Democrats?
In the final episode, it seems that opposition candidate fell off an elephant (the GOP symbol) and broke his legs, suggesting that Benson and the Governor are Democrats.
shareI always wondered if the governor and Benson were democrat or republican. I figured they were democrats because they seemed to put emphasis on the working man getting a fair shake, lots of talk about the environment, and episodes where Benson discussed how people couldnt make ends meet, in one episode, he gave his $50,000 lottery winnings to charity and that right there made me lean most heavily towards him working in a democrat administration and not a republican one.... Also the governor just didnt look like a republican. I missed the final episode. Im thinking they ran against one another for governor didnt they? They should have never pitted the governor and Benson against one another, they were family after 8 years. What a poor way to end it.
shareYes, Benson and Gatling against each other for governor, with Benson representing "The Party", and Gatling running as an independent. I believe it was the rival candidate from the "opposition party" that fell off the elephant.
Initially, Gatling didn't think that he could run for a third term, and was planning on moving back home with Katie to a saw mill he owned. Late in the campaign, Clayton found a clause in the state constitution that basically stated a party's candidate could not run for a third term, but didn't say that the candidate couldn't run as an indepedent. Gatling through his hat in the ring late in the game, and though there was some animosity between the two, they did come together at the end, which ends in an unresolved cliffhanger. I don't think anyone would have been satisfied with one or the other winning. According to the trivia section on this site, three endings were filmed with Benson winning, Gatling winning, and both losing, ending up on a fishing trip together. I would have hated to see one or the other win.
What the hell were the writers thinking? Why would they end the show with Benson and the Governor running against each other?
That's about as sensible as having Bo and Luke Duke double-team Daisy Duke.
"That's about as sensible as having Bo and Luke Duke double-team Daisy Duke."
That is hillarious.
But if you think about it -- it's not like they're siblings -- and they do live in the South.
"That's about as sensible as having Bo and Luke Duke double-team Daisy Duke."
That is hillarious.
But if you think about it -- it's not like they're siblings -- and they do live in the South.
Touche.
That's nothing. Google how "Alf" ended. Now that was bizarre.
shareI believe it was mentioned straight-out in an episode that Gatling was a Democrat (although was also elected as an Independent). Given when the show began in the post-Watergate late '70s, there were very few Republican Governors at the time, and it made sense that Gatling would be a Democrat. One might say the "dead giveaway" was Gatling's attempt to hold onto power and do an end-run around the fictional state's Constitution to justify running for a 3rd term.
Interesting that it would've been truly groundbreaking tv for the 8th season if Benson had become the "first" modern-era Black Governor and would've breathed considerable new life into the show. Of course, as a political pundit, I know that the "real life" ending of the show would've had them both losing to the fella who fell off the elephant, since Benson DuBois and Gatling would've split the Dem vote.
[deleted]
Actually, the first episode reveals that Gatling is a Democrat. When little Katie meets Benson, she says that her father is a murderer, and Benson responds "are you a republican?". This would mean that (methaphorically speaking) Gatling is a murderer in the eyes of Republicans, and thus a Democrat.
Gatling is dumped by the Democrats and runs for his second term as an Independent. In the final episode, Benson is likely the candidate for the Democratic party.
If gatling and benson are democrats or republicans, it makes that party look good and bad. It means that the party likes idiots (bad thing) but likable (good). It also means that he picked unlikeable clayton and taylor (bad). One could go on and on about this also.
You would also be offending many people if you did actually pick a party and portrayed the other side in a negative light. if you offend people, you lose views. Losing viewers equals possible cancelation. So it was a good thing that they never picked a side.
They also presented many sides of the issues positively and Gatling took many different republican and democrat positions. One example was that gatling cut the state workforce by 20% as he said he would do in a campaign promise(normally this would be a republican issue), but he showed how much he struggled with the firing of so many people and how it would affect their lives(normally a democrat issue).
"in one episode, he gave his $50,000 lottery winnings to charity and that right there made me lean most heavily towards him working in a democrat administration and not a republican one...."
Give me a break. You have a warped view of what democrats are. Most rich jerks now vote dem.
Demographically you are correct.
Democrats are the party of the very rich and the very poor.
The middle tends to vote Republican.
Not the stereotype portrayed but true nonetheless.
Have to disagree with you there.
I'm a life long Democrat.
Happily, I am not very poor. Sadly, I am not very rich.
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
[deleted]
First of all, I cannot believe this is even being discussed. There has never been a show on Network Tv that would show Republicans in a good or fair light. Hollywood has been and always will be left wing liberals out to destroy conservative ideas and principles.
I had watched episodes of Barney Miller and Perker Lewis can't lose when I was young and I had remembered liking the show. I watch them now and they are some of the most offensive liberal based shows I have ever seen. I know now that if there are politics involved, they will always take the liberal side and make conservatives look like fools, or all about money, or starving the poor, or poisoning the air. I would laugh at these so called truths that liberals spout out about conservatives, but there are a lot of people that are drinking the kool-aid and believe it!
I have always felt Republicans for the most part look out for everyone, where as the dems look to pit one race against another, or one rich against poor, or they punish businesses for being sucessful. Businesses are run to make money and I guess that offends some people. I understand why they are forced to make deceisions that they do. I'm not saying there are not problems, but there are issues on both sides, for workers and the business. I make between 10 and 20 dollars an hour, so I am in now way rich or poor. I consider myself lucky to enjoy a good life up to now. My business has had plenty of problems and they have downsized a lot. I used to feel like a king with all the extra incentives we receieved. Now they are all gone. I still make a decent wage and have insurance, so I am thankful. I also work with good people.
It really urks me how other who posted on this blog, seem to believe that Dems give more to charity and care more about the poor and middle class. They have been in power more lately than Repub's and they don't care one bit. The facts are that Conservatives give more to charitiesa than Dems do, they just don't make a big deal about. It's like we live in a Bizarro world where people seem to think Dems are a better party, when in fact they are guilty of all of the things they say are the faults of Repub's.
I thought maybe Benson might be worth a watch, but after reading up on it, it looks like another left wing show from the 70's. Very sad.
First of all, I cannot believe this is even being discussed. There has never been a show on Network Tv that would show Republicans in a good or fair light. Hollywood has been and always will be left wing liberals out to destroy conservative ideas and principles.
The Republican Party has done little enough in its history throughout the 20th century and on into the 21st to warrant its being depicted in a postive light anywhere--not merely television.
And Hollywood has always cringingly followed the party line, kowtowing to whomever is in power at the moment; the 'liberal' trappings have always been purely superficial. Recollect the '80's, with Ron and Nancy, and Nancy's pet drug campaign--suddenly, the entertainment industry, which had freewheelingly followed the trends of the 60's and 70's culture got on its collective hands and knees to lick the couple's shoes ideologically, and media has obligingly followed along in the wake of the ever-increasing fetishization of the military and its culture of violence as the Republican Party has constantly clamored for same. Look at the spate of 'Biblical' and 'faith-based' films, a plethora of which have hit the screens in recent years in quantities unprecedented since the 1950's. Whose 'liberal' line is that trend following?
The rest of your post is such monumental BS--particularly that line about the Republicans' looking out for everyone'--that it makes my gorge rise too much to even address it. Anyone with a whit of common sense can read it for the parrot-job it is. share
Dems for the working man...lol. Can't be further from the truth lately. Nothing but elitists.
share