I suppose it is both fitting and proper that on a night when liberal candidates reinforce the fact that they never, ever move on from anything that Fox’s Scream Queens would resurrect one of the most tired and lame liberal talking points of the early 2000’s.
In an episode titled “Pumpkin Patch,” Hester Ulrich (Lea Michele) explains to her nerdy friend how she plans to control and manipulate the “Chanels” (the Mean Girls-like clique that the show is based on) and likens her behind-the-scenes manipulation to that supposedly greatest of all political ventriloquists, Dick Cheney:
Ulrich: So Zayday is running for president.
Nerdy Friend: And she's going to lose. There are only eight girls in this house. You guys, Chanel and Chanel #3 will all vote for Chanel, which means Zayday would need Sam and me and Grace to all vote for her, and then it'd be a tie and Chanel remains president.
Ulrich: But if Chanel #5 and you and I throw the votes to Zayday...
Nerdy Friend: She'd win.
Ulrich: And then I'd beg to be her second-in-command, while quietly pull the strings behind the scenes like Dick Cheney. Chanel #5 will be rewarded by getting to run the pumpkin-patch-shining- Fergie-and-Fergie-concert.
Of course, the fact that Bush rebelled against Cheney on one of the most important and personal issues Cheney ever brought to him, the pardoning of Scooter Libby, apparently counts for nothing.
But if Scream Queens is so concerned with the idea of political underlings controlling the actions of elected officials, then why not cite the far more current and sinister relationship of Valerie Jarrett and President Obama? A relationship even former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn called:
“Her role since she has been at the White House is one of the broadest and most expansive roles that I think has ever existed in the West Wing,”
Hmm. Sure sounds like she must have a pretty cozy relationship with POTUS. Would have also made more sense since the character saying the line in this scene is a female. But hey, let’s keep reliving 2004. No, seriously, can we please go back to 2004?
