West Wing Ainsley - They are Patriots

[GrandMasterFreshMpls]

I love the west wing, but this scene is as cheesy as shit

[ishtarg8]

@GrandMasterFreshMpls

I disagree. I think this scene encapsulates one of the major themes of the show. Good people can hold diametrically opposed viewpoints, but still love their country equally, and want what's best for it, and for the people who live there.

[SciBishop]

Personally I think too many politicians are 'donkeys' and 'elephants' rather than Americans first. People who are nothing but jackasses and lumbering herd animals.

If only democrats would admit that perhaps sometimes Republicans are right about 'coddling' society with our spending vs supporting society and if the Reps would admit that at times sticking a gun in someone's face isn't always the best solution compared to diplomatic approaches which may be better in the longterm.

[MrAllad]

and I'm not a lawyer!! ya, stick it to them :-) good for you

[MikeJames6]

Do you ever think you will see a TV show where the roles would be reversed?  Ainsley would be a Democrat saying disagree with Republicans all you want but they are Patriots. Never This show is a fantasy world inside Democrats heads, look at Arnold Vinick for instance he is a Democrat in every belief of his other than being a supposed deficit hawk. This show was made to make Democrats look heroic and Republicans look mean spirited.

[sgowriter]

@MikeJames6

Maybe it's because Republicans are mean spirited.

[philWynk]

@sgowriter Or maybe it's because Democrats are delusional -- and mean-spirited.

[doowoopguy]

Thank you thank you thank you for posting this. I am a 48 year old that stopped voting party lines decades ago. I was a huge fan of this show and this scene with Emily Proctor is one of my favorites. Its one of the best non-partisan statements that I have ever heard. As Americans we need to focus on what makes us the same instead of different.

[MikeUrciolo]

What is the very last thing that Ainsley says?

[broadjumper1]

@MikeUrciolo - "And I'm their lawyer"

[MikeUrciolo]

@MikeUrciolo Thank you - that's been driving me crazy for years!

[soxmass]

Politics aside, this the work of a brilliant writer and a beautiful and capable actress at the top of her game. The perfect ending to a fabulous episode.

[ericd1112]

Tough to watch without tearing up.

[whohoop]

what was it again that happened before that scene?

[LinusandSally]

"And Sam Seaborn is adorable." Just kidding, well not about him being adorable, but you know

[grumpytosnowwhite]

Amazing scene. Gave me chills down my spine the first time I saw it: "...and I'm their lawyer." *shivers*

[MizDailey]

Emily is awesome. Ya'll get off yer political pedistools and enjoy a video.. it'll all be alright.. This is America.. anything goes... ;)

[sircamembert]

Has it occured to anyone that it's possible that liberals and conservatives want what's best for this country and want to do everything they can to help?

Or am I just taking crazy pills?

[galacticox4]

Liberals and Conservatives have different ideas about "what's best for the country" and solutions. For example when it comes a broken down elementary school, in a run down neighborhood, with gangs, gun violence and no jobs for the parents one group may think its best to fund the schools have jobs programs, etc. The other party thinks it's best to ignore them. Well to the people living in those conditions It's no comfort that they both think they want what the think i best for the country.

[gagothesith]

GALACTICOX4

> Liberals and Conservatives have different ideas

> about "what's best for the country" ...

1 That part is correct.

. . .

[gagothesith]

GALACTICOX4

> ... solutions. For example, when it comes

> [to] a broken-down elementary school,

> in a run-down neighborhood, with gangs, gun violence

> and no jobs for parents, one group may

> its [sic] best to fund the schools have jobs

> programs, etc.

2 What is a "schools have jobs" program?

. . .

[gagothesith]

GALACTICOX4

> broken-down elementary school ...

> The other party thinks it's best to ignore them.

3 Correct again, in a sense--the "other Party" resolutely refuses to entertain the possibility that bad teachers are part of the problem which results in bad schools and rabidly opposes doing something about bad teachers as part of the solution to bad schools.

They refuse proposals to have higher standards in hiring teachers, refuse the dismissal or retraining of bad teachers.

. . .

[gagothesith]

They just want to pour more money to fund the same failed programs and pay the failed administrators and failed teachers.

And they want even more money poured in to hire more teachers--using the same low failed standards and keeping the bad teachers with the new hires.

They reject the idea of testing to see how well the children are learning and object to the idea of testing the competence of teachers.

. . .

[gagothesith]

"JUST POUR MORE MONEY. It's best to ignore everything else."

So, in a way, you are correct on this, too.

[username666ization]

@galacticox4 I'm a liberal, but that's an incredibly unfair characterisation of conservative views. From what I can gather, the right-wing position would be that spending more money and setting up new programs is ultimately counterproductive and hurts the people it's supposed to help. I vehemently disagree with that, but it's not fair to characterise that as "ignore them".

I mean conservatives, of course, not Republicans. The latter *really* don't give a fuck about poverty.

[grumpytosnowwhite]

@sircamembert I know. Nothing like that ever happens, and it's so frustrating. I am a dyed-in-the-wool democrat, but I would bite my tongue and bear public policy that makes me feel like banging my head against the wall if I could have a guarantee that the republican president in question was as honest and devoted and caring and moral as Bartlet. With the single exception of their stance on gay marriage, I can respect the sentiment behind republican ideals, even if I think they won't work.

[riddickuv6]

@sircamembert yup that's why we should focus more on Bipartisan policy

[Coaran07]

Yeah, it's cliche. And it's definitely propaganda. But damn if it wasn't well done.

[galacticox4]

it's a tv show. just like a movie they have soundtracks and use music to set moods. That's not cliche it's like filmmaking 102. It is HOW you make a show.

As for the content being propaganda. I'd say it's only something negative to those who think like the two people being told off. Seems to me the two getting told off where engaging in propaganda. Calling people names. insinuating lack of patriotism.

[PumaOPumaOPumaO]

Urhhh...I think it's called cinematography. LOL. Sorry, your post just made me burst out laughing.

[B3Ger]

How was it propoganda? More like pulling shit out of your ass. She was simply saying she didn't agree with their issues but she deeply respects them for their beliefs. What's wrong with that? Oh, I'm guessing you've never been respectful to someone that perhaps had a different view than you. Instead you're rude, hateful and ignorant just like the two butthurt dumbasses sitting with Ainsley.

[BetaArtemis]

I agree with your words. Just because people have different beliefs that there shouldn't be respect. You can hate the Democrats or Republicans for their beliefs, but running a country is no easy business, sometimes tough decisions have to be made, and it isn't fair for any of us to judge unless we are standing in their shoes.

Ainsley got a taste of that when she was at the White House and saw the tough jobs they had to do and she respects them for it despite their different beliefs.

[tribalinsight]

I love Ainsley.

[rugbynimbus]

Wow. High debate reaches new levels. "Liberals CAN'T be patriots." That's SO compelling. I mean, there's no defense for that. What can anyone possibly say? Nothing, that's right. I mean fuck Lincoln, Roosevelt(s), Wilson, Kennedy, Johnson -- cocks, all of them. And I really, really like what you did at the summary there, how you ended it with "END OF STORY." That's really the nail in the coffin, isn't it? Wow, shut it down, folks, the Great Orator has spoken. We're done. Game over. Go home.

[doubleg137]

sounds like StuntmanMike has been dipping into the meth stash way too much these days.

[meredithchandler73]

LOVE this scene. Love that Sorkin didn't make out all Republicans to be dumb or the bad guys. Totally brilliant.

[hitch4645]

You're absolutely right. Liberals love terrorists. That's why I soooo wanna give bin laden a blow job right now, 9/11 was the greatest day of my life, and Timothy Mcveigh is the greatest american ever. Yep. I love them terrorists.

[hitch4645]

how can I say what?

[jesslufssam]

How can you say 9/11 was the greatest day in your life when so many people on the planes were killed and alot of families hurt.

[hitch4645]

i was being sarcastic. i was being extremely sarcastic. im sorry if you couldnt understand that.

[jesslufssam]

Yer well maybe I didnt know you were being sarcastic. But you need to watch what you are saying to me!!!

[hitch4645]

Again, I'm sorry if you couldn't differentiate between obvious sarcasm and serious talk. It's only the most obvious thing in the world that I don't actually want to suck Osama's dick. I would cut you some slack if it was a slightly sarcastic comment, but with something that extreme how could you possibly think i was serious?

[MacDoubt]

hitch, the problem with sarcasm over the internet is that sarcasm usually requires tone of voice to be distinguishable from serious talk. On the Internet, there is no tone of voice.

[hitch4645]

i agree with you on things that are slightly sarcastic, but if someone really thinks i want to suck Osama bin Laden's dick, then they are an idiot. period. no rational person could possibly think that i was being serious.

[MacDoubt]

Now I see the issue. You think everyone on YouTube is rational. Level of rational debate generally goes in this order:

Peer-edited review journals

University Lectures on the subject

Friends talking over coffee

Chimps throwing feces

YouTube comments :)

[hitch4645]

Come on, did you see my comment. Anyone with an iq over 42 could tell i was joking

[gagothesith]

Gawd, I sincerely hope that you were merely being sarcastic.

But there's no way of knowing, is there--"because there is no tone of voice to make it distinguishable from serious talk".

[calleighDfan]

they should have used her more she was great. great speech i love when they don't make the pretty blonde girl dumb all the time.

[laura0329]

I loved Ainsley! (Not a fan of her politics, but she was great!). I'll never understand why The West Wing writers didn't make more use of her. Wasted opportunity...

[speckleberry]

She's amazing. So unbelievably amazing.

[BERGRS]

I would like to see the series back with the santos administration there is a lot good writing left

[ehnotsomuch]

Damn straight.

[emilyp1fan]

you go em!!! great speech right there! never seen this show but i really want to! especially cuz of emily!

[doubleg137]

dang.. I wish she could have stayed on the show longer than the few shows she did. She would have made a great addition to the cast.

[kristolstarz]

me too

[gracebasherguy92]

I really just don't see any former employee saying these things about the current Administration. It's kind of sad that these sentiments aren't expressed anymore.

[Anna433]

she looks like she is about to cryy

i love emily [in a non-lesbian wayy]

:]

[Anna433]

aww this is really cutee

:]

[JarHead4873]

lovin this video!! leave me a comment

im bored on cam hO

[coramatrix]

HELL YES SHE ROCKS

[BenSchneider]

One of the best scenes in TV History. And a great statement about our Democracy.

[hollywoodwerewolf]

"And I'm their lawyer," Ainsley declared. "And I hope neither one of you expects a Christmas Card from me this year."

[ermineermine]

Perhaps you missed the one thing that is vital, John: it was neither the meetings/interviews nor the casual meetings which changed her mind.

Perhaps it was not what she was told by the people of 'the other Party'. Perhaps it was what she saw them do ...

--how they reacted to a threat facing the country, how they performed their duties to protect the country, how in doing so they did not appear to be Donkeys nor Elephants.

They simply looked like devoted Americans--thus Patriots.

[philWynk]

@ermineermine Of course, this isn't a completely fictitious television show written by a whole-hearted Democrat with the full intention of making the Democratic party look heroic and the Republican party look mean-spirited and small. This is reality. And Aaron Sorkin (the writer) is the Virgin Mary. And I'm a talking alpaca.

The West Wing is the fantasy world inside Democrats' heads. It's how they imagine themselves and their opponents to be. And it's delusional.

