying, "Loser. Loser."

Meanwhile, spokespeople for Disney World say the long delay in getting Trump added to the display is mainly due to problems finding a tie long enough to be historically accurate, and plan to have Trump's mannequin located next to William Henry Harrison in the "Temporary Presidents" section of the stage.

Dangerous Buffoonery

The Trump administration continues to be the gift that never stops giving, if by "gift" you mean "semicomic horrorshow of epic proportions that we can't look away from while desperately praying he doesn't do something to end civilization as we know it." Not only that, but he and his minions have apparently found a way to adjust the time-space continuum so that history now moves at lightning speed and pretty much everything happens all the time.

The big news for now, of course, is the collapse of the American Health Care Act, or the Republicans' efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, or, as a reasonable person might call the AHCA, "Wealthcare." But let's look back, shall we, all the way back to that history-making Congressional hearing with FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers. Remember that? The one where Comey verified there is an ongoing FBI investigation into possible links between Russia and the Trump campaign? The one where Rogers and Comey both actually fact-checked a Trump tweet that was sent during the hearing, telling Congresspersons that what Trump claimed was not, in fact, what they were telling Congress? Seems like so long ago, right?

That was Monday. It took five days to get from that to Friday's epic Trumpcare debacle. Five. Days.

Remember back during the transition and the early days of his Presidency, when Trump was telling us all that his crew was running like a "fine-tuned machine" and that we needed to ignore any media reports to the contrary? This fine-tuned machine is not so fine-tuned after all, it seems.

(Remember the "early days of his Presidency"? Heck, he's been in office for barely two months!!!)

This brings me to my pertinent notion about the AHCA. It was an insanely flawed piece of legislation, something thrown together by GOP hacks and Paul Ryan's assistants (there's a lot of overlap there, true) that the Republicans were desperate to whip together and put up for a vote on March 23, because that was the 7th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act and there's nothing more important to Republicans than symbolism (nothing except tax cuts for the rich, I mean). So they threw together this mess of a bill, figuring their Republican majority in the House would vote for anything that got rid of Obamacare, and tried to ram it through without giving time for an official CBO score or to let people realize this bill would take health insurance away from tens of millions of Americans while at the same time giving a huge tax break to the wealthiest Americans. No time for that! What was important was:    This bill is better than Obamacare because it uses less paper.

Seriously. That was the main selling point, at least at the March 7 press conference. Not that 14 million or more Americans would lose health insurance. Not that those with incomes over $200,000 per year would receive huge tax breaks. Not that health services for the poor and elderly would become less available and more expensive. Nope - "it's better because it's smaller. See?"

Another point: One of the hallmark complaints about Obamacare from Republicans is that it was "rammed down our throats," that Democrats put together this terrible law in a tremendous rush, without proper vetting or study, and voted it through in the dead of night in a short window during which the patriotic GOP didn't have enough members in the House and Senate to stop it. Except the entire process of getting the ACA through took about 15 months, with multiple public speeches by the President to urge support, with months of debate and consideration of things like a public option, eventually resulting in a bill that should have been the health insurance industry's best buddy. Fifteen months. While the Republicans were hoping to have the AHCA put together and voted through Congress in about two months - something they threw together at the last minute even though they had the past seven years to actually develop a reasonable, thoughtful replacement. Contrast and compare, folks, and you decide which one would have been "rammed" down anybody's throat.

The rest of the AHCA saga is pretty well known by now. Hardcore House Republicans weren't happy because the bill kept too many features of the hated Obamacare. When Trump and Ryan worked to remove even more options from the bill, moderate Republicans began to waver, even as these concessions weren't enough to make the conservative side happy. So, eventually, by March 24 the whole thing fell apart without even coming to a vote in the House.

So naturally, Trump blamed Democrats for the bill's demise. Because if anyone should have stepped up to save an unpopular bill that would hurt tens of millions of Americans while putting more dollars in the pockets of the rich, while at the same time ending the landmark Obamacare legislation carried through while the Democrats held Congress ... why, of course, it should have been the Democrats, right? Pay no attention to the 237-193 GOP lead in the House, which means they could pass bills with zero Democratic votes even if 20 GOP Congress members were out of town, or avoiding town halls, or policing public bathrooms, or anything other than casting a vote in the House.

Of course, Trump was pulling out all the stops, working tirelessly to create a Deal (because he's good at those, you know), and never taking a break in the struggle ...

