Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

The West Wing, Season 2, Episode 7 (Patreon)

Published:
2023-04-13 17:43:08
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

The Portland Trip

Files

Previews only

The West Wing, Season 2, Episode 7

Comments

Balazs Foldes

Again, I'm amazed by the writing tricks used. When Leo and Josh is speaking at the beginning, we hear there is a meeting with Mat Skinner, but we don't know, about what. 'He is gonna say, the language does not prohibit - yeah, yeah' is all. Then Josh and Donna discuss the meeting again, it gets beaten in your head. (Plus the important side-story of Dona's date). Conversation closed by 'Get back by the time I'm finished with Skinner' - again, reminding us of this meeting and the name. It's such a pro way of setting up SOMETHING, without really telling, what is the topc.

jimmy2k4o .

you get gay republicans because they feel they don't need straight democrats to protect them and after decades of government run homophobia they'd sooner be left alone by the government. Also many other are just not defined by their homosexuality, they agree with conservative principles, many people interpret those principles as being about personal freedom, equality (not special treatment) privacy, strong defence and free market capitalism. assuming gay people must be dems because theyre gay is like assuming you guys are republicans because you're (presumably) straight white males. :)

Weird Magic

Originally airing on November 15, 2000, 'The Portland Trip' is Episode 7 of Season 2 of The West Wing. It is the 29th episode overall and has an IMDB rating of 7.8, placing it as the #20 ranked episode of this season and #118 out of all 155 episodes.

Jack

The gay marriage opinion polling changed very late, basically over the course of Barack Obama's presidency (I think coincidentally, I'm not crediting him particularly). The trend began before that, but that period is when it moved the most and when it flipped. Notably you can see this change in real time in the public positions of Barack Obama, who himself publicly opposed gay marriage right up until 2011, finally flipping in 2012, and by 2015 he declared the Obergefell SCOTUS case which effectively legalised same-sex marriage a "victory for America". In 2008 it was about 55% opposed, 35% support (although it became approximately 33/33/33 if you offer the third option of civil partnerships). By 2010 or 2011 it had become a slim majority in favour of same-sex marriage, and according to Gallup polling from 2010 to 2011 support increased by 9 points in a single year from 44% in 2010 to 53% support in 2011. By 2015 support was up to 60%, and opposition was down to around 36%. Now, majorities support gay marriage in every US state except Mississippi where 49% support it.

Joy M

Instead of paying for school we have the PSLF program where loans are forgiven after 10 yrs of payments. It’s still an albatross around your neck for a decade. I loved working as a substitute right out of college, but there’s no way I could have supported myself as a teacher.The Smartless podcast had Rob Lowe on this week. It was a fun interview to hear about coming up as an actor in the 80’s. Keep up the good work Joe and Kevin!

Jack
>>106292236

Republican positions on gay rights, especially when this was set in 2000, were not for gay people to be "left alone by the government". Which party do you think it was which campaigned for the "decades of government-run homophobia"? For sure many people may choose to prioritise their conservative principles over their homosexuality, but the point that Joe and Kevin were making was that in doing so they're not just saying "I agree with X, but disagree with Y", they're effectively saying "I agree with X so strongly that I'm going to actively participate in the oppression of myself and other people who are like me in this way." The flaw in your analogy is that they, and I, aren't assuming that gay people must be Democrats "because demographically most gay people are Democrats and therefore extrapolating from that all of them must be" (as in your straight white male = Republican analogy); we're assuming that, at least in 2000, gay people must be Democrats because if they're Republicans they're actively supporting efforts to oppress and marginalise themselves. The same does not hold true for straight white males, who are not oppressed or marginalised by Democrats or indeed by almost anyone anywhere in the world.

Peggy G

Kevin, I know you've said in the past that you've watched The Newsroom, but I don't recall if Joe has said he's seen it. I'd encourage you guys to do a watch-along to that one too, someday. Maybe make it a Patreon exclusive. IDK, I just would be interested in your commentary on that series as well.

