Transcripts For CSPAN3 The 20240703

Be sure to watch American History tv every saturday or anytime online c span. Org history. Welcome to thn very Exciting Panel Discussionhn about television, entertainment and the white house. My name is Katherine Kramer brownell. I am an associate professor of history at Purdue University ity. I am a historian of modern american politics and. I have written extensively about the relation ship between the welcome to the second session. Very Exciting Panel Discussion about television, entertainment, and the white house. I am a historian of modern american politics and have written extensively about the relationship between the presidency and Popular Culture including my new book which i will shamelessly plug because it is out this august, which is called 24 7 politics, and the fragmenting of america. The book explores the political strategy behind the president ial embrace of programs like mtv news. I am just thrilled to be moderating this conversation that looks at the other side of the equation. To dig into these questions i am thrilled to introduce my panelists who are incredibly distinguished in their careers. Their full bios are in the program so i will just give a brief overview. To my left we have an associate professor of history and american university. Editor in chief of blindness review which is a leading journal of legal history the author of national duties. He is not at work at a new project which uses the west wing as a lensing to American History and we will hear more about that today. We have a senior counsel at a leading global law firm. Previously a member and Obama White House aide. You work for seven sessions as a consultant for the hit hbo series. And then we have a professor in the department of indication in the associate dean for Faculty Affairs and research at the college of arts and humanities in the university of maryland. Is the awardwinning author and editor of four books including the primetime presidency, the west wing, and u. S. Nationalism. Just a general overview of how they have studied or experienced the relationship. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here today. F interest in the writers rooms about what was going on in the world around them. But the challenge was how to package that in an entertaining way for a mass audience. And so thats really bee what i found on the show that i specialize on is there was a great deal of interest in the writers rooms about what was going on in the world around them, but the challenge was how to package that in an entertaining way for a mass audience. That is really what i have been focusing on. Bridging the gap between those worlds. You have written extensively about the west wing as well. How did you come to that topic . I was a fan. I have always seen the writer and so when the west wing but again we had not really seen it on television in that way before. Pretty amazing. Since then i have become very interested in the larger array of programming on television and in film. Specifically in the post cold war era and how we have wrestled with what Daniel Rogers calls the ager fracture that came after the end of the cold war. Of Popular Culture comes in to provide a set of meanings and understandings about the american presidency and what those are telling us. Moreover, how they lead us in particular ways to understand the presidency has a specific and powerful institution in American Life, so that is what i am looking at. s been a fascinating. Eric, i did you come to serve as a consultant . Thank you for having me. I am a big fan. It is an honor to come here. This confirms my feeling that d. C. Is about a month ahead of massachusetts in terms of the weather, so it is much nicer and warmer here than where i am. I in an academic or research, so i feel humbled to be up on stage with all of you. I got wrapped up in this because i was a political nerd in high school and loved the west wing and a grub is a part of of a generation especially of those of us a kind of came of age at the Obama Campaign in 2008 of really looking at our first president and then of course president obama after that. The perspective i have here is i was a fan of the show and motivated in part to get into politics from the ideals of the show. Worked as a staffer on president ial campaigns, which may or may not be worthy influence comes in. And then worked as a staffer in the white house and then ran for office myself. Is in the states and in massachusetts for four terms. Solid perspective as a candidate, which may or may not be drawn for inspiring some veep. I know you will get into it in more detail but i was basically wrapped up my time of the white house and i was back in massachusetts in my phone rang. A woman who is a friend of mine who i know is speaking on a later panel called and said there was a programming put together by hbo. He had done the thick of it and in the uk was creating this comedy about american politics for hbo and if i would be interesting in helping out with the consulting on the script and it seemed like a great side job, so i said yes. That was shortly after the pilot. Each of you have studied this question about the relationship between art and life. What do you see as the relationship . Do they mimic one another . At least on the west wing. Those of us who got to experience politics in the 90s i think it was so recognizable especially in the early seasons that the show was trying to give us the same storyline that we were seeing with bill clinton and Newt Gingrich and some of this battle and scandals everywhere. That instinct remains sort of intact moving forward, because obviously the world changes and and politics changes. But certainly from from the perspective i was looking at, there was a great deal of mimicking reality. Yeah, i do think there was a great deal. Would be interesting to hear his perspective on this about whether that instinct remains intact moving forward because obviously the world