[njiuma]

@philWynk - Democrat or Republican, do you love America - and more importantly, Americans? And Sorkin probably has that intent, but sarcasm and cynicism doesn't help. Especially now, more than ever, we need to work together to create solutions to solve serious problems. Who's at fault is irrelevant; solutions and answers are desperately needed like rain in a parched desert or fresh crops during a famine. And that's Sorkin's point: do you REALLY want to help others and solve our problems?

[philWynk]

@njiuma Meaningless words, njiuma. Are you masking an inability to think? Are you unwilling to take a definite position? Or, like Aaron Sorkin, are you using weasel words to shame anybody who dares to call out the evil that the Democratic party has become?

The "real problems" are deliberately caused by the Progressive movement, with its amorality, totalitarian aims, and alliances to World Socialism. Sorkin is their agent, and you are their dupe. NOTHING is more important than who's at fault.

[philWynk]

@njiuma Consider: this series was created during the last days of the Clinton administration. Clinton was a sociopath. He and his attack dogs specialized in ruining the public reputations of good men in order to hide their crimes. Patriots? Bosh.

Or perhaps tell me: we're now more than $14 trillion in debt, not counting the unbooked debt acquired by spending SSI and Medicare revenues on other programs. How does one solve this without knowing how we got here??? It does matter whose fault.

[doubleg137]

@philWynk two stupid expensive wars and massive tax cuts.

[doubleg137]

@philWynk deregulation, greed, profits over people.. etc.. I could go on, but I would get very nauseated.

[bornbillsmith]

@philWynk They weren't good men by any stretch of the imagination.

Clinton was a great President.

The economy was stronge and the nationa; debt was beingv reduced.

We get Busch as President and you should know the rest.

[philWynk]

@bornbillsmith (Part 1) Congress controls government spending, not the President.

Deficits were much smaller -- because of Newt Gingrich in the House & Contract w/ America. Clinton fought him tooth and nail trying to spend more; he shut down the government twice by not signing budget bills, vetoed welfare reform 3 times, and launched slime attacks. But then Clinton took credit for what Gingrich accomplished. Great President. LOL!

The economy was strong because of Reagan's deregulation. (cont)

[bornbillsmith]

@philWynk And It's that deregulation that got us to where we are now.

Yes the economy appeared to be strong but that was a mirage.

The economy had no depth and became dependent on China for support.

Instead of investing in the country's future deregulation encouraged financial institutions to look for the fast buck.

Deregulation allowed finaniall instituion to take chances with their investing of our money that prloduced short term profit for them but losses for everyone else.

[philWynk]

@bornbillsmith "became dependent on China for support." This is entirely the product of deficit spending, which has had 100% support from Democrats since the 1960s. Keynesianism is insanity, and it's only Republicans who have resisted it. Blaming deficits on Republicans is a gem of blame-shifting, which is about the only thing Democrats do well.

[philWynk]

@bornbillsmith "Deregulation allowed finaniall instituion [sic] to take chances with their investing of our money"

Not even close. The lame, Dem attempt to shift blame for the disaster they caused says that ONE repealed regulation caused this -- the repeal of Glass-Steagall. And that "deregulation" changed NOT ONE rule about where investments could be made. It's a lie, to fool uneducated proles like you.

I have an MBA from a major institution, and know exactly how silly that claim is.

[bornbillsmith]

@philWynk Maybe not where but by who and with whose money.

Who deregulated the banks so they didn't have to answer to higher authorities.

It's the people who had mba that got us into this mess so the fact you have one means nothing to me.

Read todasy's Times and tell me what you think of Friedman's column.

[philWynk]

@bornbillsmith "Deregulation allowed finaniall instituion to take chances with their investing"

Besides, I was talking about Reagan's dereg that put the economy into a 20-year growth pattern. The Dem sound bite you're quoting is their excuse for the collapse of 2008 -- deregulation that took place in 2000, proposed by Phil Gramm. Please stop quoting sound bites and engage your brain, k?

The 2008 collapse was mostly due to Dem housing policy under Clinton and Carter, and fraud by FNMA.

