Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 29, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

IS CHARLES LOGAN A REPUBLICAN?....A few days ago a reader threatened to report me to Glenn Reynolds unless I cleared up an important issue that I brought up last Sunday: Is Charles Logan a Republican?

Logan, of course, is the hapless president of the United States currently on offer from the producers of 24. As we all know, he was formerly vice president Charles Logan until the untimely destruction of Air Force One in Season 4, so the question of his party affiliation boils down to this: Was John Keeler a Republican?

The basic argument goes like this. The president during Seasons 1-3 was David Palmer, and we know for a fact that Palmer was a Democrat. In Season 3, Palmer is running for reelection and part of the plot involves a debate against his opponent, John Keeler. Later in the show, for reasons that need not detain us, Palmer pulls out of the race and Keeler wins the presidency. Occam's Razor suggests that if Palmer is a Democrat, and Keeler was running against him, then Keeler and Logan are Republicans.

Unless it was a primary debate. Perhaps, as in 1980, a prominent Democrat decided to challenge a sitting president. After all, would Palmer really pull out of a race against a Republican opponent? Doesn't it make more sense that he'd do that against a fellow Democrat?

On the other hand, no sitting president would deign to debate a primary opponent. And in Season 4 there's a reference from the daughter of Keeler's Secretary of Defense to a Heritage Foundation meeting, clearly a Republican hangout.

But then there's Mike Novick. If Palmer was a Democrat and Logan is a Republican, how did Novick manage to worm his way into both men's staffs? And what's with Palmer's suggestion that he had been "frozen out" of the Logan administration? That doesn't even make sense unless Logan is a Democrat and Palmer expected to retain a bit of influence with him.

Perhaps a bit of Googling could clear this up, but I figured I'd throw it out for comments instead. I think it's pretty clear that Logan is a Republican, but perhaps there's further evidence on this score that I've missed due to my lazy TV-watching habits. What say you?

Kevin Drum 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (77)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

"how did Novick manage to worm his way into both men's staffs?"

How does David Gergen manage it?

Posted by: cld on January 29, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

What exactly was the evidence that the late David Palmer was a Democrat?

BTW, I recall that in Season One, Palmer was running for the Presidency, but was clearly not the incumbent.

Posted by: Steve Smith on January 29, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Or John DiIulio for that matter. Or Tony Lake, etc., etc.

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot on January 29, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Of course Keeler was a Republican. His staff was composed almost entirely of white men. He prepared a pardon document that he never intended to honor, and had it written as such. His response to almost every problem was to bluster and berate, and then plan martial law. His college-age son wore a pink button-down shirt for crying out loud!

What, do they have to spell it out?

Posted by: bleh on January 29, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

He's clearly a Vulcan.

http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/images/8/81/Sopek.jpg

Posted by: Martin on January 29, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

Definitely a Republican

Posted by: Jacob on January 29, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Who cares? I mean really.

Posted by: Jones on January 29, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

What exactly was the evidence that the late David Palmer was a Democrat?

In season one, Palmer was speaking at the democratic primary in California? Or maybe it was the democratic convention? In either case, it was well depicted in the first season that Palmer was a Democrat.

In the first episode this season, someone (don't recall who) said that Palmer and Logan had very different political views. From that I assumed Logan, was a Republican. Since plenty of time a elapsed, I hadn't realized that Keeler was the candidate that Palmer debated in season 3. It seems obvious that Logan and Keeler are Republicans.

Posted by: blank on January 29, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Hey guys,

I interviewed for a guerilla marketing business that targeted web forums.

I was told that if I accepted the job, I was to have at LEAST 50 identities on as many forums as I could muster (they wanted 100 eventually), with a goal of 5 posts an hour. The posts had to be well thought out, and the idea was that I was to establish multiple identities with a history on the forums, so that when the timing was right a well written but subtly placed marketing post could be finessed in. And regular visitors would recognize the post as coming from a long time poster.