changes in politics changes. Certainly from the perspective i was looking at was a great deal of art mimicking reality. I would suggest to go down the line here from my perspective it literally did mimic life. I had to be on the ground floor from the Obama Campaign from the earliest phases and it is uncanny how similar some of the pipelines and storylines especially a later season west wing is to the Obama Campaign. I was not particularly unique in that regard. There were a lot of us who were younger Staff Members and volunteers and be kind of lived and breathed the west wing and loved every episode and really viewed the ideals of representing as for the in aspiration and politics. The flipside of that is the was very much also a little bit of mimicking and poking fun at the life of being a staffer in d. C. I am sure we will get into this as the conversation goes along. It became almost like a shorthanded catchphrase around town. Responsiveness, the plotsd the and the storylines had totsd the culture as they changed around them. Yeah. When we first met eric or when i first met eric, i thought, is he a dan . Where is he saying . I definitely, definitely. Sam yeah. Well, thats the vision we all want. I found that im less interested in whether or not art mimics life as i am. The moments when the artists and the Popular Culture texts go off in wildly different directions, sometimes into the realm of the implausible. So im thinking here of a show called designated survivor that Kiefer Sutherland thing it imagines this world where, you know the secretary of housing and development is the designated survivor and everybody gets blown up. Okay, so the whole show is premised upon hopefully implausible, right . But more later in that show is the situation room. I dont know if youve if seen the program, but the situation room is this amazing facility with huge screens and maps and a lot of Electronic Arts and its this vast, huge space. And we all know the situation room, as we saw on veep, is much smaller, contained environment. And so those moments of implausibility strike me as often very, very in the ways in which Popular Culture is asking us to think the presidency. And sometimes complicated and implausible ways, the extent to which the 25th amendment surfaces a plot device in, Popular Culture programing is way beyond again, hopefully what actually in real life and and im also finding myself very interested in president ial vulnerability in Popular Culture. Text so we had a string of films not to jump on the panel coming later, but we had a string of films where terrorists take over the white house and the president is saved by some secret Service Agent or fbi guy. Gerard butler or whatever. And, you know, its its like, wow, whats driving these plots . How is the presidency positioned in those particular narratives . So, you know, less about mimicking life and more about how is it really pushing our understandings of political meaning and the presidency as an institute . Well, its such a great question about. Accuracy and so what are these shows an accurate portrayal of politics . Weve mentioned that they allude to certain ideas or such a great question about accuracy. Are these shows an accurate trail of politics . We mentioned that allude to certain ideas or types of characters, but how is accuracy measured . Is it by content creators or how is a thought about by scholars when we are looking at these programs . I want to respond to something he said first. We can look back at it and say that is ridiculous that the situation room would be this glossy thing, but i think it is very necessary to distinguish to go back to the reality versus our. I think you need some element of that. The question is when it gets so tiled in our leaders. One need a in terms of the realism question one of the knocks on the west wing. There is in the entire industry of haters out there. One need only use a Search Engine to find them quickly on the internet, but the big knock is that it has ruined politics. It has poison peoples minds to expect the great problems of American Life can be sold with a great speech. The reality on the show is that they lose more often than they win though. And so a part of the show is about i think sort of realizing the limits of president ial power and so i think that is something i tried to emphasize in my work a little bit that it is not just about the presidency being able to do all. Ray speakers and orders and all that. Although it might be why people get into politics. Certainly i think it is more realistic in that sense then it is given credit for typically. I would say to jump on that and challenge that argument about the west wing. I actually think it was a sober show in the sense that the way i interpreted him he was certainly an idealist, but a part of what made it compelling was he was also pragmatic and is short the issues and questions butte the other big break is one of the things that was very pathbreaking about west wing was the role it had in depicting the staff. Historically shows the president was one person are usually one out in front as the hero who saves everything, and that was how a lot of people consume history through the west wing was one of the first shows i tried to go behind the scenes of that and showed the team that supports the leader. I thought that was important and inspiring to people who may not be the elected official themselves but are doing their part to support the mission across the board. I think the show actually really motivated a lot of good participation in government and politics. It is interesting to see how the storyline changes at the time changes with these other shows. To the point of about accuracy the consumers of these shows in the audiences are sophisticated. Especially a sophisticated viewer. It was not lost on the writers and producers that the consumers of these shows follow that. I would say they are not documentaries and theyre not supposed to be documentaries and there