House of Cards or Veep?

It’s summer. Despite efforts by the news media to keep us engaged, nothing much is happening in politics. All the better, really. So let’s have some fun.

Which show, House of Cards or Veep, better captures the reality of American politics?

A comedy of the absurd filled with half-wits and sociopaths who fumble their way through a broken, unmanageable system. Or a dark thriller in which sinister geniuses scheme their way toward the heights of power.

Or should we just cruise past both shows and study Idiocracy?


Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Posted in Uncategorized
334 comments on “House of Cards or Veep?
  1. Linda Swanson says:

    Feeling the need for a good laugh just Google Cheeto Jesus. Seems a long time Republican operative is really taking exception to Trump and went on a twitter rampage

  2. 1mime says:

    This is pretty interesting. Several major “former” GOP convention sponsors are pulling out this year. Frankly, I wish they would pull out from both parties and let the process be totally self-funded. The more corporate money we remove from the political process, the better. We’ll see if this group’s actions will spur more dissents from other corporate sponsors.

  3. Vin says:

    Note that this is a totally half-baked theory from someone with no particular insider or specialist knowledge of national politics…but here’s how I see it…

    “The West Wing” is Washington as it sees itself. “House of Cards” is Washington as the rest of the country sees it. “Veep” is Washington as it actually is.

    • 1mime says:

      Have to say I loved West Wing….bought the entire series and watch it from time to time. The first few years were the best….changed writers mid-way and the quality diminished by still very interesting.

      Speaking of “theater”. Sen. John McCain is calling Pres. Obama “directly responsible for the attack in Orlando”. Directly. His words. His justification? Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq and should have more directly intervened in the Syrian civil war. I wonder if the esteemed Senator McCain has given “any” thought to who got us into Iraq in the first place? He also conveniently fails to acknowledge that Pres. G.W. Bush negotiated the pull out date and that Pres. Obama was unable to obtain a commitment from the Iraqi leadership to protect American troops in combat, leaving him his only option – a skeleton military presence who were advisory. How quickly some forget pesky little details like that. As for Syria, I agree that Pres. Obama handled that poorly, but experts differ on what the proper action would be for the U.S. Speaking only for myself, I am glad Obama has kept us out of war to the extent possible. For McCain to make a statement like he did charging that Pres. Obama was directly responsible is shameful. McCain must really feel threatened for his seat to reach such despicable levels in his rhetoric. Shame on him.

      • 1mime says:

        McCain is now walking back his statement charging Pres. Obama with being directly, personally responsible for the Orlando attacks. The shift is now that Obama’s foreign policies and decisions have “led” to strengthening of ISIL which promotes tragedies like Orlando’s mass murder. I’ll stick with my explanation above whereby McCain so conveniently ignores G.W. Bush’s role in creating this monster in Iraq.

  4. 1mime says:

    Speaking of surprises from FOX, they just joined the other major media in a FOIA request to unseal the Trump U. Video Deposition.

    Is it just my natural cynicism to wonder if there is something afoot with Repubs re Trump? Do they have a plan? Lifers been very quiet. Come on, lifer, is there a stealth plan?

  5. objv says:

    Malcolm Gladwell offered an interesting take on the reasons for the shootings.

    “So far in 2016 alone, there have been over 140 mass shootings. The recent attack in Orlando has reignited the political debate on gun control, but Gladwell said the issue is “a lot more complicated,” especially as shooters feed off each other and media.”

    In other words, he felt that these kind of tragedies were contagious.

    Do we lock up all young men and prevent them from internet access from the ages of 14 to 32? It would be nice to say that strong gun control measures would prevent further horror, but what as a society should we be doing?

    • texan5142 says:

      Well, I just happened to be listening to NPR and they were talking about this. It kind of mirrors what is called the suicide contagion.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Should the media give the perpetrators less attention, thereby starving the beast? Give attention to the victims and to the crime itself without focusing so much on the perpetrators? We can’t really tell the media what to do, either. In any case, the audience is curious and wants to know as much as possible about the perpetrators.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      How do you stop the spread of this virus?

      • objv says:

        I wish I knew, tutt. Unfortunately, there seems to be no shortage of disturbed and unstable young men.

    • 1mime says:

      Undoubtedly, copycats exist. They still have to be able to purchase guns. This presents an opportunity to screen out those who “shouldn’t” be allowed to buy from those who are/will be responsible gun owners. Enough on that – it’s so obvious it’s hardly worth stating.

      I am more impressed by the filibuster being conducted by Sen. Patrick Murphy, CT who is appealing to his colleagues to pass simple improvements to existing legislation. It is doubtful he will succeed but I think Democrats are long overdue from mounting efforts like this which bring attention to important issues, which otherwise never get a committee hearing much less a vote. I hope to see more of this. This particular issue is one on which bi-partisan agreement should be able to be found. It may not be much but it is a start to learning again how to work together and when unable to do so, how to protest effectively. Bravo Sen. Murphy!

      • 1mime says:

        Correction, the filibuster was led by Sen. Chris Murphy….I get he and FL Representative Patrick Murphy mixed up all the time! Sorry about that. I hope that Dems will use this tactic more frequently but carefully to highlight issues that people really care about and don’t understand why are not being addressed.

        In other news, Sen. Rubio now plans to run for re-election after campaigning on the promise not to run….guess his other “day job” opportunities as a regular citizen are not looking so good. The state “needs him”, he says….sadly, although he did a horrible job in representing FL, he’ll probably be re-elected. It’s hard to beat an incumbent – even when their record is pitiful….(most missed votes, MIA generally, dissing the work of the Senate….could it be he was the one who was ineffective??)

  6. Rob Ambrose says:

    Trump, showing off those Commander in Chief skills, apparently unaware the Nimitz class carriers are nuclear, and thus, always “on”.

    Lol….like what in the actual F is wrong with this guy? Does he know anything about anything?

    • flypusher says:

      He’s a consummate expert in parasite-capitalism, and drawing attention to himself. But on so many other things, especially things that are important for actually doing the job of President, he fails and fails big.

Leave a Reply to 1mime Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 454 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: