I forgot Will.
I sound like my Grandmother watching a soap opera, but he’s such a gaddam sniveling weasel or rude overconfident asshole this season I can’t pay attention to him. I’m actually beginning to like Josh.
I suppose it is convenience that makes double entendres possible. Will need have said nothing. It was just unseemly to attack a president on this show — current or former. Toby has enjoyed the occasional cigar for years with nary a clever quip tossed out by anyone.
Why?
And as attacks go, that was pretty mild.
We had four stories this week. All were retreads.
1 - The Canada story - A silly situation upsets some people. People become more and more upset and the situation seems to be turning into a real crisis. Then one character steps in, reminds everyone of the essential silliness, and dispels the situation.
2 - The nobel prize dinner - Jed gets cranky over something. Then someone says something that strikes a chord. Jed gets inspirational.
3 - The voting age debate - One of the staffers meets someone from what appears to be a fringe advocacy group. At first they dismiss the person but then they stop and take the time to talk to them. The person inspires the staffer.
4 - The stem cell vote - Some arcane political rule is invoked. It appears that a crucial vote will be lost. Somebody figures out a bizarre way to get around the rule.
Every one of these has been done before with just different characters and details.
Um, the “cowboy” reference flagged “Bingo” Bob Russell in my mind. Oh, wait, Will works for him, so maybe not. Or maybe that’s his doubt manifesting?
And the kids were ridiculous. Not so much the kids, but that Toby & Jed took them seriously. It’s such false logic. It’s nice to think about giving kids the vote, but what about the yet unconceived, or dumb animals, or trees? They’re affected by our laws, too! Then again, maybe thinking about this will help people see that relying on popular representation as a guarantee of justice is no substitute for governors of enlightened conscience. :dubious:
I don’t think the implication was that either Toby or Jed were nearly convinced, but rather that they respected the kids enough to engage them in debate and respond with due seriousness. That issue is so clearly never going to happen that you can afford to argue about it, becuase you know you can’t possibly, in the long run, lose.
Agreed.
“Here’s the table. It’s your meeting.”
Aside from the aforementioned unseemliness, it jerked me out of the plot. In fact, I paused it and replayed it several times to try to figure out what it might have to do with anything they were discussing. A reference to Montana ranchers never even occured to me. Had the script said “rancher” instead of “cowboy”, maybe it would have. The VP didn’t dawn on me because his character had not been developed as a cowboy, but as something of an idiot savant. And Reagan didn’t occur to me because, although he brought a strength and resolve to the office, he used diplomacy and economic muscle much more than military force to achieve his goals. One and only one “amped-up cowboy” who has been elected to office came to my mind. Instantly. Because that is exactly the caricature painted of him by people who don’t like him and are prone to preachiness about things like stem cell research. It was out of place, amateurish, irrelevant, and about as subtle as a bus in a living room.
Well, we’ll have to disagree about Reagan (solely on the means by which he accomplished his goals; I’m not a Reagan-basher) as well as the significance of a throway line of dialogue. I’ve thought about it and realized that I didn’t connect Bush43 and “cowboy” because his cowboy image looks so obviously and cynically manufactured for political reasons, while Reagan’s cowboy chops are, (heh-heh) “real” in the sense that he played them in the movies before entering politics, and he looked more convincing in the role, anyway.
Have to admit though, getting riled at partisan hackery on The West Wing at such a late date looks almost comical.