is a difference between something that is realistic and something that is factual. At have to follow a plot and a story arc. There is a comedy element that has to keep people engaged. Not it is a little more honest. At least what i can say it is a lot of time and effort put into making it feel realistic. I was involved for all seven seasons. Anita mcbride was another consultant who has been very active role with the the historical association. Jeremy were to the cia and pentagon. So realism. The shows wont work unless they have that feel of realism. And they in the way that, you know, presumably csi new orleans or wherever they are this month, has to have a certain realistic feel to them or else audiences arent going to buy them. I get i think thats right where i worry that often academics are preoccupied with teasing out or somehow charting the accuracy versus the the fantastical and gautham. I think youre absolutely right. You know those those little moments of 25th amendment are useful plot devices. Mike concern is that they tell that this is somehow how the presidency works. Its the those little moments are useful plot devices. My concern is that tell it how it works. The paradox of the realism. Because they need to have a certain realism in order for the narrative to work, but that realism sets up a whole lot of expectations and then audiences extrapolate from the realistic to the fantastical assuming that somehow is realistic. That is where i get a little nervous i guess. Especially in this era of conspiracy theories. And conspiracy rhetoric is where i think sometimes we are too primed to believe the fantastical. It is too easy sometimes. That is just my take. That gets into the question of teaching the west wing. What are the pros and cons of using these types of programs as primary sources as a way to engage students, but how do you dissect them and encourage your students . It is a great question and a real challenge. The advantage is if you tell students it is a class about tv there is a very good chance he will have a lot of students. He have to force them to read things. I think the way we do it in the class is to go back to what trevor was gesturing towards about meaning. We might find a nice plot line riding a bicycle into a tree. What does it tell us about humanizing it in that moment . What is going on in the moment that people might to see or want to see the president this way. It is a way to use the show to pivot into the social history and cultural history of an era which for the students who are 18 and 19 now have no clue what it was like at that point. If you just take a look at veep as an example it again in the early seasons as more of an Office Comedy and kind of a slapstick satire of a bunch of people working in an office together and it took a darker turn as the seasons progressed. It followed progression levels happening in Current Events around it. That will be a powerful tool years from now for helping understand the period of 201121. And what was going on in the country in the world during that period. The same with the west wing. Begin in the late 90s. Weather 9 11 in the early 2000. You think what was happening in the world in Popular Culture around it. I would be hardpressed to think of other works of art that are better descriptions of what was going on in politics, so i think they will be very important. Transition as well . Well, ill defer to trevor and . Count them on on west wing. But what can say on veep is that, you know, the again it was driven by the consumer. It was driven by the viewer and peoples view about politics and their attitude, frankly, their patience for consuming, you know, one sort of dark comedy about politics, change as the Politics Around the country change. And that was clearly reflected in in the seasons of veep, you know, pretty, pretty warm. And after. And so, you know, i think that the the shows order to maintain their engagement level have to build off of whats happening in the news but they do have to be an escape from whats happening in the news because if people are feeling exhausted and stressed by real life politics as its playing out, theyre not going to want to relive that that that that kind of anxiety when theyre on the couch relaxing, you know, after a day of work. So, you know, the challenge, i think for any the other piece of this is the way iphones and social media have consumption of news so much more intimate and intense. I think going to change how these shows created in the future because in the 1990s it was a very passive way. People consume politics. They watched the evening news, you know, they watched some level of cable news. Now people are its so suffuses everything people are doing all day long because of phones and social media. Are people going to have the same level of desire to consume that, you know, when theyre when theyre in their recreation . I dont i dont know. They will see. I think the west wing changed a lot less of Current Events and, things happening in the world, and more because of creative and internal dynamics in the production of the show. So sorkin leaves in the force after the Fourth Season and the show. Some say. The show jumps a shark and some say it really goes downhill. I actually find the whole kidnaping of the youngest daughter. Spoiler alert, by the way, the whole kidnaping of the youngest daughter and the the speaker, the 25th amendment thing, all of that was was really a low point for the west wing. I actually think the latter two seasons, six and seven, where theres the campaign, the santos, mcgarry campaign is you get it gets its footing again. And i find those one of the best depictions campaigning as campaign actually happens in Popular Culture because you dont see much of the sort of internal workings extended over a long period of narrative time that you do with the santos mcgarry campaign. The one other point i would make is that i think there is a slight c en you do not see r much politi internal