The total buffoonery of this administration would be pretty darn hilarious ... if only this ineptness wasn't hurting the lives of millions of Americans, making this country a laughing stock around the world, and raising the possibility of a misguided comment, tweet, or action starting some kind of armed conflict. Yeah, except for that, it would be pretty funny.

(And I'm not discounting the fact that Trump associates like Steve Bannon aren't actually inept, but truly have nefarious intentions towards progressivism and our American democracy as it's developed over the past two centuries. But as for Trump and his top appointees? Yeah, inept buffoons is pretty much on the nose.)

The GOP's 6-Step Plan To "Fix" Voting

Here's the Iowa GOP/Paul Pate/Ken Rizer approach to maintaining Republican control in the statehouse, disguised as concern about voting procedures in the state. This is not unique to Iowa, oh, no sir ... this process is a familiar one in the GOP/ALEC playbook that's been used in many states. We're just seeing it about to come to fruition here.

1) Realize demographics are against you, as the future population of Iowa will contain more groups that tend to vote Democratic instead of Republican.

2) Start planting nonsense about electoral fraud and questionable votes ("I would have won the popular vote if it wasn't for those three to five million illegal votes" "busloads of voters were brought in from out of state, ask anybody").

3) Once this has sunk in, quote polls of voters that show there's concerns about the validity of the electoral process (why, wherever might they have gotten that idea from?).

4) Come up with a Voter ID law that sounds simple to the general public ("I have to show my drivers license to buy beer, why not show it to vote?") but not-so-coincidentally puts additional hurdles in the way of certain (usually Democratic) voters - the poor, the elderly, those who don't drive. But hey! People are concerned about voter fraud! We're helping! Pay no attention to the fact this law fixes a problem that doesn't exist! Look, over there! That woman voted for Trump twice (never mind she was caught with our current laws and procedures, by the way)!

5) Claim this new process would make voting "as easy as going through the express line at the supermarket" but be sure not to appropriate any money to help the poor and elderly to obtain these magical voter ID cards.

6) Profit!

Voila! We've prevented more voters who tend to vote against us from going to the polls, while voters get deluded into a false sense of security because we fixed a nonexistent problem! Yay, Republicans!

Let's be very, very clear here. This Voter ID proposal does absolutely nothing to improve the validity of voting in Iowa. Voter impersonation - which is the only form of fraud this bill would have an effect on - is next to nonexistent. Our system of voting is not perfect, mistakes happen, things get screwed up ... but every single investigation of voter fraud in this country has found a vanishingly small amount of it.

So why are Republicans so anxious to ram through Voter ID laws, laws that would increase state and county spending, laws that fix problems that don't even exist? Is it to assuage voter fears of massive illegal voting (fears stoked by the Republicans themselves)? Well, it may do that, but the GOP wouldn't be spending tax dollars simply to make voters feel better.

What is the effect? That's what you need to look at. Voter ID laws raise the voting bar for citizens who may not have a drivers license, forcing them to jump through additional hoops just to vote. They have to make special trips to get that ID (and remember, they don't have a drivers license), perhaps produce copies of their birth certificate (do you know where your birth certificate is right now?). That tends to be the poor, the elderly, the populations that are struggling to just get by ... and oh, by the way, these groups often tend to vote Democratic. Funny how that's the case, right?

These laws are cynical, hateful, and counterproductive to democracy. Don't be misled by the hypocritical stoking of fears about voter fraud ... it practically doesn't exist, and GOP investigations have proven that fact. These laws are about one thing and one thing only - suppression of voters that tend to support your opponents.

Which problem would you rather have? Ten non-proper voters casting votes, or fifty eligible voters being prevented from voting? That's the choice the GOP is giving us, and they're banking on us taking the latter. Unfortunately, since most of those fifty voters aren't "like us," they're probably right.

Designated Contriver

Just a note about the ABC series Designated Survivor: I think commenting fits in context with The West Wing because ABC certainly was appealing to The West Wing fans in their marketing. They advertised heavily on The West Wing Weekly podcast before the premiere, and there was plenty of promotional talk referring to TWW.

Well, in the words of Lloyd Bentsen: I know The West Wing. I've watched The West Wing. The West Wing is a beloved series of mine. You, Designated Survivor, are no The West Wing.