They had 12 people working there full time, and were hiring 10 more. You do the math. No wait, I'll do it for you: that's 880 posts a day (if minimum was met). However he said the better ones could do around 8 or 10 an hour. And they had different "verticals" so there was the sports guy, and the politics guy, the hentai, excuse me I mean anime guy, etc.

But the most critical point was this: develop and integrate the identity. No random "HEY SONY IS AWESOME BUY THIS" stuff.

Kinda spooky.

P.S. Five posts AN HOUR? Sound like anyone you know...

Posted by: Phobos Deimos on January 29, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

In the first season, the show opened with the statement that "the following takes place between (time) and (time) on the day of the California Presidential Primary." There's no reference to the party. I'm watching the first year again (it's being shown on weekends on a local station), and I haven't seen a reference to Palmer's political affiliation yet. Is there a specific reference in later episodes?

Posted by: Steve Smith on January 29, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

If it's any consolation, this is being discussed on the 24 Forums at some length, with evidence for both views.

I suspect that the show creators deliberately chose not to make it an issue, and probably regret any specifics they had on party in earlier shows. After all, why antagonize viewers from either party, who otherwise can cheerfully assign Logan to the opposite party and enjoy the show?

Posted by: tbrosz on January 29, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

In season one, Sherri Palmer explicitly says that David Palmer is a Democrat. Episode 18.

http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/story.cgi?show=73&story=3167&page=3

Posted by: Sean Riley on January 29, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

So, does this mean that Kevin Drum is a shill for the producers of 24?

Woo hoo. Way to go Kev'. Makin' some dough on the side is the outsourced American way.

Posted by: MarkH on January 29, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK


Hmm. Yes, puzzling. And vitally important in these times of political impersonators. For instance, is George Bush a Republican or a Nazi? Dick Cheney a conservative or a fascist? Kevin Drum a Democrat or a Republican? No easy answers to these questions. As with 24, I guess we'll just have to stay tuned.


Posted by: jayarbee on January 29, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty sure the Palmer-Keeler debate was a presidential debate - I seem to recall somebody (either Keeler or Sherry Palmer) saying that forcing Palmer our of the race at such a late date would hand Keeler the election because his party would be in turmoil.

I'm not about to dig through my season 3 DVDs to get an episode reference, tho.

Posted by: Eric Blair on January 29, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

I watched season one two months ago. I distinctly remember seeing a Democratic Party banner in Palmer's campaign office. There was no doubt left in my mind, watching season One, that Palmer is a Democratic candidate.

In season 3, which I also watched recently, I remember Sherri (Pamker's ex) walking into Keeler's campaign office and discussing how forcing Palmer to resign will throw their party into chaos, which would prevent them from fielding a strong candidate against Keeler. I don't recall seeing any Republican banners in Keeler's office, but since everthing in this show is contemporary, the major opponent of a Democratic presidential candidate is a Republican presidential candidate.

That said, it is clear that the show deliberately left some of these issues fuzzy. I wouldn't worry about the politics depicted in the show. The real action is focused on Jack Bauer and the CTU. Everything else is a side show.

Posted by: 24viewer on January 29, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Dem or Repub, he seems to be modeled on the twit in the oval office right now.

Posted by: JoeW on January 29, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

Liberal Dem bloggers are busting their asses right now to prevent extreme right-wing philosophy becoming institutionalized (something I believe you're against)...and you're posting about the political leanings of the characters on your favorite TV show?

Where would you place Gilligan? Mike Brady? Jack Tripper? Cosmo Kramer?

Posted by: Paul K on January 29, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

I've wondered that too. I figured Logan was a Republican but it doesn't make sense that Mike Novick would have gotten to be chief of staff (or whatever) in two successive administrations of different parties. I think the writers just wanted him back and figured it was worth the questionable credibility.

