Would anybody really miss not hearing a political speech by Donald Trump?

One of the things I used to like about the old television series “The West Wing” was the way the show’s writers could work in trivial tidbits about politics and government for our amusement.

TRUMP: Wants to say how wonderful he is!

I remember one old episode where the Bartlet Administration faced a potential problem – he was expecting to use the upcoming State of the Union address to deliver a message he was eager to get out to the public, but the Congress headed by the opposition party didn’t formally invite him to do so.

WHICH SOUNDS ABSURD that conditions could really devolve to such a situation. Yet Donald Trump is the master of a presidency that seeks to be absurd in every aspect.

Meaning that scenario actor Martin Sheen played for laughs over a decade ago is now the reality of the state of our nation.

In theory, Trump is expected on Tuesday to deliver his annual address before Congress to tell us exactly where things stand within our government.

It is expected his speech would be loaded with ridiculous rhetoric and pompous talk about how every thing that is wrong with our nation is the Democrats’ fault – and how the key to our salvation is to follow The Donald’s lead and just shut up and do what he tells us to do!

BUT BECAUSE WE still have a federal government engaged in a shutdown that will reach a month long (and counting) pretty soon, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did the unthinkable. At least in Trump’s mind.

She revoked his invitation. Unless Trump knocks off his nonsense that has prolonged the shutdown and allows things to get back to operating as they’re supposed to, she’s not going to give him the platform to talk.

Which is something that I guess hurts the Trump ego. I have no doubt that the man is looking forward to being on national television – with his speech pre-empting programming everywhere so he can put on his “show.”

PELOSI: Denying Trump the chance to blather

You know the one I’m talking about. Democratic members of Congress will sit silently, while Republicans will get all worked up in cheers and applause at all the pre-ordained moments meant to make it appear that they’re spontaneously acknowledging the man’s genius.

IT WILL FEED his ego. It will make Trump think he’s truly a significant historic figure – instead of a man who truly makes former President George W. Bush look like a mighty intellect by comparison.

But Pelosi is denying him the opportunity to do so. Which has the Trumpsters all worked up, and the head cheese himself plotting how to stage an event that he’ll bill as an alternative to the State of the Union.

Most likely, something similar to those events he had during the 2016 election cycle – where he spews some trivial blather, finds a person or two to single out for the partisan crowd’s abuse then gets someone to offer after-the-fact reaction claiming that Trump is a political genius of the highest magnitude.

If you get the feeling I’m finding the whole situation worthy of mockery, you’d be correct. The reality is that these political addresses always contain a touch of phoniness regardless of who speaks.

BUT IN THE case of Trump, the level of blather will reach intense levels of b.s. I really don’t think anybody will miss the speech if it turns out that Trump doesn’t present it on Tuesday.

SHEEN (as Bartlet): More presidential than The Donald

If anything, Pelosi will be doing the nation a favor by not allowing an event that would pre-empt programming people would rather watch. We won’t have all those people swearing at their television sets Tuesday night when their favorite show isn’t on because Trump wants to tell us just how great he truly is.

Of course, if my mind is correct, that old “The West Wing” episode resulted in the president ultimately getting his invitation to give his speech. Life went on in that television presidential administration.

We’ll have to wait and see if reality turns out the same – or if the level of national inanity reaches a new high and political commentators are denied their chance to get Trumpsters all worked up with their allegations of presidential ignorance. Because those people may well be the only ones who truly will care about this ultimate non-issue.

  -30-

Too many “Bonds” for Moore’s death to be definitive blow to film franchise

I’ll state one fact up front – when it comes to James Bond films, I do enjoy “Live and Let Die.” Particularly for its use of Paul McCartney on its film soundtrack, and its inclusion of the New Orleans scene for its storyline.
 

Moore at his Bond best

But I’ll have to confess that when I heard the headlines Tuesday of “Bond actor dies,” my gut reaction was to think “Sean Connery finally passed.” When I learned it was British actor Roger Moore instead, my reaction was along the lines of, “Oh, well.”

I KNOW I’M going to trigger a brawl amongst film buffs, particularly those who get into the Bond series of adventure films that we’ve been getting off-and-on for the better part of a half-a-century.

Yet those six films that starred Connery as the British secret agent with the license to kill people reach a certain standard that none of the other Bond film actors manage to do.

In terms of pure fantasy (and when you come down to it, how else should you view a guy who hangs around the casinos of Monaco, jets all over the world for adventure, and always finds time to romance the local fair maiden no matter how old he gets), they don’t get any more out-of-this world than Connery’s vision of the role.

So as for the death of Moore, I’m not going to say it doesn’t matter. But it’s not THE DEFINITIVE PASSING that we should think of. Although I’ll admit it’s more significant than the eventual passing someday of actor George Lazenby – who also took on the Bond role.

OR PERHAPS THAT of actor Pierce Brosnan, whose performance in the film “Goldeneye” always manages to capture the spirit of the Connery versions of the “Bond” films.

Pierce has his 'Bond' moments

As for the most recent Bond, I’ll confess that Daniel Craig’s take on the role just doesn’t do as much for me. Although he probably does appeal to the people who are most interested in action sequences rather than the Bond-like campiness leading up to them.

I always figured Craig’s Bond was the kind of guy who would stand up to actor Clint Eastwood’s “Dirty Harry” Callahan character (bearing his gaudy Smith & Wesson .44 caliber “hand cannon”), disarm him, then show the “superiority” of the Walther PPK.

Pit Craig's 'Bond' in a boxing ring ...

Whereas Connery’s Bond was the kind of guy who managed to get out of a jam by planting his “Playboy Club card” on a corpse – thereby giving the brief impression that he was dead, and thereby able to leave the scene undetected.

ALTHOUGH I’LL GIVE Moore’s “Bond” character one bit of praise. Like I already mentioned, it gave McCartney a prominent place that led to him getting one of his post-Beatles hits with the title theme song to “Live and Let Die.”

... against 'Dirty Harry'

Considering that Connery’s “Bond” was the guy who in the film “Goldfinger” said that lukewarm Dom Perignon champagne was, “as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs.”

Yes, this commentary is a collection of fluff and trivia. Although perhaps it also is a way of coping with the misery of the British explosion at a concert this week that managed to kill 20-plus people.

Religious fanatics in the form of ISIS, thinking they have accomplished something grand in the name of Allah, have taken credit for that attack. Although I suspect if we had a real-life “Bond,” he’d already be on his way to the Middle East to infiltrate the group, commit an act of vengeance, and perhaps taste for himself a few of those unspoiled virgins who supposedly are the prize for those kind of nutcases.

SO WHAT SHOULD we do to pay tribute to Moore, who admittedly starred in seven “Bond” films – one more than the six Connery did.

Do we have a collection of Bond actors throughout the years gather together to pay tribute to Moore – drinking a “shaken, not stirred” martini in his honor? Even though fans of televisions “The West Wing” remember when actor Martin Sheen’s “President Bartlett” character mockedP such a martini, saying, “James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it.”

Now that's the real "Bond, James Bond"

Perhaps they’ll then gather around and watch “Live and Let Die,” writhing in excitement as Moore’s “Bond” avoids being eaten by crocodiles while also trying to bed the mystic “Solitaire.”

Although if they want the ultimate Bond experience, they’d have to tune in to my personal favorite – none tops “From Russia with Love,” and no Bond girl (in my mind) tops the loveliness of Italian actress Daniela Bianchi!

  -30-

Is decade-old West Wing 'reality' TV?

I can’t help but remember a decade-old episode of “The West Wing,” that television drama starring Martin Sheen as an idealistic take on who at least some of us wish were our nation’s president.

SHEEN (as Bartlet): 'Reality' TV?

In this particular episode, there was a subplot about how the president’s staff was dealing with a member of Congress who (they thought) had a reputation for being flaky.

WHAT WACKO IDEA did he come up with this time? It was an amendment to the Constitution that would completely take government out of the equation when it came to the recognition of marriage.

The Bartlet administration didn’t want to be bothered with the issue. They wanted it to go away. And they didn’t want this member of Congress to get all hissy-fittish, because that might get the gay rights activists all worked up against them.

Yet letting this member of Congress proceed with his rhetoric surely would stir up the religious right.

Yes, all of this came back to my mind when I learned Wednesday of the lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal. The two groups represent 25 gay couples across Illinois who are upset that all they can do is get their match recognized with a civil union – and not something that bears the name “marriage.”

THEY CLAIM THAT the due process and equality clauses of the Illinois state Constitution can be interpreted to mean that these couples have every right to be “married” as any heterosexual couple does.

Which, I’m sure, on a certain level is giving the Barack Obama White House staff the same headaches that the fictional Bartlet administration acted out all those years ago – and for the very same reason.

OBAMA: Seeking advice from TV?

Fiction predicting reality? It’s kind of eerie, to tell you the truth.

Because the arguments made by that wacky congressman character a decade ago on television are literally the ones being heard Wednesday in Illinois.

GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T BE getting involved in deciding whose “union” is legitimate and whose isn’t.

Let religions have the claim to the phrase marriage, and turn everybody’s matchup into a civil union. The people who want to go the additional step of being “married” in their church can do so.

Those who don’t have strong religious convictions could get that same City Hall wedding service, or can seek out those people who manage to get themselves certified to perform marriages by filling out a couple of forms.

And before it seems like I’m making fun of those people, I must confess to having a sister-in-law who performs wedding services as a sideline. If that kind of service makes one happy, who am I to mock it?

THE REAL BOTTOM line is that it takes away any legal distinction between a “marriage” and a “civil union,” which is a distinction that ought to be erased.

For the only people who really want to have any distinction exist are the ones who are looking for a reason to be able to look down upon other people for whatever reason. That is something we should go out of our way to discourage.

Because I think for many couples, the religious rites (a few seconds of holiness) are far less significant than the legal rights and benefits that couples gain from being “legally bound” to each other.

The real negative of a couple just “living together” isn’t so much that they’re in sin, but that they’re putting up with each others annoying moments without getting the benefits come Income Tax Day.

IN FACT, IF you think of it objectively, the only people who ought to be “opposed” to this idea are the ones who will be upset that they can’t denigrate other couples for not having the same service they had.

Which isn’t much of an excuse, to me, to keep the status quo.

It also makes me wonder if I should start scouring those DVDs of “The West Wing” episodes that I have tucked in a drawer. Maybe we’ll get a sense of where we’re headed in the next few years. Particularly since the past decade’s television joke may have a strain of legitimate policy to it.

Let’s only hope we never get a real-life take on that one episode where Big Bird and Elmo turned up at the White House!

  -30-