I bought into the marketing. I jumped right in with Designated Survivor last fall. I was anxious to see how a new political drama might work, and I thought the hook was terrific: How would a low-level Cabinet member deal with rising to the office of the President after a disaster strikes everyone else in the line of succession? How would he build his administration? How would he deal with crises, both foreign and domestic? How would staff members held over from the previous President react, and how would he create and work with his own staff in the White House?

Unfortunately, we didn't get much of that. A little, sure, although laughably lame and unrealistic, in my opinion. I mean, what's with the focus on Kirkman's "illegitimacy" because the President was about to fire him from his HUD secretary post? He hadn't been fired, so he still was a Cabinet member - I can't believe there would be that much angst over that issue. Particularly when we got to the point of the governor of Michigan flat-out ignoring the federal government on that basis (and getting arrested. What?). Also, the episode where all the governors came to Washington to have Kirkman tell them how to have their elections to fill House seats. Why would there be any gamesmanship over that? Wouldn't the governors be just as anxious as anyone to have those elections? Why would their personal opinions of Kirkman have anything to do with setting up elections to refill those House seats? Ridiculous.

What we did get was plenty of conspiracies, mustache-twirling villains worming their way into positions of power, crazy family subplots (is Kirkman's son really his, or his wife's former lover's???!?!??), a White House Situation Room that looked like Dr. Evil's lair, and lone-wolf FBI agents who could have solved multiple plot points by JUST TELLING SOMEONE ELSE WHAT THEY KNEW. That wasn't what I tuned in to see, so even though the advertised theme of Designated Survivor was really interesting, and I like Kiefer Sutherland's take on his role, I gave up on the show after about four episodes.

It looks like I wasn't alone. The series debuted strongly, but quickly faded in the ratings (it just returned to the air this week after a winter hiatus). ABC blamed the ratings slide on "politics fatigue" and the unrelenting news cycle of Trump, but why couldn't it be because the show we got wasn't the show we were promised? Not only that, but the network replaced the original showrunner and wants to point the series in a different direction - unfortunately not in the direction I would prefer. Away from the conspiracies somewhat, it appears, but more towards a soap-opera relationship-oriented show. So we'll get to have more affairs, more questions about paternity, more Scandal than The West Wing. Pfui.

Frankly, while I don't actually watch it much (my wife does), it seems Madam Secretary is a much better modern-day comparison to The West Wing than Designated Survivor. Plus, Tea Leoni, Tim Daly, and Bebe Neuwirth are top-notch. So maybe give that a try, if you haven't.

A "Cold Open" Of Sorts

In television parlance, the "cold open" refers to an episode starting right in the midst of the action, a scene that is presented just as the show begins at 7:00 or 7:30 (or 6:55, for those who remember the old TBS Superstation days). Credits and the show's title theme (if it has one) run after the cold open, and then the episode begins in earnest. Cold opens are pretty much standard these days - many times with comedies the cold open is a completely stand-alone scene, with no connection to the episode's plot lines, while in other shows (particularly dramas) the cold open will kick-start the plot of the night.

Cold opens didn't used to be so widespread. Back in the golden days of TV, and even up through the 1980s at least, the majority of programs would begin with the opening credits and theme song. In a trend similar to movies, though, it's now a rarity to find a show that starts with anything but a cold open (many movies these days don't even run their main credits or titles until the end of the film).

So why is this a "cold open," of sorts? I'm just getting all fired up about starting a rewatch of The West Wing and talking about it here, but there's some background to get out before we get to the Pilot episode. So, why not a "cold open"? Heh ... yeah, I'm so clever (although I admit to stealing the idea from The West Wing Weekly podcast, where the original episode announcing the upcoming podcast was titled Cold Open. I only steal from the best).

First off, it seems a little weird to me to be so anxious to get started on a rewatch. I just finished watching the entire series last November, so to go back and start at the beginning only a few months later seems weird. I mean, it's not like I have hours and hours of free time that need filling, you know? But as I mentioned in an earlier post, given our current administration and the absolute clustermess of President Trump and his merry band of incompetents (not the mention the fear of what this clueless group of idealogues could actually end up doing to the country), to escape into an alternate timeline where caring, competent public servants are actually trying to do the right thing for the country sounds pretty darn good. Not to mention, this last rewatch, while finished only a few months ago, probably started sometime in early 2015. So it's been about two years since I started with the season 1 episodes. That's long enough, right?

Okay, so how did this series ever get going in the first place?