And, not to name pseudonyms, but those of you who complain every time Kevin does not blog about a current political issue really need to lighten up. It's a big internet out there, I'll bet you someone, somewhere, right now is posting on Abramoff or Iraq. If you need your fix, find them. Otherwise, let a thread be a thread, okay? If you want control over what someone posts on, let that someone be yourself, on your own blog. You sound like 5 year-olds when they don't like what the adults are watching on TV.

Posted by: ChiSoxfan in LA on January 29, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

The real "Kramer" ran for NYC Mayor as a Libertarian. So, I'd assume Cosmo would need to be a member of that party, too.

I don't know if this means anything, but Reference.com lists Logan as a Republican and Palmer as a Democrat. Also, the Fox website says Charles Logan was once honored as Energy CEO of the year.

Is there any substantial evidence indicating Logan is anything but Republican?

Posted by: dfx on January 29, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

A. Palmer was definitely a Democrat. As Sean Riley comments, his wife mentions it in season 1.

B. Palmer bows out, handing the race to his opponent in the opposing party because his administration is implicated in a murder (and he's a man of honor).

C. Novick likely made some friends in the opposition party when he orchestrated a palace coup against a sitting Democratic president.

D. Palmer being "frozen out" stands in comparison to last season, when he was running the show for Logan.

E. Logan is Nixonian paranoia and vanity with a dash of Bush incompetence thrown in for good measure. If you're not convinced, check out the history on Martha Mitchell. She was Nixon AG Mitchell's wife, who was pronounced delusional when she started touring the media blowing the whistle on All the President's Men. Wikipedia defines the Martha Mitchell effect as "a process by which a belief is mistakenly diagnosed as a delusion by a psychiatrist." Sound familiar?

Posted by: pickabone on January 29, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Who gives a tiddley doodle?

Posted by: Fred Flintrock on January 29, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

> They had 12 people working there full time, and
> were hiring 10 more.

Phobos,
It has been definitively proven that such operations do not exist - at least not in the political world. No one would pay 10-15 wild-eyed fanatics $15/hour to sit around and troll liberal blogs. Why, 10 people doing that for a year would cost $300,000! No one spends that kind of money on seeds. Of course not.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on January 29, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

I'd just like to offer a note of appreciation for the show's creators, who are balanced enough to present us with a Democratic President who is admirable (Palmer), a Republican President who is admirable (Keeler - note that Keeler seems a little sleazy in season 3, but hey, he's running against the secondary protagonist; in season 4, until he gets incapacitated, he seems like a pretty good guy), and a Republican President who is a sleaze (Logan).

The idea that there are good men and assholes in both parties is a little too nuanced for most people in film and television to comprehend.

Posted by: sd on January 29, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

Oh god, this is stupider than listening to Star Trek fans argue over how many torpedo launchers the Enterprise had. You might as well be trying to plot where the CTU HQ is by timing how long it takes to drive from there to various locations in the show: so where, exactly, is a place in Los Angeles that is a five-minute drive from EVERYWHERE?

This is "24", a show that commits factual and logical howlers on a minute-by-minute basis, so the answer is, whatever the scriptwriter for a particular episode thinks it is, logic and backstory be damned.


whether

Posted by: Calton Bolick on January 29, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

If you break all this down, the only point of confusion is Mike Novick's presence in both White Houses. ALL the other evidence points to Palmer (D) and Logan (R). And on the Novick point, the Gergen and Dick Morris examples of prominent "transvestocrats" should be sufficient for any doubters. But the most important point is this: it's a TV show, for crying out loud!!! Plot and intrigue matter more than perfect political consistency, and Novick is too good (and too slippery) a character to just dump off after one season. My God, how long did they keep the hated Kim character around? They even made her a CTU analyst! If she can pull that off, Novick can work both sides of the partisan aisle.

Posted by: RMcD on January 29, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, these are the fun entries I like! Interesting question Kevin. I think the producers have decided to make Logan's party affiliation a semi-mystery just to avoid unnecessary controversy. But addt'l food for thought.

Logan was Lt. Governor of the State of California, (increases likelihood of being Democrat), but a State Senator from Santa Barbara (which somewhat suggests Republican (think Tom McClintock).

Being a vice-president of a Republican is highly suggestive, but it is possible (although unlikely) that as a result of the withdrawl of Palmer that some kind of national unity ticket was created. Which would explain for the First Lady's apparent closeness to Palmer, as well as Novick being on Logan's staff.

Posted by: Joel B. on January 29, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

I don't watch the show, so all I would do is ask a question: is he an evil bastard? If so, then in all likelihood he's a Republican.

Posted by: JBK on January 29, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

'JoeW' posted:

"Dem or Repub, he seems to be modeled on the twit in the oval office right now."

And Palmer was modeled after a brilliant, articulate, competent, successful, and wildly popular Democrat. Which is why the RightWingers don't want Logan to be a Republican.
.

Posted by: VJ on January 29, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

Someone's going to report Kevin to Reynolds? Oooh. Give me a "heh". Give me an "indeed".

Posted by: Joe Buck on January 29, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

The writers don't give a shit, and let inconsistent indications show up over the seasons.

Just like Chris Carter used to do on The X-Files- if you really tried to add it all together as a consistent narrative, you'd just get kind of pissed off at the laziness of the writers.

Posted by: duh on January 29, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum wrote:

What say you?

Umm...That y'all are thinking way too hard about a TV show...Sit back, enjoy the show, and stop acting like Trekkies... ;)

Posted by: grape_crush on January 29, 2006 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

I have to admit, this seems rather trivial for a political blogsite. Besides, it is perfectly clear that Palmer is a Democrat and that Keeler is a Republican, which would make his VP one as well, unless one thinks 24 did what Commander in Chief did by having an independent in the VP slot. In season three Palmer has to leave the Presidential debate with Keeler, which confirms he is GOP. The rest follows naturally. Novick clearly made friends inside the opposition when he helped coordinate the coup against Palmer and then subsequently fired.

Why there is any debate about this I really do not understand, both in terms of importance and in terms of what the show had already made clear if one paid attention if/when one watches it.

Posted by: Scotian on January 29, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

URGENT to Paul K: Cosmo Kramer is a libertarian.

And Logan's clearly a Republican -- I mean, the eerie resemblance to Nixon alone is a giveaway.

And why are so few liberal bloggers mentioning the fact that the underlying theme 24 has gone from being a passive promotion for a secretive war on "terrorists" (that is an outright threat to constitutionally guaranteed liberties) to a scathing portrayal of a unitary executive out of control?

Posted by: The Wurmser Turns on January 29, 2006 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

Good GAWD...other than a FUN thread...haven't we got better things to talk about?

Frey? Oprah? Rat Poison recipes anyone?

%-)

Posted by: Karen on January 29, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

All you jerk-offs whining about how the republic is crumbling while Mr. Drum is blogging about 24... get a life. Sometimes it is necessary to take a break and unwind... no one forces you to read every thread... if its about 24, you have the option of NOT READING.

Posted by: jab on January 29, 2006 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

Of course he's a Republican. He is a perfect composite: he looks uncannily like Nixon but is a stupid coward like shrub.

Posted by: Newton Minnow on January 29, 2006 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Drum, I have to agree with Paul K. You and many of your respondents complain about what is going on in the Administration, but you are busy talking about a TV show in this thread. In another thread you were busy with Kuwait oil (not as urgent as this week's Alito vote). So, while some other blogs are busy trying to swing the possible filibuster, you aren't even discussing it. I'm not even saying that you need to be in favor, but I am saying that you try to represent yourself as a serious political analyst and you aren't even talking about this effort. I have to say that the you and the whiners are mostly just a joke to provide cover for the repugs.

Posted by: Bear Country on January 29, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

The issue of whether Palmer would withdraw against a Republican is completely moot. Like Logan, Palmer was a remarkably poor president, though I don't think it was the show's creators intent to make him such. But in season 3, he's dealing with a very minor political issue while in the midst of the single worst bioterrorist attack anywhere in the world for the entire history of time, which results in the eventual death of one of his biggest contributors. A season earlier, he allowed his cabinet, headed by his VP and aided by Novick, to invoke 25 and oust him from his presidency, even while a nuclear bomb was detonated in California with another threatening the country elsewhere, then after being reinstated, managed to not accept his cabinet's resignations, forgiving even the VP that masterminded the whole ouster. I understand forgiveness, but sometimes, people need to be fired, and in this case, it's the VP. Palmer's a good guy with a great voice, but he was never much of a president.

So, I really don't buy the "wouldn't resign against a republican" line, that's only the sort of thing the politcally savvy wouldn't do.

Posted by: Mark Kawakami on January 29, 2006 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty sure that Gilligan is/was a Republican. Not so sure about Charles Logan.

Not that anyone on planet Earth cares.

Posted by: morris on January 29, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Novick is like David Gergen. He can cross party lines and it's OK. Logan is definitely a Republican, looks like Nixon acts like Bush

Posted by: bob on January 29, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

Is there not enough going on in the world without talking about this crap? I remember a fellow lamenting that his family was nothing like the Cleavers and as often as I told him it was fiction, he couldn't sort it out in his mind. Let's move on.

Posted by: murmeister on January 29, 2006 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

Put me in the "who cares" column. Seriously.

Posted by: Bob on January 29, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

In a show with this many plot holes and absurd situations, do you really think you can logically discover the answer to this question?

Posted by: mike on January 29, 2006 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

The Free World is buzzing with the prospect of filibustering (or not) the Alito nominaton, urging their minions to support and urge Senators to vote one way or the other....and YOU are musing whether or not fictional characters have a party affiliation?

What were / are you thinking???


Posted by: jcricket on January 29, 2006 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

and you're posting about the political leanings of the characters on your favorite TV show?

Well, I think it's relevant, because like it or not, the plot lines on this show have muscled their way into our political discourse in the debate on torture. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with that schmuck Alan Dershowitz.

And in my opinion, people who post comments bitching about the subject matter are wankers. If you don't care, why are you reading?

If you want to pick the topics, start your own damn blog.

Posted by: hamletta on January 29, 2006 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

hamletta:

I'm reading because I'm bored out of my mind.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 29, 2006 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

How dare you think, much less post, about fiction that entertains you? I expect you to address serious issues, 100 percent of the time, particularly during this administration. If you ever watch TV again instead of devoting all your time, monk-like, to reading about politics and government policy, I'll never read your blog again.

Posted by: Will on January 30, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

By a fluke I saw the Season 3 episode where Sherry (sp?) tries to make a deal with keeler the other day, and I'll confirm that she indeed tells him that Palmer resigning (because of a murder coverup plot) would "throw the party into turmoil" leaving Keeler to run virtually unopposed by Palmer's Democratic party.

For what its worth, fake-out pardon and Republican status aside, I thought Keeler was a much less bothersome president than whiny old Palmer. Logan, of course, is a tool, but at least we're not expected to pretend otherwise.

Posted by: Alex on January 30, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

Here watch 24 and the superbowl and get fat and stupid while we take over the world.

Posted by: Corporate Elite on January 30, 2006 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

Back in Season 3, it was pointed out that Keeler's campaign signs were dead ringers for the signs that John Kerry was using in 2004. Which doesn't really get us any closer to answering the question, I realize.

Posted by: Charlie T. on January 30, 2006 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

Here watch 24 and the superbowl and get fat and stupid while we take over the world.

Here, ignore the zeitgeist, eat your tofu, and have no bloody fun while we blather endlessly about biofuels.

Posted by: Tedious Gits on January 30, 2006 at 3:09 AM | PERMALINK

I truly hope that all the armchair senators angry about how they're leading the filibuster charge while Kevin is practically rimming out Scalito are posting in jest, or (even better) that there's just one of them posting under multiple names, and that person is actually Al. Because they're beginning to sound frighteningly like Open Bathrobe Media.