Peggy G
>>106296807

P.S. Can't wait for y'all to get to my favorite episode sometime in August/September. ;)

Skinny_Obelix

If the US just had a system that allow for a third party, the big parties wouldn't have to worry about offending their extreme voter bases.

Weird Magic
>>106295608

Usually I feel the need to fact check when people spout numbers out but this is so well written.....I believe you :)

jimmy2k4o .
>>106292236

It’s just so casually melting the world of 20 years ago and today which are dramatically different. Which the guys said themselves things have moved a lot and I’d say it was because of gay conservatives like the people this character represents. My analogy is that dems treat gays like a special class in need of special protection (which as a sexual minority myself, enrages me. I really don’t need protection from those types of people (hippie environmental vegans coming to the rescue whoop whoop! Iran are crapping themselves. Just joking.) Protection against Christians of all people, 🤦‍♂️ I’d worry more about the Muslims who want to kill me than the Christian’s who want to- unsuccessfully-stop me getting married) as if voting for dems is voting for the Interests of gay people. And yet there this narrative from the left that all the right care about is the issues of straight white men… So you guys assume I should vote for you deem my interests, but not what you deem your own interests. As if you rise above petty tribalism but gay people aren’t able to. I know kevin and James didn’t say any of those things but they’re the ugly undertones to the prejudicial and patronizing rhetoric that they know they benefits better than ourselves. The supposed threats from the homophobic areas of the right are only scary if you don’t believe you have an independent court that would strike down any unconstitutional homophobic laws….which is precisely what happened in real life. I only speak for a majority of one but when it comes to homophobia I’m not afraid of the Christian right I’m more worried about the soft left opening the door to the Islamic right, who are a real threat to gays, the very people the left won’t be brave enough to stand up to for fear of being called racist. As Douglas Murray said “I really wish you people would reserve your anger for proper who don’t just want to stop me marrying but want to throw me off a roof”

Jack
>>106295608

😂 thank you so much, but in fairness these numbers come from Wikipedia so I can’t guarantee them personally!

Weird Magic

There are a lot of demographics that could fall under the "doesn't make complete sense" category IMO (gay Republicans, black Republicans, pro-choice Catholics, Women for Trump, etc etc etc, too many to list). How much sense they make probably leans more into your own personal views on the topic than anything else. As someone who grew up Catholic, it doesn't make sense to me that you can be pro-choice AND a Catholic, yet both Jed Bartlet and Joe Biden apparently are. What I always took away from this episode, and now with this specific rewatch I'm thinking it may have helped shape my personal views w/o realizing it, is that one topic (whatever it is) does not define ME personally. I am an all-encompassing, glob of many views and beliefs and yet there are basically only 2 political identities or affiliations I can choose from, so if I was running for office I would have to pick whatever fits best, not fits perfectly. Thinking of it formulaically, if a political topic is a parameter we use to allow us to identify with a political party, each of us individually puts a different weight on each of those parameters to help us decide which direction we best fit. For K&J - a person's rights regarding their sexuality appear to be high on the list. For Mr. Skinner in the show, he weighted it lower than the other items he mentioned (freedom, small govt, local govt etc). IMO it's possible for all of them to be correct.

Weird Magic
>>106297675

Not sure I like more than 2 parties - if we have someone elected only needing 35% of the vote - then 65% of the voters will be represented by someone they didn't want in there. I see and validate your point about the extreme voter bases, but I still believe the US is 33% Liberal, 33% Conservative, and 33% Moderate. The Liberals and Conservatives feel so strongly about their positions they provide the $$$ for the elections, but the Moderates are still the ones that control which way it goes.

Jack
>>106297675

Multiple parties works better for the legislature than for the presidency, but even when you’re electing one individual there are preferential voting systems which work much better than plurality voting. In those, people get to express second preferences (as well as third preferences, fourth, and so on). It actually strengthens moderates because generally when people at the fringes are eliminated their second preferences go to the moderate rather than their opponent; and if the moderate is eliminated before both of the two extremes, then the moderates still get to choose which of the extremes they prefer.

