MovieChat Forums > Commander in Chief (2005) Discussion > Presidential Lineage Theory

Presidential Lineage Theory

posted 17 years ago by harlemsushi
17 replies | jump to latest

I recently bought Parts 1 & 2 of Season 1 of Commander in Chief on the strength of having had watched 2 episodes of the show during it's original run and was very impressed. I got to watch the whole series over the course of 2 weeks and was upset when it came to an end. Two of the episodes did get me thinking about the universe in which the show is set. The episodes were the show's Pilot and episode 13 "State of the Unions." Both of them dealt with the lineage of the President in very subtle ways and were little glimpses into the universe in which the show is set.

In the pilot, President Allen mentions the names of both Al Gore and Dick Cheney. Indicating that in their universe, Bill Clinton and George W Bush were both presidents. Also in State of the Unions, President Allen watches State of the Union Addresses from President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Nixon, President Ford, President Carter, and President Reagan. There has been a lot of debate as to when the show actually takes place, but as far as I am concerned, it takes place in 2006 (exactly when it aired.) Supporting indication can be found in the episode First dance where it is stated that Russia, "has only been a democracy for 15 years." Mathematically, that puts the show at 2006. One thing that would account for this and make my theory correct is that I believe in the Commander in Chief Universe Bush Sr's presidency never took place.

Right after Reagan served his 2 terms, Clinton became president, and everyone's presidency moved up 4 years and George W Bush finished his 2 terms in 2004. That would have meant no Iraq war because Bush Sr never went there in the first place. For some reason, Dick Cheney was not able serve as the Vice President during Bush's second term so Bridges served in his stead becoming President afterwards with Mackenzie Allen as his VP. 9/11 occurred during Bush's second term while Bridges was his VP and that led to the Patriot Act, the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security, and the invasion on Afganastan (which Speaker Templeton mentioned in the North Korea/nuclear war episodes as the invasion on the Khyber Pass which is in Afganastan.) And that leaves us where we are with Mackenzie as President. It's just an opinion, but I think they went out of their way not to include Bush Sr. in the show and curiously have no mention of him. But what do you guys think? And do you have any alternate theories?

[–] kikidevil17 17 years ago

I agree with you there is no meantion of Bush Sr. I read something like this before and it seems to me that it those take place in 2006. thanks for bringing that up is very interesting.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] harlemsushi 17 years ago

Just wanted to revisit this topic and see if anyone had any comments they wanted to add.

[–] quarf53206 17 years ago

Frankly I thought it was stupid that the Teddy Bridges character was President Bushes successor. A show about the first female president they really missed the boat with story lines where a former president comes on the show

http://www.pbase.com/bkjansen220

[–] harlemsushi 17 years ago

Actually, they still could do that. There's nothing stoping them from getting one of the actual former Presidents of the United States (Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton would be the only viable ones according to their continunity as stated above. I doubt George W Bush would ever appear on the show.) But in order for them to do that they's actually have to renew the show for another season.

[–] quarf53206 17 years ago

"Actually, they still could do that. There's nothing stopping them from getting one of the actual former Presidents of the United States"

There was nothing stopping them from setting this show in its own universe. Have you ever seen the movie Contact? showing interactive clips President Clinton was stupid. They should have just set that movie in its own universe

"Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton would be the only viable ones according to their continuity as stated above. I doubt George W Bush would ever appear on the show"

that would have been really dumb. Do you think they can act? Also think abut the busy schedules former presidents have you really think they would have time do the show. What i mean about storylines and former presidents is they could have had numerous episodes involving former presidents criticizing the Geena Davis Character and no actual former president would do that because some people would think that they mean all the bad things they said on the show.
http://www.pbase.com/bkjansen220
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28877774@N/00

[–] harlemsushi 17 years ago

"There was nothing stopping them from setting this show in its own universe. Have you ever seen the movie Contact? showing interactive clips President Clinton was stupid. They should have just set that movie in its own universe."

Well in essence they did set the show in it's own universe. At some point (IMO George H.W. Bush's presidency) they created what I refer to as a divergent earth which resembles our Earth in every way, up until a single juncture in time where events occurred a different way than they did on our Earth. With respect to Contact, I agree with you that they should have gotten an actual actor to play the President, but here, it worked. It lent creedence to President Mackenzie Allen being able to see her with the likes of JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, & Reagan. The West Wing did a divergent earth theme (with the juncture occuring after Nixon's Presidency) and it worked well for them. I think the divergent earth approach from George H.W. Bush's Presidency was a good call by the writers. It allowed them to use current events in their storylines while at the same time opperating under their own rules.

"that would have been really dumb. Do you think they can act? Also think abut the busy schedules former presidents have you really think they would have time do the show. What i mean about storylines and former presidents is they could have had numerous episodes involving former presidents criticizing the Geena Davis Character and no actual former president would do that because some people would think that they mean all the bad things they said on the show."

I disagree, I think the notion of having Former President Carter or Clinton appear on the show would have been exceptional and definately a ratings coup for the show. As far as their acting ability goes, they would de facto be playing themselves which wouldn't be too much of a reach and Rod Lurie and the rest of the directors are pretty proficient with actors and would in my opinion be able to coax a good performance out of them.

I do agree that former Presidents have busy schedules, but the fact remains if the opportunity presented itself and it was right reguardless of their respective schedules I think they'd make time. After all, several members of congress had cameos on K Street so it's not completely beyond the scope of reason that they would do that especially if it tied into some sort of book promotion that the former presidents were trying to do.

With respect to your comment about public perception about an actual former president criticizing Mackenzie Allen (a fictional character) I think that as long as it was something they actually stood for and believed in they wouldn't have a problem with it. Bill Clinton expressing disapproval with President Allen due to the fact that there was a budget surplus when he left office and now under her administration there is a deficit would not technically be something he should have a problem with. It celebrates his Presidency and at the same time gives Mackenzie the rub of doing a scene with an official former president. As long as it was done tastefully I don't think there should be a problem either way.

[–] quarf53206 17 years ago

"Bill Clinton expressing disapproval with President Allen due to the fact that there was a budget surplus when he left office and now under her administration there is a deficit"

Keep in mind that The Teddy Bridges Character was GWB successor so of course the surplus would be gone.

I see some of your points but I think the limited themselves by not setting this show in its own universe
http://www.pbase.com/bkjansen220
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28877774@N/00

[–] harlemsushi 17 years ago

Technically it was set in it's own universe though just on a divergent earth. Laws such as the 25 ammendment (which refers to Presidential Succession) are different in practice. I think all the elements were there, they just weren't properly or completely taken advantage of.

The only way I could see the show being completely set in it's own universe is if the show would have been a sort of sequel or spinoff to Lurie's film The Contender and Teddy Bridges would have gotten the Presidency after Jackson Evans (Jeff Bridges' character.) That way the point of divergence would have been after Reagan's presidency and Jackson Evans would have beaten George HW Bush in the 1988 election and we'd still be where we are. That scenario I could see.

[–] harlemsushi 17 years ago

By the way, I'm not sure if you have a myspace profile, but if you do friend request me on myspace and send me an email just telling me who you are bucause you have some really interesting opinions and I respect that. Or just PM me and I'll give you my email.

[–] claraq90 17 years ago

We have discussed this in great detail on the Commander in Chief forum, and most of us think it is set in 2012, a few reasons are

200 years since the whitehouse burnt down

it was 1965 when Tempelton made the racist statment and it was nearly 50 years ago

There is one problem to all of this though in First Choice Mac is looking at her colour coded schedual and if you look in the corner there is a date 9 October 2005.

It seems none of the dates seem to fit.

This is all the ideas that people on the forum have come up with about the timeline

http://z14.invisionfree.com/CIC_Fan_Forum/index.php?showtopic=74&st=0

[–] harlemsushi 17 years ago

Thanks for the information about the Commander in Chief forum. I'll check it out. With respect to the two examples you mentioned, I don't believe Mackenzie was giving exact dates on either so it shouldn't be construed as such. In the Tempelton scenario she did use the word nearly as a qualifier and although no qualifier like that was used in the reference to the burning of the White House I believe the same scenario stands. After all, in one episode (I don't remember the episode, but you've inspired me to rewatch the series) she did state that democracy in the US was only a 200 year experiment and we've obviously been a nation more than 200 years. I don't remember the scedule book, but I will rewatch the series and tell you what I think.

Like I stated earlier, as far as I am concerned, it takes place in 2006 (exactly when it aired.) Supporting indication can be found in the episode First dance where it is stated that Russia, "has only been a democracy for 15 years." Now, one thing that would make it correct as far as timeline goes is not so much what was said, but what was omitted. In the episode State of the Unions, President Allen watches State of the Union Addresses from President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Nixon, President Ford, President Carter, and President Reagan indicating that all of them were presidents in the Commander in Chief universe. Also in the Pilot episode there is the mention of Al Gore and Dick Cheney as Vice Presidents indicating President Clinton and President George W Bush were also parts of their respective universe. Which leaves no mention of Bush Sr. I think that that omission was very deliberate and possibly the key to getting the timeline to work.

Think about it, like I stated in my first post:

"Right after Reagan served his 2 terms, Clinton became president, and everyone's presidency moved up 4 years and George W Bush finished his 2 terms in 2004. That would have meant no Iraq war because Bush Sr never went there in the first place. For some reason, Dick Cheney was not able serve as the Vice President during Bush's second term so Bridges served in his stead becoming President afterwards with Mackenzie Allen as his VP. 9/11 occurred during Bush's second term while Bridges was his VP and that led to the Patriot Act, the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security, and the invasion on Afganastan (which Speaker Templeton mentioned in the North Korea/nuclear war episodes as the invasion on the Khyber Pass which is in Afganastan.) And that leaves us where we are with Mackenzie as President."

I think the evidence pointing to the show being set in 2006 (when it aired) is more substantial and than anything else. But I'd love to hear your response and I will visit the other site. I would be very happy to discuss Commander in Chief with other fans.

[–] claraq90 17 years ago

To be honst I dont think they thought this through when they made it, there is so much conflicting ideas.

I dont think they could just forget a President, and in the second episode Tempelton does mention Iraq and Iran, which would make me think that everything so far did take place.

I think the date of October 2005 was a mistake. And for Mac to say nearly 50 years with regards to the Tempeton video would be an exageration as it would only have been 40 or 41 years.

The whitehouse burnt down in 1812 so 200 years would be 2012.

And finally the date seen on the schedual says 2005. Which I beleive to be wrong.

[–] harlemsushi 17 years ago

Well with respect to Presidential Lineage and timeline, I do think they thought the whole thing through, but the fact that they had only 1 season to expand on their universe (and with the absence of the five unaired episodes, not even that.) As far as Templeton mentioning Iran and Iraq, both nations have been at odd with each other since before the Reagan Administration so the mention of them does not necessarily mean that the Gulf War ever occurred or the Bush Sr was ever President.

Also,I think that both the example of the Templeton footage and the reference to the White House burning down were both exagerations of time in which the characters gave approximations. "200 years" rolls off the tounge a lot easier than 196. The mst puzzling piece of evidence is in fact the schedule.

I have not gotten up to the episode where it is shown but if we can come up with a workable theory for 2005, that might be an answer because if it was not meant to be in the series or if it conflicted with the actual universe where the story is set, someone would have caught it either on set by the script supervisor or in post. Rod Lurie would have seen it and demanded that the editor remove it. As soon as I see that episode, I will comment further on it.

Another piece of information that sheds doubt on the 2012 theory is that in 2012 Tony Blair will not be Prime Minister and in the second episode President Allen is in the Oval Office with her husband and she looks around on President Bridges' desk and sees a picture of him and Tony Blair. They went through an an awful lot to include that picture in the show and I think it was more to set a sense of time and place rather than to just give Bridges the rub of being seen next to an actual world leader.

[–] claraq90 17 years ago

I dont think the Picture of Blair means anything for one who says he was PM when it was taken, or Bridges could have been VP. Besides Blair could have still been PM, he chose to resign and when the show was made no one knew when he would leave office, he could have run in the next election in 2009 which would mean he would still have been pm in 2013, he could have then run another term if he was to be elected.

I think the photo is to symbalise how simlar Bush and Bridges are by showing that they both have a simlar reltonship to Blair.

If the show was to be set in recent times then they couldnt have used a fictional Russian President.

[–] harlemsushi 17 years ago

Well using a fictional Russian President or not is no barometer as to when the show takes place. That would be like using the arguement that since there are no senators from our universe in the series that it takes in the future. It is fiction and that's one of the liberties they can take. As I stated before, I believe that the show's universe is what I refer to as a divergent earth were at some point events unfolded differently than they did in our universe and after viewing the show twice, it just jumps out that it was a result of Bush Sr not having been President.

Also, I don't believe that the photo of Bridges and Blair was meant to draw a comparision between Bridges and Bush. It served to root the show (albeit loosely) in a particular time. I don't think Lurie intended the show to be in 2012 (everyone know Blair's days were numbered even 2006) and he went to great (although somewhat cryptic) efforts to do so. At the very least, it keeps everyone talking and wanting to figure it out. But that's a tactic that only works for hardcore fans, not casual ones. And I you and I are hardcore ones. :)

[–] harlemsushi 17 years ago

2005...it's official; that's when the show took place. I saw the board that everyone was speaking about that said 2005 and while we might be able to rule this out as an isolated incident or an error I saw something on another episode that brought the point home. In the episode "The Mom who Came To Dinner" (the Thanksgiving episode) after the recap and the 2 commission members giving an interview on the step it cuts to Mac, Keaton, Kelly, and Jim spaking on the base closings. As it cuts, the camera pulls up from the comission's report which reads :

"2005 Defense Base Closure & Realignment Comission"

Now this episode took place when Steven Bochco was Show Runner & Executive Producer while the first mention took place when Rod Lurie was still show runner, writer, & Executive Producer. With that in mind and consistency established there is no doubt in my mind that it takes place in 2005. Now all that's left is to establish an actual timeline. I'll work on this and also as I've been watching I've noticed that a lot of the references to time they make (ie White House Burning down, the age of Templeton's coments,etc) are approximations so we do have a bit of wiggle room getting stuff to gel. I'll post the timeline as soon as I get one done that fits.