“Alpha House”, Amazon’s hit show surrounding four fictional GOP senators, never ceases to disappoint those looking for an example of liberal messaging in programming. It is quite distinct from other shows known to tow the “PC” line or slam conservatives, however, because it is so blatant in its pitch — not to mention, a show whose story lines and characters are so clearly based on real life figures, events, and issues is particularly concerning.
You may find my recap of Amazon’s first few episodes (and its penchant for exclusively attacking conservatives – never the Left) here, as well as another update regarding its apparent obsession with smearing Senator Rubio here.
A recent episode (“Showgirls”), airing January 3, 2014, demonstrates a new twist: attacking notable real-life businessmen and praising the unions.
Plotline: Senator Louis Laffer (a modestly-devout Mormon representing Nevada — thus, a Republican-version of real-life senator, Harry Reid) walks into his office to find several Vegas showgirls and a union representative, essentially threatening a strike. The showgirls explain their plight (Nine costume changes a night! Headpieces that weigh up to 22 pounds! “Discrimination” of women under 5″8!) and the meager salary ($56.75 a night).
[Really? Do showgirls really make $56.75 a night? Somehow, I doubt this is remotely in the ballpark of their real-life pay. But let’s not allow reality to get in the way of the show’s pro-union message.]
The union rep, “Tommy,” from Culinary Union’s Local 226, explains that the union wishes to “show solidarity with our dancing sisters.” Tommy threatens a strike if management doesn’t sit down with the girls to discuss, adding: “And as you know, sir, if 226 goes out, the casinos go dark. See how much the Watt brothers enjoy that.”
LAFFER: “And you mention the Watt brothers… why?”
CULINARY UNION REP: “Because they own your ass, don’t they, Senator?”
Laffer simply responds: “Own is a strong word, Tommy. So is ass.”
Laffer then meets with the Watt brothers… who, holding true to stereotypes of casino owners, speak and act like mobsters.
For some unknown reason, Laffer seems to decide helping the showgirls unionize is the right thing to do. But he’s in a bind, as the Watt brothers are major donors. So, he finds a way around it, by informing the Watt brothers that the Senate just may investigate their casino operations in Macao unless they play ball (“All I’m saying is, if you let the girls organize, I may use my influence”). The brothers have no choice but to angrily agree. Laffer has now ensured the showgirls can organize.
The media and Laffer’s Nevada constituents then rave about Laffer siding with the showgirls and the Culinary instead of with the casino operators, with a reporter gushing: “To go toe-to-toe with Las Vegas casino operators?! That takes some big ones.”
So what’s the issue here? Let’s break it down:
1) The idea that Laffer would want to help the showgirls unionize is ridiculous. Even a moderate Republican is not pro-union — thus, the plot makes no sense. Screw realism — the writers simply forced the pro-union plot into the episode anyway. The (brainwashing) message is clear: nice guys (like Laffer) will side with the Culinary and the “little guy!” (or girls, in this case) over the big, bad casino owners.
2) Are the Watt brothers based on Frank Fertitta and Lorenzo Fertitta? They seem to be, as no other ‘brothers’ (at least not any well known ones) are major Las Vegas casino owners or operators. The Watts’ ‘mafia-style’ demeanor and speaking was a particularly low touch. The Fertitta family has also long been at odds with the Culinary Union — same nemesis of the ‘Watt brothers.’ The Watt brothers — named Saul and ‘Shelly’ Watts — are likely a amalgamation of the Fertitta brothers and of Sheldon Adelson (casino mogul and major GOP donor known for his union-busting). Shelly… Sheldon… geez, could they make it any more obvious? (NOTE: Nice try by the writers, giving the fictional brothers a WASPY surname — it is not lost on yours truly that they are nonetheless clearly slandering an Italian-American family and a Jewish-American male, with pervasive, unfair stereotypes about both of these ethnic groups).
3) Why the implication that Senator Harry Reid (the liberal, real-life version of fictional Louis Laffer) is ‘owned’ by casino operators? Does Harry Reid advocate for casino interests? You bet! Does that mean he’s ‘owned’ or ‘in the pocket of’ casino owners? Nope! It simply means Reid is doing what’s best for his constituents’ jobs and economy — and, as any simple-minded fool would realize, constituents’ interests usually align with those of casino owners (bigger and better jobs, more jobs, more construction — it’s benefits everyone).
4) Local 226 (notice the show touted the actual union — not a fictional one) seems to have loved the episode (no surprise), posting about it on its website:
What’s fascinating about this show’s producers/writers? The fact that they see nothing wrong, or one-sided, about they’re doing.