Luca Siracusa (Bob)

Okay so: let's start This was probably the funniest episode of Season 2, similar to Celestial Navigation in Season 1 (Sam and Toby ride to search Mendoza, Charlie waking Bartlet, CJ having a Root Canal) and it shows how fast The West Wing can swap between laughs and drama I was surprised you asked if Martin ever won an Emmy for supporting role. Not because you had doubts about that, but because he was not a supporting role. Martin became the lead of the show right after the pilot and Jed was the main character in all the writers and producers mind. He was not intended as the main in the pilot, but they totally rewrote the entire show to be more around him and around his character. Rob Lowe, who was supposed to be the lead, felt back in a supporting role like all the others. And personally this second Season only shows even more why Bartlet is the lead Martin's acting is this incredible Star that makes every planet gravitate around him. The whole Notre Dame gig was incredible and the fact Danny was a Notre Dame guy too is so funny. The teaching policy was really well handled in a way you see the less political guy there (Charlie) coming up with a brilliant solution that perfectly mixes his understanding of the real world since he lived in it for most part of his life, and his understanding of policies since he started working for Bartlet The gay republican thing was maybe not perfect because I understand the "They think you're not human" and I do not agree AT ALL with Republicans, but it was a very bold statement from the show about the fact that being gay didn't mean you were just "The gay" it meant a part of yourself. Maybe they took it to the limit, but it was indeed a very interesting point of view for the time But my favorite part of the episode and probably one of my favorite dialogues in the entire show is the scene at the end between Jed and Leo: "You were accepted at Harvard, Yale, and Williams. Why did you go to Notre Dame?" "Because I was thinking about becoming a priest." "What happened?" "I met Abbey." I kid you not when I say this is one of the best descriptions of love I've ever seen in a show. He had an idea in life, and he just changed it for her. He doesn't say she wanted him to, he doesn't say what he missed, he doesn't say what he thought. He met Abbey. He did not only fell in love with her. He just met her. And meeting her changed his life forever Plus, the "Why don't you ever give me answers like that when we're running for something?" "Because I like to bother you." is the ultimate example of passing from sweet to comedy in a snap and there you had the two best actors in the entire show IMO, Allison and Martin, at their best

MrRuss50

Nice catch on Tackleberry Kevin. The amount of recognizable actors playing bit parts throughout the series is still super fun and nostalgic for me.

MarkyO

damnit I keep forgetting yall drop these episodes on Thursday. This really is one of my favorite episodes. It really centers on the idea of "I want to change things now" but the process just takes too long. Swaying public opinion. Finding funding. The process of implementing new ideas just takes so much time that it's frustrating. I have 2 favorite part of this episode: 1. "My life doesn't have to be entire about that". I kind of respected that about him. Like "yeah ok I feel that". When I first saw this episode I was entirely on Josh's side. Like wtf. How can you be a member of this party?! You're gay! What the hell! Well... like the theme of this episode it's not that simple. You can be 95% in favor of everything republicans stand for. Small government, free markets, a strong national defense, fiscal conservatism, and all those things. You just happened to be born gay. Imagine he switched sides. He'd be a democrat voting against 95% of their bills but he'd be a democrat only because he's gay. He's gay, sure, but it doesn't consume his life any more than me being straight consumes mine. I don't wake up every morning, look in the mirror and say "I'm a straight, Hispanic male" and I'm sure he doesn't say "I'm a gay, white male" either. But this episode was back in the early 2000s. Totally different environment today. 2. "I met Abby". I don't know why but I just love this scene. His entire life became what it is because of Abby. Well.. Abby and someone else but that remains to be seen. As far as trivia is concerned??? Not much off the tip of my head. Martin Sheen is a big fan of Notre Dame, and I'm sure that played a part in Bartlet having gone there.

Youtalkingtome
>>106298875

I love that answer. I don't think it could have been said better. If someone on the show would have stated that on the show it would have been moving. Thanks for sharing.

