S01.E03: The Confession

[OtterMommy]

I'm still in on this show...I think it has hit the "keeper" status for me this season, but I felt that this episode was really in a holding pattern.  I understand that the show needs to make a few things known:

1 - Kirkman is an honest man, not a politician

2 - People in Washington are backstabbers

3 - The Generals are Hawkish

Really, they don't need to put that much effort into #'s 2 or 3 BECAUSE WE ALL ALREADY KNOW THAT, and I think that #1 has now been established enough that we can move on and start developing the characters.

I think what was really missing from this episode, and others have already said it, is the intensity of a country under attack.  It almost seems like the federal government is back to "business as usual" far too quickly.

That being said, I am still very much in.  I like Kirkman as a character--although I hope they take the time to develop him and not keep him the bumbling academic.  I'm also intrigued about the survivor.  I think we know that this was the work of domestic terrorism--which worries me about the show.  That can be a tricky thing to pull off...but I'm willing to tune in to see how they handle it.

[j5cochran]

6 hours ago, orza said:

Kimble is a pretty common surname. It's been trendy for quite a while to give girls surnames as first names, although that wasn't really a thing 50 odd years ago when the congresswoman was born. The main character on Conviction is named Hayes. So, yeah, Hollywood writers trying to be trendy.

Actually, in the south, naming children after the mother's surname is not that unusual.  Not just for boys, but for girls as well.  My sixty-something year old sister has the first name that is our mother's maiden name.

I don't believe that the congresswoman is from the south (judging by the character's accent), but, in real life, she could have had vocal training to soften her accent if she had plans for national office.

[NoThyme]

On 10/6/2016 at 6:17 PM, Trillian said:

Do you have a best friend?  Is he smarter than you? Would you trust him with your life?  That's your Chief of Staff. 

I went back and replayed Pres. Bartlett's talk with his Designated Survivor (although I am proud to say, as a major West Wing geeky fan, that I remembered the above without the rewatch). Bartlett outlines to the DS what to do if a catastrophe happens: first thing, get your Commanders together, appoint Joint Chiefs, appoint a Chairman, take us to Defcon 4; have the Governors send emergency delegates to Washington; the Assistant Attorney General is going to be the Acting Attorney General; if he tells you to bring out the National Guard, do what he tells you. 

I'm enjoying this show, and I don't claim to be an expert of any kind in American government or emergency preparedness, but I think Aaron Sorkin got it much closer to what should (or would) happen than this show. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lKWmlIExRAo

 

Thank you for posting this link. Made me miss the West Wing so much. Had hoped that this show would be similar in some way but alas I am very disappointed. I hate shows where everyone is back stabbing everyone else. I think the last scene with the new CoS cinched it for me. As a new president I would have asked him to be watched and I think at such time he would have had secret service agents with him. However, that last moment when it shows that even he is a bad guy and possibly out to get the new president I realized this isn't anything like the West Wing. Instead of learning things about government and the constitution I am yelling at the TV that this isn't the way it would be done.  

[orza]

I don't know yet if Aaron is supposed to be a bad guy. As chief of staff his job is to always look out for the president's best interests. To do that he needs to know all about Kirkman, including anything that could cause a scandal or be used against him or would make for bad press so they won't be bind-sided by it. Another part of his job is to  keep some things from the president and handle them himself to maintain plausible deniability.

I think that is also why Aaron is talking to the Colonel - to keep tabs on what the guy thinking and doing so he can stay ahead of it. At least that's how I see Aaron right now.

[BlackberryJam]

What this show is missing is people coming together to achieve a common goal. Which is what SHOULD be happening at a time of national crisis. Even on the West Wing, when each character had a personal agenda, they were still coming together to achieve the goal the president had set out. 

Right now, I don't even know what Kirkman's goals are. He's certainly not acting to be to re-establish a stable government.  Neither is anyone else. It's too much personal agenda and not enough common goal.

[TimWil]

I just can't stand the two kids. The little girl does nothing but giggle and the teenage boy is dull as dishwater. I don't know why the two were written and cast like this. I think it would have been better if they were college age twins, a girl and a boy.

[TimWil]

On 10/5/2016 at 11:23 PM, CleoCaesar said:

Frankly the depiction of the impact of the attack is shockingly blasé and hum-drum. In reality, this would be the biggest, most impactful act of terrorism in modern history. It would cause the entire world to lurch. The global economy would be in a panic. PEOPLE would be in a panic. 9/11 would seem like a minor inconvenience by comparison. The president and his close staff would be in a BUNKER. The words "martial law" would at least be on people's lips. It would be, in short, pandemonium.

On this show though? Meh. Yeah it's sad, but whatev. Life goes on. President is just wandering about the White House, security is lax, the First Kids can come and go as they please. No news of international response. No news of the global stock markets. The entire U.S. government was slaughtered in one night and we have to sit through "crises" like Seth being briefly racially profiled and who gets to be Chief of Staff.

Are you kidding me?

Incidentally one of the reasons 24 became so crushingly disappointing for me is that after the nuclear bomb went off in Valencia, California (Season 5?) there was never any sense of a world altered, no curfews, no martial law, nothing. 

[Raja]

1 minute ago, TimWil said:

Incidentally one of the reasons 24 became so crushingly disappointing for me is that after the nuclear bomb went off in Valencia, California (Season 5?) there was never any sense of a world altered, no curfews, no martial law, nothing. 

Worse then that people continued playing golf within sight of the mushroom cloud

[calipiano81]

On 10/7/2016 at 4:44 PM, rab01 said:

1) I'm not sure I fully understand the issue with attacking the group that took credit for the bombing.  Even if they didn't do it, they took credit for it. Given the state the country is in during this fictional crisis, publicly announcing that you want to be known for having destroyed the U.S. Capitol is good enough reason to obliterate them (while continuing to look for the real bombers). ... I'm not bloodthirsty but I do think inaction might taken as a sign of weakness unless we had evidence enough to laugh off their claims.

However, Kirkman is still trying to determine if it was really Al Sachar sending the video trying to claim credit, or if the real terrorists sent the video to make it seem like Al Sachar was taking credit. If the U.S. rushes to attack anyone, the concern (Hannah Wells' theory) is that they are playing right into the real terrorists' hands.

I hope Kirkman's decision to make Aaron COS was already made prior to the video leak and he just stuck with it. Otherwise, I don't think it is a good idea to reward someone whose actions go against my own principles, even if Kirkman may recognize the usefulness of having someone like Aaron on his team.

Edited October 10, 2016 by calipiano81

[Moose135]

2 hours ago, Raja said:

Worse then that people continued playing golf within sight of the mushroom cloud

I never watched 24, but your comment reminds me of this classic from The Far Side...

[MaryPatShelby]

On 10/6/2016 at 7:35 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

And I'm liking less and less, that Kirkman's character is being shown as some uneducated, ignorant wide-eyed innocent who doesn't know how politics work and is such a fish out of water.  He has a finger on some things that tell me he's not stupid. 

 

I don't think they're showing him as ignorant, wide-eyed, or unpolitical at all; in fact that's a frustration I have with the show.  To me, he's shown as being too on top of things, too firm in his decision-making, and to have a strong understanding of all issues. I wish he'd be more of a fish out of water because that would be more realistic.

[rur]

On 10/6/2016 at 6:17 PM, Trillian said:

I'm enjoying this show, and I don't claim to be an expert of any kind in American government or emergency preparedness, but I think Aaron Sorkin got it much closer to what should (or would) happen than this show. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lKWmlIExRAo

Agreed: I was thinking of the West Wing during the first episode. When the President's daughter was kidnapped (and I understand that's a different situation than most members of the government being killed), Leo McGarry said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Get the word out to our allies: 'Don't mess with us tonight.'"  

I'd like to think that would have been a more appropriate response from anyone advising the President, military or civilian. 

[marinw]

As I Canadian, I don't have a deep knowledge of how Washington works so maybe that's why it easier for me to hand-wave away all the inaccuracies and declare this show a fantasy.

As for Kirkman, I believe that he is being sincere when he says that he is POTUSing out of his sense of duty. But there must be some part of him that wants and likes having power. He and Emily had been labouring for some time over some sort of affordable housing plan that did not even get a mention in the State of The Union address. Now he has great power.  It's a fascinating situation to be in.  So far he seems incorruptible, but we shall see.

I also find it sad the HUD is so low on the Washington totem poll, and is not considered an very important role.  Anyone who has ever struggled with paying the rent or the mortgage would beg to differ.

[thewhiteowl]

@marinw that's okay, I'm American and have no deep knowledge of how Washington works. I am interested in how the show is going work things but I don't expect 100% accuracy. That would be a documentary, not a drama.

[marinw]

Thanks @thewhiteowl. I enjoy watching American Political Dramas because to my knowledge there aren't any great Canadian ones. Not that our politics lack intrigue, chess-playing, subterfuge and all of those things that are probably more fun to watch than to live. 

[Raja]

8 minutes ago, marinw said:

Thanks @thewhiteowl. I enjoy watching American Political Dramas because to my knowledge there aren't any great Canadian ones. Not that our politics lack intrigue, chess-playing, subterfuge and all of those things that are probably more fun to watch than to live. 

I bet the House of Cards remake would have made more sense in Canada given how politicians rise in the different systems. But then it would have been nearly the exact show with different accents

[secnarf]

51 minutes ago, Raja said:

I bet the House of Cards remake would have made more sense in Canada given how politicians rise in the different systems. But then it would have been nearly the exact show with different accents

I don't watch House of Cards, but my understanding is that it's about a guy trying to become president by manipulating and working his way up the chain to VP and then ultimately, the presidency. That wouldn't work in the Canadian system - at least, not without a completely different storyline, and it likely wouldn't last long. In Canada, we essentially don't have a VP. There is a "line of succession" for emergencies - not that we've ever had to use it - and it's based on seniority of the person, not their position itself. There isn't an official position that one could put themselves in to be second, third, fourth etc. in line for prime minister. Most commonly, the ruling party would hold a vote for who they want their next leader to be. This is what happens if a PM resigns while in office. I suppose you could have a lot of manipulation and whatnot in order to get elected in this scenario, but that's a totally different show. This is typically followed shortly by a general election, though it doesn't have to be.

I'd be interested to see a show like Designated Survivor set within the Canadian political system, though.

[Raja]

Just now, secnarf said:

I don't watch House of Cards, but my understanding is that it's about a guy trying to become president by manipulating and working his way up the chain to VP and then ultimately, the presidency. That wouldn't work in the Canadian system - at least, not without a completely different storyline, and it likely wouldn't last long. In Canada, we essentially don't have a VP. There is a "line of succession" for emergencies - not that we've ever had to use it - and it's based on seniority of the person, not their position itself. There isn't an official position that one could put themselves in to be second, third, fourth etc. in line for prime minister. Most commonly, the ruling party would hold a vote for who they want their next leader to be. This is what happens if a PM resigns while in office. I suppose you could have a lot of manipulation and whatnot in order to get elected in this scenario, but that's a totally different show. This is typically followed shortly by a general election, though it doesn't have to be.

I'd be interested to see a show like Designated Survivor set within the Canadian political system, though.

The original House Of Cards was about a minor minister, a functionary, I believe he described himself  working his way up the party to become Prime Minister of the UK. 

[rab01]

16 hours ago, calipiano81 said:

However, Kirkman is still trying to determine if it was really Al Sachar sending the video trying to claim credit, or if the real terrorists sent the video to make it seem like Al Sachar was taking credit. If the U.S. rushes to attack anyone, the concern (Hannah Wells' theory) is that they are playing right into the real terrorists' hands.

You're probably right but I thought the show said that the people in the video were positively identified as Al Sachar and the objection is that Al Sachar had a history of claiming credit for attacks they didn't do.  So, it seems like it's a real Al Sachar video but that the true bombers put them up to making and then delivered it for them.  (Of course, the show may pull a few twists and the video was phonied up by the real plotters.) 

My two cents on the deep mystery question - I don't think the shouty general in the situation room (what the hell is his name again?) is intended by the show to be part of the plot or else he wouldn't be so openly against the President That said, I find his character the least believable thing on screen.  I always thought that high ranking military officers learn how to express themselves without yelling at their commanders (even if they're incompetent) and, in that room, President Kirkman is very much the Commander in Chief.  

Also, for those questioning the believability of the plotters not being also able to take out Kirkman, how do we know that he isn't exactly who they wanted in the Oval?  There might not be anyone in the plot placed properly to succeed the President.  If so, the HUD Secretary as President may serve their purposes perfectly.  I can't even guess who they would want in power until the show gives an idea of the plotters' motives.  (By the way, I expect that we won't see the motives this season and that when we do learn it, it will be greatly disappointing because I bet the plotters are domestic.  And, I can't think of ANY grievance a domestic group could have that is so great as to make them want to decapitate the entire government and kill thousands of people.   Terrorists? Sure. But shadowy conspiracy yadda-yadda? Never)

[marinw]

As for House of Cards, there are many shows where the VEEP become POTUS. Four of these are Commander in Chief, 24, VEEP, and House of Cards. 

Fun fact: Three of these shows comes equipped with their own Sutherland.

[FlyingEgret]

On 10/6/2016 at 5:31 PM, BlackberryJam said:

I thought the Congressman survivor video had been faked and he was never there. So they were looking at a video of him CGIed in and the lady with the camera showed he was never there.

That's what I thought as well; and that the missing 34 seconds were due to tape delay to give the techie bad guys time to insert his image whenever it was needed

[Arcadiasw]

The interview took me out of this episode. With everything that is going on in D.C. and everything Kirkman has to deal with at the present moment, how did he find time for an interview? I know Kirkman will have a sit down interview but I thought it was too soon. The First Son of the former President and the current First Son need to get over themselves.  Kirkman is a little too green. As others have said, he's been in D.C. long enough to know how it works and to expect some backstabbing and should play his cards close to the vest until he knows who can be trusted and won't be capitalizing on this tragedy for their own personal game. I can buy Kirkman being hopeful in this time of crisis for unity but he should know that's a short window and given how he became President to expect betrayal or backstabbing to occur sooner than later. 

[brgjoe]

Agreed.  That interview (and a supposed puff piece sort of interview at that) seemed wildly out of place, considering what just happened.  The government is still in a wild state of chaos and don't believe there would be any time for that sort of thing.  Also, I highly question the (now) CoS's decision to release that video to the public.  Yes, it could unite the people behind a common enemy.  But it could also get the American people to say, "We know who did it, now we need a REAL President to take command to attack this group!  Like, RIGHT NOW!"  So in essence, it could really hurt his standing at this point.

Also don't like First Kid drug dealing storyline.  He should now be in Secret Service protection.  I would think having a detail attached to him would put a real serious crimp into one's drug dealing activities.  Plus he annoys the crap out of me.  So I wish they'd just drop his part altogether.

[Danielg342]

Or, for the gender politics angle, "Kimble Hookstraten" is yet another Hollywood writer giving a "tough masculine female character" a non-feminine name.

Because no one thinks "Alice" could tangle with the boys.

[Netfoot]

10 hours ago, brgjoe said:

Plus he annoys the crap out of me.  So I wish they'd just drop his part altogether.

I wish they's shave his head and send him to Military school.

[Hanahope]

I'm sure there were much better ways to spin Kirkland's falling out with the former prez.  K better learn quick.

I find it interesting that the cameras just happened to be focused on that one now you see him, now you don't Congressman.

[OtterMommy]

So, a random question about this episode popped into my head.  After Hannah had her tech lacky hack into the cell phone of the woman at the SOTU, I didn't quite get/buy her scolding by her boss.  I totally understand that they just can't hack into dead people's clouds on a whim and I think that the boss was right to get on her case about not following protocol.  What I don't understand* is why her boss just let it drop.  Shouldn't his next move have been to get a warrant for them to hack into the cloud?  I mean, I can't see any judge NOT finding cause to grant that request, given it is the only evidence they seem to have from inside the Capitol and it was a national emergency.  

If this ends up being some sort of a plot point, such as her boss is somehow in on it all (which I don't think he is, or else he wouldn't have offered Hannah's theory to Kirkman), I'll forgive this.  However, if it ends up down the line that Hannah ends up in trouble over this or the evidence is somehow "inadmissable," I'm call foul.

*Okay yeah...I totally understand why...for drama!

Edited October 11, 2016 by OtterMommy

[Sake614]

On 10/10/2016 at 10:14 AM, marinw said:

Thanks @thewhiteowl. I enjoy watching American Political Dramas because to my knowledge there aren't any great Canadian ones. Not that our politics lack intrigue, chess-playing, subterfuge and all of those things that are probably more fun to watch than to live. 

Sometimes I really wish we could follow Canada's lead and just throw the bums out after a couple of months if we don't like them lol!

[secnarf]

4 minutes ago, Sake614 said:

Sometimes I really wish we could follow Canada's lead and just throw the bums out after a couple of months if we don't like them lol!

Thankfully, it doesn't always work that way! It's bad enough having elections every couple of years, and such a waste of money with nothing really productive getting done. In Canada, we also follow a four-year cycle, and with majority governments that isn't typically shortened in the same way it is with a minority government. With minority governments, where the governing party has more seats than any other party but less than half, it's not uncommon for the other parties to band together and vote no-confidence in the government (usually around budget time) and then an election is called. With a majority government, the other parties cannot out-vote the governing party, so it's typically four years.

Right now we've got a majority government, so it's really unlikely there will be an election until Trudeau's four years are up in 2019. And in Ontario, where I live, I bet if we had a minority government instead of a majority, there would have been a no-confidence vote ages ago. Anyways, how we vote for our government is supposed to change before the next election, so we shall see what happens.

[Sake614]

I have a friend in Vancouver and we were laughing (or I was anyway lol) the last time you guys went through what was it? 2 elections in just a few months because of no confidence votes? I mean it wasn't funny but yet it was. Just the idea that it could even happen is so weird and oddly fascinating. :)

[secnarf]

47 minutes ago, Sake614 said:

I have a friend in Vancouver and we were laughing (or I was anyway lol) the last time you guys went through what was it? 2 elections in just a few months because of no confidence votes? I mean it wasn't funny but yet it was. Just the idea that it could even happen is so weird and oddly fascinating. :)

The last time something like that happened federally was 1979/1980 when they were ~ 9-10 months apart. I don't think we've ever had two federal elections within a few months - maybe you're thinking of a federal and a provincial election?

Like most things, our current set-up is both good (ensures the governing party is representative of what the people want) and bad (uses up resources and makes it hard to get anything done).
We tend to think American elections are weird and oddly fascinating too :) Especially the amount of time you guy spend campaigning, and midterms and all of that. It's really interesting to compare.

[Sake614]

Yeah maybe it was a provincial election. And I LOVE that your campaign season is about 4 weeks lol! It sure as hell beats 4 YEARS, which is how long ours seem to last these days.

[shapeshifter]

On October 10, 2016 at 0:09 PM, rab01 said:

...Also, for those questioning the believability of the plotters not being also able to take out Kirkman, how do we know that he isn't exactly who they wanted in the Oval?  There might not be anyone in the plot placed properly to succeed the President.  If so, the HUD Secretary as President may serve their purposes perfectly.  I can't even guess who they would want in power until the show gives an idea of the plotters' motives.  (By the way, I expect that we won't see the motives this season and that when we do learn it, it will be greatly disappointing because I bet the plotters are domestic.  And, I can't think of ANY grievance a domestic group could have that is so great as to make them want to decapitate the entire government and kill thousands of people.   Terrorists? Sure. But shadowy conspiracy yadda-yadda? Never)

Maybe Ashley Zukerman's character (the survivor with the empty chair) was supposed to be the new POTUS according to their plot.

Edited October 12, 2016 by shapeshifter

[TobinAlbers]

The look of disbelief and annoyance on Kirkman's face when Kimble bluntly told him she was running against him in the next election was great. Love her, love having her as a frenemy, hope we get to see the election. 

[SlackerInc]

On 10/5/2016 at 10:04 PM, BlackberryJam said:

Was this episode painful for anyone else?

Yes.  It's actually perfectly calibrated for maximum pain, for a similar reason as what Autumn raised:

On 10/5/2016 at 10:30 PM, Autumn said:

I want to like the show.  Some are good and other parts make me roll my eyes.

If it were just bad, I could cut bait.  But it's on a knife's edge: if I keep watching, I'm going to be annoyed by the bad parts.  If I stop watching, I'm going to miss the good parts and wonder what's happening (with the regular political type stuff, not all the conspiracy crap I don't care about).

On 10/5/2016 at 10:35 PM, Amy Beth said:

What the hell would they have done if the survivor they found in the Capitol wreckage had been the Secretary of Agriculture?

Oops! We swore in the wrong guy!

When they revealed at the end of the previous episode there was another survivor, I thought that was going to be what happened!  Although that would kind of mess up the show, I thought maybe he could be seriously wounded, very briefly become president, then die of his injuries and send it back to Kirkman.

I agree BTW that I can think of far worse mistakes than attacking the "wrong" terrorist group.  He should send word out that he wants to keep the investigation going into alternate possibilities, but assuming this group hasn't somehow been framed and are actually peaceful humanitarians, what's the problem with going after them?

[TomServo]

On 10/6/2016 at 8:04 PM, txhorns79 said:

I think I had read that Congressional leadership does designate someone to be the congressional "Designated Survivor."  I can't imagine there is anything that would stop a party who is in the minority in Congress from designating someone to carry on. 

I don't know that they have a separate designated survivor for Congress, but the Designated Survivor is sometimes a member of Congress rather than a member of the Cabinet.  I think Senator Hatch did it one year.  In real life, the d.s. has to go through training ahead of time and they already have the "football" with their Secret Service detail.  It's highly unlikely that the Designated Survivor is anywhere in the vicinity of D.C. during the SOTU.

It would also not be out of the question for a few people other than the official Designated Survivor to be absent from the SOTU for some reason or another.  Maybe the Secretary of State is out of the country on official business, or someone has a family emergency, or it's past a member of the Supreme Court's bedtime... (Thomas, Alito, and Scalia were not at the last SOTU)

Fun Fact: they also have a designated survivor during other large government gatherings like the inauguration ceremonies

 

On 10/8/2016 at 0:52 AM, Craigles said:

One thing that is driving me nuts is this is supposed to be January and yet all outside shots of DC show green leaves on trees

The b-roll for the day after the explosion was a beautiful autumn scene.  For a second, I thought it had signaled a time jump.

[John Potts]

The weakest ep so far.

I really wish the Congressman had survived because he was screwing his secretary (or something similar) in a cupboard and that was what saved him. You'd understand why he wouldn't want it revealed, but I guess he was in on the conspiracy. I can't believe they could have faked the video that showed him being there as that would never stand up to the scrutiny it would inevitably attract (the CIA/FBI/NSA will be going over all the footage pixel by pixel). The only way it would make sense would be if he's some sort of patsy that The Conspiracy (TM) had instructed him to run to some "Safe Zone" they had prepared and plan on Jack Ruby'ing him before he can talk.

So Agent Nikita was dating a Senator? Liked that she admitted she may have been deluding herself about him leaving his wife.

I was tired of the First Son about 2.5 episodes ago and I haven't altered my opinion (I'm OK with the daughter, who doesn't get her own storyline). Now we have another one who's playing an equally obnoxious teen!

The most realistic thing was the President missing his family dinner. Glad they did stay up for him, though.

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 4:08 AM, SeanC said:

neither chamber could constitutionally convene to do anything without a quorum

Without even looking at the US Constitution, I immediately went, "Pretty sure Congress has some sort of Quoracy requirement that's more than one member!"

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 6:57 AM, Bobbin said:

Aaron said early on that Emily couldn't be CoS because she didn't have the security clearance. So how does she now have "full access"?

IIRC, she didn't have clearance to enter the Bunker because she was only assistant to the Secretary for Housing. I don't think there was any problem with her getting clearance, she just wasn't important enough to warrant it.

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 4:58 PM, kili said:

I think the person who was originally slated to be the Designated Survivor was the person they wanted in power.

Either that or they assumed the Secretary for Housing with no political background would be easy to manipulate.

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 6:18 PM, OtterMommy said:

Shouldn't his next move have been to get a warrant for them to hack into the cloud?  I mean, I can't see any judge NOT finding cause to grant that request, given it is the only evidence they seem to have from inside the Capitol and it was a national emergency.

But there's NO TIME, DAMMIT! (/24)

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 10:26 PM, mikem said:

anyone else feel that "Kimble Hookstraten" is a weird name?

Not sure how weird it is, but it certainly makes me think of The Fugitive!