workings extended over a long period of time that you do with the santos mcgarry campaign. The other one other point i would make is i think there is a slight change in gender politics with regard to the west wing. When originally the show was supposed to be about the staff. The president sort of overtook everything probably because of martin sheens abilities and talents. The staff was largely male. The women involved were mostly supporting characters. That shifts quite a bit in the second half of the season when cj takes over as the chief of staff. I think i would add one nuanced caveat. I do think after 9 11 the writers on the show and in particular were very concerned about portraying a slapstick funny show about west wing staffers when people were in a gravely serious mood. The show has a grade more to say about terrorism and National Security and safety in those seasons immediately after 9 11. Is a very controversial episode that tries in the immediate aftermath to try to explain why they hate us so to speak. I poll my students every class. Who is your favorite character . It is always a cj. Not to overdo it, but the comparison with west wing and 9 11 happening in that. Kind of an open question how they are going to play out in the coming years. Do you think that they could or should be remade . We see a lot of remakes happening now. Do you think west wing could be remade and would it look like veep . No. I will go right on the record. Leave it alone. Let it exist. Let us have our nostalgia. I think hollywood is trapped in an unfortunate remake cycle. This really became clear to me when in 2013 they released a remake of a horrible movie from the 80s called red dawn. It amazed me because i wondered what was going on in these film studios. As someone writing a book about the west wing as a historical vehicle a short remake may not be a terrible idea for my own purposes, but i think trevor is right. It would not work because of what we have been talking about. Time moves on. Our culture expectations of what we want to see portrayed moves on. The moment has passed. We would expect very different things. Even the cast knows this. There is a running joke that you will see on twitter where it will say where are you i am busy on the west wing remake because i do not think it is going to happen. Would you think the road ahead is for president ial television and kind of this relationship between the presidency and the white house and Popular Television entertainment. Especially given that as we have talked about as american politics itself has become more of a spectacle too many people. What might the road ahead be for this form of entertainment . I was hit by the president s character in the diplomat, which is is netflix limited series. It is fascinating how every now and then these creative folks will come up with the president who looks oddly like the current president. And they did not do this as much with trump because he was so i do not know what. Right. But the president and the diplomat is an interesting sort of take on joe biden. Significantly older than most of the president s and Popular Culture. Similarly i know one of those films that had terrorists invading the white house had jamie foxx playing the president , and in that is to me about the future i am concerned that there is perpetually in an attempt to be the next west wing. I certainly worry about shows trying to be the next veep. Because it really does kind of stand alone uniquely. The shows that try to be the next west wing as well. It is interesting because one big show and think about the trilogy of that. Each is kind of west wing is what we hope politics is. House of cards is what we are afraid it is. I did not pick that up but it has been said a lot. I actually think we are going to be in a cycle back towards idealistic depictions. My instinct is that for recreation and when people want a release, which is what entertainment is. They want something that is going to make them feel good about the country and where we are headed. I think that the cycle will wash itself out in the next round will be high idealism again and show us a higher calling. I also think theres a tendency for the shows to look backwards as well. I absolutely agree, but now we have the white house plumbers be we have this renewed interest in watergate, which is just strange to me. I remember watergate when it was happening. I am finding gas leak on showtime or stars or whatever it is i was about Martha Mitchell the bears this attempt to look back. Will we see as time passes some nostalgia for the 80s period . Are we going to see more reagan series or something along those lines. I do not know. House of cards and keeping with our theme for lunch house of cards was much better as a reddish miniseries that was as an american one. As we have ocean by nodding our heads when somebody mentioned the show we all watch this stuff and there is a market for it. Social media professionals are so good at what they do the space between us as a distant object is collapsing. You can be inside the press room if you want to on your phone. I think the challenge is growing in terms of doing this in the future. There is a reason it will be really hard to match because it is significantly harder now. I want to open it up if there are any questions from the audience. I would like to follow up. I remember thinking this is the way i hope it is and watching commander in chief and being a friend that is the way it was and im curious if you think the trail of a possible woman in the white house is gone from the impossible to something else. How would you track the development of that genre . I no. I can see you there. I am concerned because i do not know there is a good model. You can go online and they will give you a list. All of the woman who are depicted as president s and Popular Culture do not typically rank very hot. Commander in chief is a great example. He wore his liberalism on his sleeve. Even if you were a