Youtalkingtome
>>106300886

Yes just yes. Luca, your continued understanding of the show is always appreciated around here. It is a great line and it shows so much passion and affection for his wife in one line. Did not know that he was the lead. It makes sense but the show is such a ensemble piece that I thought he would have been supporting.

Youtalkingtome
>>106315009

We have heard that he is a Notre Dame fan in real life and it probably influences it quite a bit and the Abby scene is perfect. Brilliant writing. You're right it doesn't define us entirely but our sexuality is a big part of who we are. It's a secondary thought but it still is very perplexing as I'm sure it was intended to be.

Balazs Foldes

One additional thought came to be about the episode. (Hey, had to take a sleep break for a few hours in the middle of watching, it was a tiresome Thursday ;) ). So, I love the analogy of the plane's flight for being brave and thinking free. But then, it lands. They are debating the gay marriage thing - but can't really make a strong position now. They think about putting real sanctions on oil smuggling companies - but only 'in the future, not now'. They explore the idea of a 100,000 new teachers - but in the end, they have to stick to realities. And, very nicely, the realities and pragmatic concessions start settling in, when the captain announces that hey are approaching their initial descent, and will be the landing. The last sound you hear in the episode is the tires from the landing. Nice touch, really.

Luca Siracusa (Bob)
>>106300886

Right back at you guys about the understanding of the show It's so nice to see such intelligent people understand and live watch this show

Youtalkingtome
>>106330118

I loved the "Only 100? Well it's a start." This show is full of so much subtlety that it's easy to miss and it's amazing.

Brian Harris
>>106292236

I’m not so sure Ted Cruz or Mike Pence would stop anybody from throwing us off a roof, dude. At the very least, your concern about fundamentalist Islam vs Christian nationalism is a draw, because we don’t have many radical Muslims in government. Meanwhile, the governor of Florida is calling teachers who dare to speak about the existence of homosexuality “groomers.” Think about what “groomer” implies. Think about how people in this country feel about child molesters. You really think the religious right is harmless?

Martin Nicholls

You try to force a radical social agenda on people who aren't ready for it you cause more damage to that agenda by push-back than you ever could have caused by leaving it alone - and back then it was a radical social agenda. You have to allow society to get there on it's own. You can see it today, right now, with the trans debate: because of attempts to force the issue it's further back in acceptance than it was even 20 years ago and it wasn't the right who made that a thing. Newton's third law of politics: every force has an equal and opposite. THAT is the answer to the b-plot question this episode is trying to ask. You can see it in the Republican Party today, gay rights isn't something the whole party baulks at, there's a few but in the main not. Also sexuality isn't the thing that defines 99.99% of people, most people have bigger issues in their lives - they have kids in school, they have mortgages to pay, their personal life is their personal life. The marriage thing specifically is a different matter but if you pay attention to the nuance of what is being discussed in this episode the Republicans aren't arguing that gay marriage should be banned: they're arguing it isn't a matter for the federal government, which is a wildly different deal, nuance modern-day America could learn to pay attention to a little more - and if you listen to Josh's conversation late in the episode with Ainsley..

jimmy2k4o .
>>106292236

I stuggle how you claim to say it a draw in all the Christian and even Jewish majority countries I can think of, homosexuality is tolerated if not out right embraced. Any countries where islam is the majority, their murder is tolerated if not not out right embraced. In Iran for example where they hang homosexuals from cranes on a daily basis or Palestine where they throw a them off rooftops is really a draw to the midland of America or Western Europe. The Florida “don’t say gay bill” doesn’t ban the talk of homosexuality, for example children are still taught about the homophobic terrorist attack on the pulse night club in Orlando Florida (which wasn’t carried about a homophobic Christian) merely prevents the mandatory teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity issues to children under 10 years of age. A measure that many lgbt people support as they want kids to just be kids for at least 10 years. Before they start being prepped for some political dog fight.

Youtalkingtome
>>106468915

Very well said Martin. The conversation with Ainsley was great. There is a lot of nuance to pay attention to. One of the things we love about this show is that we're watching it today. 20 years later, this show has aged so interestingly.