Tony: Seriously, Mr. "Let Me Tell You All the Inconsistencies within the Back to the Future Movies."
Doug: God, don't get me started. Like how Doc Brown took Marty and Jennifer to 2015 to help keep Marty Jr. from committing a robbery, thereby keeping the McFly Family heading on a downward spiral. Yet he didn't even warn Marty that he was less than an hour away from being involved in a car crash that would cause him to break his hand and thereby kill any musical aspirations he had. Wouldn't that be the starting point of the downward spiral. It would lead to Marty and Jennifer sleepwalking their lives in a crappy neighborhood. If Marty and Jennifer had a better life, then Marty Jr. wouldn't feel the need to commit the robbery to try to improve his family's station in life.
|No one will notice a flying DeLorean on a suburban street on a Saturday morning.|
Doug: Oh. What was I saying?
Tony: Whitmore? Re-election?
Doug: Oh right. I'd have to disagree with the article. Dropping the bomb on U.S. soil or not, Whitmore would have to screw up pretty badly to lose re-election. I wouldn't normally say that for someone who orders a nuclear strike on our own cities. If Obama were to nuke Houston today, he could probably not count on re-election.
|However, the person or people behind creating this poster wouldn't be surprised.|
That's a pretty big if. Also, what do you suppose these alien crafts were doing in Houston to begin with? If past experience is any indication, they weren't just passing through. If Whitmore sat back and did nothing, Houston was going to be destroyed anyway.
Though, I imagine any of Whitmore's opponents would still harp on the Houston decision. I suppose we can't really blame them, either. On paper, without thinking of the context of such actions, it sounds horrible. Yeah, and filling Houston with radiation was probably not good. Maybe Whitmore would have to make do without Texas' electoral votes.
|If Whitmore is a Democrat, he probably wasn't expecting Texas anyway.|
But bombing an Ohio city would probably be a bad political move.
Who would run against him, anyway? It's not like there was anyone in Congress with any better ideas. No governor stepped up with a clear solution to defeating the invasion. The only person in Whitmore's Cabinet who might take issue with the way Whitmore handled things would be Secretary of Defense Albert Nimzicki, and he wanted to bust out the nukes sooner.
|"I've been telling you to drop bombs on U.S. soil for years, Mr. President."|
|Oh sure, the old "giant fireball has consumed the U.S. Capitol" excuse again.|
Thus, once all the dust clears, you can bet all these congressmen (to hell with the gender-neutral pronoun, it'd be men) would come popping out of their holes, and they'd run platforms along the lines of "Look, I know Whitmore had a good run against the alien invaders. But those alien invaders aren't around any more! I think it's time for new leadership in New Washington D.C.!"
Doug: Well sure, I suppose someone would run against him. Every Abraham Lincoln has a George McClellan. And they get obliterated in the election. Think about FDR. He not only had Republicans against him, but he also had Democrats who didn't believe anyone should be president longer than three terms. But it didn't matter, because FDR easily won his elections.
|If people think of Thomas Dewey, they think of this and not how he got his ass handed to him by FDR in 1944.|
Tony: I dunno. The thing is: I wonder if we've lost our ability to fall in love with politicians, any more. Not to get all socio-philisophical on you, or anything, but we tend to give politicians a super-short leash these days, and it seems like the "bump" that presidents give for their victories lasts all of two seconds. So the question we have to ask is, how long would it be before Whitmore ran again? The movie came out in 1996, which was obviously an election year (unless the Independance Day universe is like the West Wing universe, and elections are held in our midterm years for reasons no one ever mentions). You have to wonder: if the film was intended to be set in 1996, would Whitmore's America even be capable of holding elections five months after the film?
If there's too long of a gap between ID4 and the election, Whitmore's chances start to fade. This is the "Bush in '92" scenario, again: everyone loved him after the Gulf, but the economy tanked, and then he was vulnerable. If Whitmore can't point to significant progress post-invasion when the election rolls around, voters might take their frustrations out on him, heroics be damned.
Doug: Yeah, we don't know what year this takes place. All we know is that Whitmore has been in office long enough for the honeymoon period to be over, but it's not an election year, because that would have been mentioned four months before November. I would even go so far as to guess that it wasn't time for midterm elections, as that didn't get any mention either, putting this at 1995 (or the year before an election year).
Of course, part of that theory is based on the idea that a Hollywood blockbuster movie full of explosions would spend a considerable time discussing the political implications of said explosions.
|"What do you suppose this means for the European Union?"|
— No one watching Armageddon
His speeches worked before. I don't know why it wouldn't work again.
The Chief: Well, regardless of whether or not you believe Whitmore could get re-elected, the main question this week is, "could he beat Thomas Jefferson in a fight?" Whitmore vs. Jefferson rages on, so be sure to be a part of the action: vote, comment and spread the word!