republican presumably you could emphasize or appreciate the character. When you create these nonpartisan characters and then put them into partisan situations and and subject them to all of the sexist comments. I think you are creating a situation where it is very difficult to envision a possible female president. It may have to wait until we actually have one. The writers ensure runners and creators can envision what that might actually mean. In how washington is depicted. I think theyre going be popular because of what we i think you are digoing scus a wave of shows. I think they are going to be popular because of what we were discussing. I think people want to see an aspiration and a change. West wing was very aspirational on a policy level and a procedural level for how we hope the white house operates and how we hope the values a president brings. It was not particularly inspirational. That is a big piece of unfinished work in the space and acting that is where you are going to see the next round of creations go towards. You mentioned making sure the politics are integrated into this. The other aspect is religious elements be the west wing hit that wonderful middleground where it was able to portray catholicism and judaism and in particular both critical and also in respectful ways. Do you feel that it was kind of a moment in time that maybe we wont get because i know many religions do not play into a lot of fictional portrayals of the white house. As it did so well in the west wing. Is it something we meet see in the future or is it largely going to be kind of avoided as a third rail . I am sure with a comedy show you are definitely going to try to avoid it a little more. I think that did very well with it, so i am curious what you think the future holds without. I do think this is a generational issue with the west wing and a product of the 90s were Political Consultants in the 90s were reflecting the best wisdom of their predecessors and who were schooled in catholicism for john f. Kennedy. How do you square being a devout catholic and being president . Are you going to take orders from the pope or the people . We see this in the first season where they tried to negotiate this. That reflects the history over time. Who knows. We talked about how Current Events can really push sensibilities in one direction or the other and force shows to adapt. If there is a religious moment that we see in the immediate future where it becomes a touch point again i can definitely see it returning in the same way. I am hardpressed as i am sitting here through the filmography of our program on murphy of president s on film or in television. I think it is a very real thing because i cannot think of a president in fiction who is minimally engaged with religion in the same way he did. I really cant. There were important references in veep. Some israel and palestine references. Not remotely like that. My instinct is that those questions would be hard for a generalized audience to either laugh out but it is a good point. To veeps credit they at least put her in religious settings. Im thinking of that hat in england. Yeah. In the danny y episode and again there there are references throughout the differences sins in episodes zero especially to the to the big flashpoints in our in our Current Events that to at least they put her in a religious setting pupate even make some humor out of the church setting. Asleep. So ive missed watching a lot of the television. Youre talking mostly about ongoing programs but i remember the humorous skits about president sullivan m i etam ersos old that by 9 am a bed and in sleep, but you are talking mostly about the programs. And remember the humor skits. Over the years and remember these goofy little skits with for falling down and et cetera and i am wondering. I do not know of any that are that lighthearted anymore. I am wondering if politics has become so polarized and toxic that people hesitate to do lighthearted and funny things about the president s because if reaction can be so limbic. Showtime had a series that was an animated show. That went for several seasons i think. I do not think they have given up on parities. Alec baldwin prior to shooting and assistant director. Too soon. I am sorry. Got quite a bit of mileage off of his impersonations of trump certainly. Although that is past her bedtime and passed mine too. Thank you. I also washed the eight episodes of the diplomat. I guess i question if there is something we can do to influence some of these shows in a more productive way. The diplomat has some good points. I really do not think a woman in politics with spewing profanity almost every moment being returned to people her care there is not someone that i think young woman would emulate. That is not the kind of woman we see in politics. I felt her will was saying in order to get things done and to accomplish you have to act like this. I thought it was terrible the way they pretrade the president. It was an opportunity to portray what the president her role could be in a much more positive light. I think madam secretary that was an episode that ran for a long time showed the characters flaws but showed the wholeness of each of them. What they learned in life. They had ethics. They go through all of the political warfares with a productive way of problem solving. It was not different individuals involved in politics. So i guess i question we have an opportunity through these two really give more accuracy. Is a historical fiction where you have a novel. Give truth. The fiction is that you do not have the dialogue of all of these people, but you could really do something to teach to give people something to emulate and strive towards. I guess although you are saying the pendulum may swing, will it . If we do not take a step forward. The executive producer of the show is a woman. I think it is a very fair critique and observation and brings up a point, which is to what degree do they have an obligation to push Public Opinion and culture in different directions. How are they reflecting the stereotypes and the kind of culture as it exists. I think it is an important question to ask. If a show that was created that had to depict the more positive depictions as he described there be an audience to consume it. I think it is an important question because there is no doubt and i can say this as a former staff person who worked on campaigns. It impacts the culture of people in politics and the assumption people bring to roles. It really does. The young people that are trying to get into politics that are watching these chosen this content and internalizing it. Supervisors are. The voters are. It is an important question for our culture moving forward. I think the panel has effectively shown other Business Decisions are making in terms of the audience structure and having written a book about hollywood. I can tell you the bottom line is always what matters. Or is it just about the bottom line in these shows and of the writers rooms and conversations about episodes that you have studied. I think there is fear of crossing certain lines. I think those lines have to deal with what are considered to be the really emergency or dire situations in real life. It is asking a lot of crews and show runners to be able to think about Civic Knowledge in the same way we might hear. Looking back on it i say you have to be careful about confusing historical coincidence with what actually they are trying to do. Their intentions. I am a little weary of seeing that awareness of knowledge compared to danger zones. I think it is important. It goes back to an all dialogue. I know there have been studies and Research Done that x percent of people were getting their news from the daily show. Now we can still have the comedy shows and satire often gets a lot more consumption. The actual news has plenty of issues so we should not pretend that is depicting things in a completely unbiased way either. Putting that aside i think it is important to make clear answer to this was clear that it is not a documentary. I do think the consumers were savvy enough to know and understand that. The creators i think were ernest about how they can be real but not presenting it as fact. Sometimes we put much pressure on the created world to try to carry these broader issues about lack of Civics Education and how history is taught. Issues with broader access to changes in the new zelenskyy that have contributed to all of these issues. We dump all of this on top of hollywood and say have to create a show that completely depicts how a white house works. Nobody is going to watch it. E n of true detective and west wingn and i mean is you know, i was listening to the creator of true detective talk about what he was envisioning and was saying, how many shows have you seen . Two cops riding around, talking or writing together . Well, theres been a million of them, so he was trying to do something deliberately different. When it comes to American History, every book ive ever read of political history, the united states, the staff for the ones are always much more interesting as real people that most americans dont know. And so then you learn about their rivalries they go over decades and theyre much you you learn about their rivalries and they are much more dynamic types of people. In 2023 it is hard to govern a country of this size, showing that kind of human component would be a winwin. How hard it is to govern. We know about the individually complex people. And so, it will also show, im a big believer that what drives most success in the process brings greater appreciation to that. Im sorry. I just think there is a unique problem in the comparison. The ways in which that narratives around anything having to do about the presidency gets into the person occupying the office. President ial is him, the sense that we have converted the presidency into this unitarian institution with where our democracy is based. I love your idea of the show depicting apolitical staff. That is what the west wing was supposed to be and then it got swallowed up by the president s character. I think there is something unique to show about the presidency that is distinct from a couple of detectives going to missouri trying to solve a crime. Shows about congress have historically not done as well. Part of it is that it is a very powerful narrative. For one person to tell their story, they can have a connection with that person. Thereve been several attempts of shows about congress. They have not caught on the way that president ial ones have. I dont know if people saw the show, the chair, on netflix. I never imagined that someone can make the academic faculty meeting interested, they did it. I do think that the cj character and west wing could be the answer to your question. If you take a single part of a staff and you make it for a vehicle for that persons biography. That could be sturdy enough to hold up the whole show. It was diluted by rapid fire. It would be tough to hold as just dialogue. Want to thank the White House Historical association for putting together this amazing panel and forward thinking the panelists. It is a really engaging and insightful conversation about entertainment and the presidency. Thank you, now we are off to lunch. If you are enjoying American History tv, sign up for our news letter to receive the weekly schedule of upcoming programs. Sign up for the American History tv news letter today. Watch every saturday or anytime online. Weekends are an intellectual feast. It documents american stories. Bringing you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. Cspan 2 comes from these Television Companies. Including spark life. It is our home to. We are all facing her greatest challenge. Spark life is working around the clock to keep you covered. Along with these Television Companies support cspan 2. We will go ahead and get started with our final session. Jonathan jones is currently