Fight the power, et cetera.

Posted by: scarshapedstar on January 30, 2006 at 3:51 AM | PERMALINK

I believe somewhere in the first season it was mentioned once that Palmer is a Democrat, so Logan by extension is a Republican. Still, the producers seem to do their best not to mention parties as to not isolate half the audience. Furthermore, I think Logan is modeled after John Kerry.

As for the people griping about this thread, the world could never be in so much turmoil that we can't at least spend a little time talking about 24.

Posted by: Frank J. on January 30, 2006 at 6:36 AM | PERMALINK

Furthermore, I think Logan is modeled after John Kerry.

You probably also think the Capitol is modeled after Pamela Anderson's left tit.

Posted by: ahem on January 30, 2006 at 7:52 AM | PERMALINK

ahem,
The Fourth season came out when the wishy-washy caricature of John Kerry was most popular, and one of the producers is a big Rush Limbaugh fan.

Thus, I think Logan is supposed to be Kerry.

Posted by: Frank J. on January 30, 2006 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

The really sad thing is that the political side of the show is laughably poor (especially compared to the West Wing) and ultimately detracts from the quality of the program. I used to watch 24 religiously but just couldn't stomach the total joke that was political plot, so I gave it up. Then again, now that David Palmer is no longer the Prez, maybe the acting has improved.

Posted by: sjh on January 30, 2006 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

The motto of all fictional television is "Don't Think-Don't Tell!" - FOLLOW THIS ADVICE!!!!!!

Posted by: murmeister on January 30, 2006 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK

I think the thing about Palmer being "frozen out" comes from the expectation that there's at least *some* communication between Administrations, both personally and professionally. That's part of the reason it was so newsworthy that the second Bush Administration was ignoring the Clinton crew (other parts included Rove wanting a stark contrast and Rice not making Bush read the 8/6/01 PDB - those factors have also been newsworthy for their own reasons).

Posted by: Chris on January 30, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

My guess is that, following the logic of the show, Palmer was a Dem and Keeler/Logan were Republicans, but the writers would rather us not spend too much time thinking about that.

A more intriguing question to me is the political leanings of the shows creators. After last season, with the non-stop torture, the ridiculous subplot of Amnesty Global helping a terror suspect lawyer up in a literal ticking-time-bomb scenario, and the rumors of Rush Limbaugh visiting the set, everyone seemed to assume its a Republican-leaning show. But the entire second half of season 2 was a condemnation of the Bush Administration rushing to war on faulty intelligence (in the case of 24, that evidence was being deliberately ginned up by that old liberal staple, the Rich White Guy Defense Contractor.)

And I agree with an earlier that Palmer was a horrible president, but mostly because he kept calling his ex-wife whenever he ran into trouble. Not that his brother was any better. How many times do you have to hear someone say, Maybe I can make this all go away before you realize that will ALWAYS end badly?

Posted by: DonGato on January 30, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Good God, you people are whiners sometimes. How long do you think it took Kevin to actually write this post? Ten minutes? Maybe fifteen? How dare he spend up to a quarter-hour of a Monday morning not thinking about work. That bastard.

Posted by: Viserys on January 30, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

>Is Charles Logan a Republican?

Well, his wife is blond-ish and under an ongoing regimen of psychotropic drugs.

Oh, and as if Palmer, as an African American, would ever win the Republican presidential candidacy.

I thought Logan, as a character on an Fox TV show, was set up to make gwb look in comparison (in contrast to J. Bartlett in The West Wing). He's so bad I'm surprised Will Farrell didn't get the gig.

Posted by: bartkid on January 30, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

"I don't care about this topic, so much so that, rather than just moving on, it is necessary for me to post a comment in this thread about how much I don't care about this topic."