We must start with Aaron Sorkin. Sorkin first gained attention in 1989 with his script for the play A Few Good Men (I was actually lucky enough to play Col. Jessep in a local production last year - what a great role in a great play). Sorkin moved on from that to write the screenplay for the movie version (1992), and also wrote the screenplays for Malice (1993) and The American President (1995). His dialogue - clever, snappy, smart, and oh-so-fast - proved to be his trademark. After The American President, which took Sorkin four years to write, he basically was working as a script doctor, tuning up screenplays written by others.

That's what he was doing in late 1996 when he was taken by surprise in a meeting with producer John Wells. Sorkin believed the lunch meeting would just be a talk about general ideas on TV series possibilities. Instead, Wells asked him to pitch a specific series idea. The night before, Sorkin had been hanging out with actor Bradley Whitford, his wife Jane Kaczmarek, and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman. Goldsman pointed to a poster for The American President and said, "You know, that would make a great TV series."

Sorkin's response to Wells' request for a pitch was to describe a series based on staffers at the White House, and the germ of The West Wing took hold. The show was brought up to NBC in 1997, but with the Clinton administration in the throes of the Monica Lewinsky/impeachment scandal, the network didn't think the time was right for a political TV series. Meanwhile, Sorkin developed the show Sports Night for ABC (a series spurred by Sorkin's non-stop watching of ESPN while he was working on the script for The American President), which debuted in the fall of 1998.

About that same time, NBC decided the time was right for The West Wing, and picked up the show for the 1999-2000 season. Sorkin ended up writing nearly every script for the show's first four seasons (while also writing nearly every script for Sports Night, which overlapped The West Wing's first season before being canceled). Sorkin left the show after the 2002-2003 season, partly due to burnout, partly due to personal issues (including some serious problems with drug use).

The first four seasons of The West Wing are generally regarded as some of the best television drama ever produced. After Sorkin's departure, producer John Wells stepped in as the overall showrunner, and the quality of the scripts and storylines did drop off somewhat (although the worst of The West Wing is still far and away above most of what you'll find on TV). Season 5 was kind of a struggle re-finding the show's footing, but once Season 6 got the upcoming presidential election storyline running, the show closed with a strong Season 7.

That's the background of how things got started. For me, I absolutely recall watching the original run of the show. I can't remember for certain if I started watching at the beginning in the fall of 1999 (although this type of show is certainly in my wheelhouse, I imagine I did start with the pilot) - my work schedule was something that certainly affected whether or not I might have Wednesday evenings free for TV, so I do remember the VCR getting a workout. I watched pretty faithfully on broadcast TV throughout those first four seasons, although in my recent rewatch there was an episode here and there that didn't really ring a bell, so I probably missed a couple now and again. Season 4 ended with a kidnapping cliffhanger and President Bartlet actually stepping away from his office, and that seemed to turn something off for me. I'm pretty sure I saw very, very little of Season 5 during its broadcast run (I remember hearing about storylines and promos for the show, but also know I didn't watch much), but I must have decided to go back and give it a shot at the beginning of Season 6. I do recall seeing Leo's heart attack at Camp David early in the season, although some of the other plotlines in the first 8 episodes or so don't sound familiar to me. By episode 9 and 10, Josh is convincing Matt Santos to run for President, and from that point on I was back on board.

After the show ended in 2006, I didn't think much about it for some time. I remembered it fondly; I saw a rerun or two when they were broadcast on the Bravo cable network; but it was a show in the past, you know? For some reason, though, The West Wing has worked its way back into the zeitgeist. Lin-Manuel Miranda, he of In The Heights and Hamilton fame, is a longtime fan, and worked references from The West Wing into Hamilton (and at the curtain call for Lin-Manuel's last performance as Alexander Hamilton in July 2016, conductor Alex Lacamoire actually played Snuffy Walden's The West Wing theme - fun note; my son was in the audience that night). Several podcasts have sprung up discussing the world of the show, with The West Wing Weekly (featuring former cast member Joshua Malina) perhaps the best-known. As interest in the show's universe has re-built, we bought the entire series on DVD a few years back (but only watched some extras and an episode or two). Then I realized the entire series was available on Netflix. As I said, I started at the beginning maybe two years ago, paused for a few months, then charged ahead to watch the whole thing and finished last November.

There you have it. How things got started, how I got interested, and now you and I can get going on this trip through the Bartlet administration together. To wrap things up, this is corny, but it's a theme of the show, so I'm going with it - okay. What's next?

The Pilot. Pilot is next.