[bornbillsmith]

@philWynk There was no collape in 2008.

It happened in 2007 before Obama became Preident.

If you remember it was Busch who first proposed the stimulus package.

Did you read today's Times and the article I mentioned by Friedman.

There was no 20 year growth pattern as you put it

The only growth we had was to our standard of living which had nothing to do with the health of the economy but was a reflection on our willingness to spend instead of saving.

[bornbillsmith]

@bornbillsmith The reason the housing market went down was that people bought homes they should not have with the expectation that if they couldn't pay up their mortage they would be able to get their money back by selling their homes for more money then they paid.

When the market stopped increasing people realize that their house was worth less then what they owed on their morgage and found it easier to declare bankruptcy then to try to keep their homes.

[philWynk]

@bornbillsmith (Part 2) The economy slowed under Bush because the Internet bubble burst, the Worldcom/auditing scandal hit, and 9/11 -- disasters that all started brewing while Clinton was in office. Bush reduced taxes, and jobs started climbing -- until the Democrats took over Congress again. Congress controls government spending, remember? Jobs growth plateaued after Nancy Pelosi took over the house, and has been dropping ever since.

Democrats always take credit for what Republicans do.

[bornbillsmith]

@philWynk It was the reduction in taxes that put this country into the red.

Under Clinton we had started to pay down our det.

It wasn't an increase in social spending.i

The only increase I remember was for the military and that as I remember was

because we invaded a country we had no right to.

The money we waisted in Iraq could have been spent on reducing the national det

iand made this country if anything more dependent on china supporting our economy.

[bornbillsmith]

@bornbillsmith Z

Clinton should have vetoed this welfare reform as yoiu put it..a fouth and fith time if he had to..

No new jobs were created that contributed to the wealth of the nation.

The poor became dependent on meaingless jobs that had no future and did not give them an income that

would be needed for a family to survive.

I know this because I worked in the welfare system from 1996 to 2011.so I know

alittle more then you do on this.

[bornbillsmith]

@bornbillsmith Read Thomas Feiedman's article that

appears in tody's New York Times (The first thing I do on Sunday mornings) then get back to me,

[bornbillsmith]

@philWynk You can read the Times online.

It doesn't cost anything and it only takes seconds.

It's great to generalize but read his column and try to understand what he wrote before making a judgement and then share with me your opinion.

[philWynk]

@bornbillsmith "Clinton should have vetoed this welfare reform as yoiu put it..a fouth and fith time if he had to... No new jobs were created that contributed to the wealth of the nation...The poor became dependent on meaingless jobs ..."

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! You're so completely blinded by bias that you don't even realize that you're contradicting yourself! The same economy that you said was strong under Clinton, now is weak since you know it came from Gingrich. What a mindless dupe you are!!!

[philWynk]

@bornbillsmith "It was the reduction in taxes that put this country into the red." Hilariously wrong. The tax cuts were back-end loaded so that most of them did not even take effect until after the 2004 election; this was the compromise Bush had to make because the Senate flopped back into Democratic hands (remember Jim Jeffords?) The "surpluses" were gone by the middle of 2002, before the first of the Bush tax cuts even took place.

Everything you "know" is a Dem sound bite, not a fact.

[bornbillsmith]

@philWynk Didn't busch become President in the year 2000.

You're wrong about the surplus being gone by the year 2002.

Busch's argument for the tax reduction was to give backc some of this surplus to the people

Therefore while I can't prove it but by using logic I hink it safe to assume that Busch thought it was there.

[adimemre]

great

[step5732]

Love this clip - thank you!

[DarqueStar]

Where did the videos of Ainsley go? There is still the one of her on capital beat, and the ERA smackdown, but cant find the ones where Leo gets her in for an interview. Anyone?

[pegcaptain]

Yeah, they used to be up. A shame they're gone.

[DuCaineFan]

there is also one where CJ and Ainsley are talking, then the one where Sam fires the jerks that gave Ainsley that dead plant.