I can't decide. Is the above (a) meta? (b) post-modern? or (c) just silly?

I only caught about half of one episode, but this Logan fella seems to be modeled on Nixon. Check out the jowls.

Posted by: Lame Man on January 30, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Hoo boy.
these "why aren't you writing about Alito?" type comments are about as interesting as "Is tbrosz a troll?" thread takeovers.

Oops, now I've gone done it....

Posted by: Tony on January 30, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Democrat, Republican - who cares? The important thing is Walt Cummings is Karl Rove.

Posted by: Raznor on January 30, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

I thought Season 3 took place in October, and Palmer was in a national debate. Furthermore, didn't Sherri tell Keeler that if Palmer drops out, the party would scramble to find a nominee to replace him? I distinctly remember that.

Posted by: Raznor on January 30, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

My TV-watching habits are SO lazy that I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. There's plenty enough intrigue in real life that I don't have to watch the fictional version.

Posted by: wileycat on January 30, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

He has to be a Democrat. After all, he is a weenie

Posted by: Mike on January 30, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

It's amazing to me how many people will post in a thread to say they have absolutely no interest in the subject matter.

Hubby & I didn't watch 24 until last season, when we got quickly hooked. We also vowed to watch in on DVD in the future so we could get through it more quickly than one show a week.

We're on Season One now, and with almost two seasons under our belts, the question that occupies our minds is not whether the President is Democratic or Republican, but this:

Which is more incompetant, the CTU or the CIA?

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 30, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Damn, I better stop reading this thread lest you start the spoilers coming - 24's 5th season will only begin in Brazil in March!

Posted by: Brazil Connection on January 30, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

And what's with Palmer's suggestion that he had been "frozen out" of the Logan administration? That doesn't even make sense unless Logan is a Democrat and Palmer expected to retain a bit of influence with him.

Perhaps Keeler ran as a moderate on a platform of bipartisan cooperation and lowering the enmity in Washington, and after winning a narrow victory he suddenly took a hard right turn, stocked his administration with wingnuts, and stopped taking Palmer's phone calls, all while claiming a nonexistent mandate to do so. Ludicrous, I know, but that's Hollywood for you.

Posted by: phh on January 30, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

In profile, he looks like Nixon.

Posted by: Bryce Pashler on January 30, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

'bob' posted:

"Novick is like David Gergen."

You mean he's a political whore ?
.

Posted by: VJ on January 30, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

so I'm watching 24 for the first time in ages just to see where it's at and I learn a couple if things:

1) torture works! and the good guys (Jack Bauer) does it - in fact, even the threat od torture works - yay, torture!

2) love affairs squeezed into segments - multiple women competing for Jack's attention; the Prez's wife in a mental hospital: it's a SOAP OPERA!

3) Anyone can stroll in on the Prez at prety much any time

4) must be one of the easiest shows to satirize on TV - takes itself ever so seriously!

Posted by: Bob on January 30, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK


To those of you who think this is irrelevant: John McCain will have a cameo on next week's episode of '24'. No, I'm not kidding.

Posted by: loser on January 30, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

Well, after tonight's episode I feel confirmed in my belief that Walt Cummings is Karl Rove- except that Cummings has some scruples. Logan is a great president to have on the show, it's so much more dramatic to have an asshole weak-willed president than an overly idealistic strong president like Palmer.

Posted by: Raznor on January 30, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

"Well, after tonight's episode I feel confirmed in my belief that Walt Cummings is Karl Rove- except that Cummings has some scruples. Logan is a great president to have on the show, it's so much more dramatic to have an asshole weak-willed president than an overly idealistic strong president like Palmer."
Amen......but when you see real life with W and look at Logan......man, are they the same guy.
Definately Logan is a Repugnant. Even the Democrats wouldn't claim that worm. Only the repugs would want someone that creepy-crawly on their team......look who they have in real lifa and even the most dense can see the truth in that! IF they are honest with themselves that is!

Posted by: qit on January 31, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly