The West Wing: Vinick and Bartlet Chat Over Ice Cream [CLIP] | TNT 

Instead of a caricature? He's an atheist, pro-sustainables, pro-woman Republican who refuses to buy off midwest whites with subsidies, and recognizes that he can't have his tax cut while still taking care of actual soldiers. He couldn't be more a caricature if he'd been presented on screen as a literal hand drawn unicorn. This guy and Speaker Walken and Ainsley Hayes all *ridiculous* characters.

@@FrelanceEQ You need a flashlight because it must be hard to see with your head up your ass

@@jimelton650 He's right though. I can't think of any prominent Republicans that are in the headlines today that even remotely resemble Vinnick. He stays true to Republican ideals while being a good man.

He's the Democrat's ideal of the perfect Republican. Socially moderate to left, religiously neutral, and he lost

@@matthewgabbard6415 You mean what Republicans SHOULD be?

It was beautifully set up for both outcomes. I think the viewers could have accepted a Vinnick presidency. Heck, I am betting there are some here that wanted that more than a Santos presidency.

​@@NardoVogt-oo6gz You think that maybe some people in America wanted the Republican character to win the presidency more than the Democrat? Lol thanks for that astonishing insight

​@@dz_caThat's a bit "jumping to the conclusion". Not all viewers of the show are American - in fact, I wasn't actually referring to "democrat" vs "republican" but rather to "antagonist" vs "protagonist". So a simple story building topic. The story writer created an antagonist that people liked. Harder to pull off in general than the "regular" way.

@@NardoVogt-oo6gz Not hard when you are talking about politics, I guess that's the part you're not understanding

​@@dz_ca I would argue it's ESPECIALLY hard when you are talking about politics because neither your protagonist nor your antagonist are inherently evil or good. It's not fantasy, it's basically real life. They are also both human beings with human emotions that relate to someone. They have both vices and positive traits. The hard part is: If you make your antagonist too likeable, you can change the position of your characters. Can be cool (See Ted Lasso with the Jamy Tardd Nate the great switch in Season 2) but it needs to be intentional. And even then it can backfire. In this case, the trick was to keep Vinnick as antagonist, without switching it over to protagonist but still making him an agreeable alternative to Santos. Much of that heavy lifting there needed to be done by the characters in the election teams of both candidates. That's why Josh had so many "morally" questionable acts in that season. He needed to be "bad" so Santos can remain good while creating tension Vinnick can be positively bounced off. And without making Josh the Antagonist in the process. Sure, you can call it easy - you can even try to tell me I don't understand stuff. But there is a reason why we see so few positive antagonists even in political dramas in comparison. Heck, West Wings election prior to Santos painted Richie in a very bad antagonistic way. Heartless, kind of dumb ... basically a punching bag for Bartlett. So even the same show didn't do it all the time.

tell me about it. literally anytime i see tubs of icecream. lol

Amen!! M.A.S.H and The West Wing. Talk about great writing and incredible acting!!

@@kbaer3038 I think that too

It's a shame this is one of the few times Alda and Sheen are face to face in these roles. I can never tell if I love this scene just because of that or if it's also a pretty great conversation :) Try the pistachio.

Since when alan alda considered greatest actor of our time😅🤣. Hes one of the biggest Hams👍

They were amazing, but the camera work and music were so horrible I have a hard time sitting through them. :(

It's a fare cry from US politics of late.

I know that today, the vitrol on both sides are filled with poison pills. Maybe by the grace of god or lack thereof, we can somehow come together again?

If only people with opposing opinions could do that today.

I really can't imagine Biden and McConnell doing this in 2021! =P

@@michaelk151 - I can’t imagine Trump doing this with ANYONE, ever.

Well said.

Bush (either) couldn't have done this with Clinton. Reagan couldn't have carried on like this. Vinick was a character all his own and so was Bartlet, unfortunately you're longing for a time that's fictional, but I long for it too, so I understand.

@@erinjean6936 Actually both W. And HW. did. As a matter of fact, Clinton and HW, became best of friends while championing several causes around the world.

Yea I'm sure the Director said hey Martin don't forget the Twinkle thing we discussed

because he liked ice-cream?

@@upthebracket26 Analytical responses to questions.

The brilliant Alan Alda gave gravitas to the character of Arnie Vinick. He stole every scene he was in and was a perfect casting, as was Jimmy Smits. Santos had the sense to appoint the best person for Secretary of State he could find. Arnie Vinick was the obvious choice.

And Obama picked Hilary Clinton as his Secy. of State after a tense general election. I wonder if he got his idea from this

@@avae5343 Not true. Clinton had a republican secretary of defense. Obama a republican secretary of commerce. Even Trump appointed some democrats onto the courts.

He was supposed to. But then John Spencer died, so they changed the ending to make it a victory for his character.

that's because the show exists in a fantasy land where there isn't much difference between the two parties

He should have, no disrespect to Jimmy smiths, but no way a congressman, dark horse or not, wins a primary, let alone an election, against two vice presidents, a senator and a governor of a state like PA.

@@chrisahearn789 Lincoln did.

@@paulwagner688 over 100 years ago

tbf, this show was written and aired during the Bush 43 administration.

@@michaeloconnor5904 And you should consider that when W's first term started, the Dems nearly instantly went on the attack, pretty much the same as they did when Trump's term started in 2017. Let's also not forget how the majority (I think) of GOP nominees to the SCOTUS have been treated during their confirmation hearings. In the past, if a nominee was clearly qualified, they didn't get dragged through hot coals just because their beliefs differed from the opposing party. It was normal for SCOTUS nominees to be confirmed with 90+ votes in favor, whether they were conservative or liberal. Now, if the nominee doesn't agree with the other party, they'll try to roast him/her over the coals, try to filibuster him/her, and turn it into a straight up partisan vote.

Joe, this may sound harsh, but I don't care about caring politicians. Pols who define themselves by how much they "care" will be willing to double down on failure and refuse to accept that certain policies just don't work. Or you'll have someone like Obama who wanted to raise taxes on the rich, even in the face of indisputable that doing so would NOT raise more revenue. He only cared about putting the screws to the rich. The fact is that taxation should be about one thing and one thing only... raising revenue to fund the government. And if raising taxes on the rich doesn't increase revenues, then it's a stupid idea. What I want are politicians who care about getting things done, not on caring about how much they "care". "Caring" doesn't accomplish anything.

@@crucisnh I mean, my comment was about how Bush 43 wasn't exactly a genius and his VP was quite literally heartless. But if you'd like to talk qualified judges, am I unaware of something one Merrick Garland did that made him unfit for the post? Also, before you answer, you should know that my thoughts on the matter are that both your parties are two sides of the same hack partisan coin.

As to this point, I'm going to interpret on Joe's behalf and he should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say his meaning for caring is twofold: caring about doing the job for their constituents and not being a jackass. Failure of either of these is unbecoming of the office.

How are they wasting it? It'll re-freeze...

@@rap31264 Yeah, all icy.

@@rap31264 Yeah, but they've been dipping their spoons in all those jars-i know its the White House but he is in the canteen where everyone else eats. I wouldnt want to eat something thats been double-dipped, Bartett or not.

I'm pretty sure the context of the scene is that the refrigerators are failing already and the ice cream was going to spoil anyway?

@@Ryan-jc3ip Exactly that. Same when SG1 was on the Prometheus and the Asgard apparently had no concept of refrigeration. And we also learned Teal'c really, really loves Ben & Jerry's.

Completely agree.... it’s intellect on a whole higher level when each of these guys is more than capable of presenting both sides of either argument and not hold the other person’s position [the one they choose to take] against them; their larger disdain is for the person who makes a complaint, but doesn’t actually bother to understand the concepts they are complaining about...

That's not the comparison I'd make because the earlier conversation you refer to was quite civil until the closing line.. Comparisons between the Vinick and the current republican leader; now that is something else

@@ChrisInTheNorth civil yes, but there was a clear disdain and lack of respect between Bartlett & Ritchie. But Vinick was always written as a good guy. He was originally supposed to win, not Santos. Ritchie was an anti-intellectual. He was clearly a criticism of Bush and the results of the right-wing media bubble. Vinick was more "here's what you could be".

This was the man Bartlett wanted to run against

Or compare it with the 1st debate between a learned, intelligent person and a yellow haired bag of cocaine.

☝🏼💯

Agreed. I've really come to appreciate how good of an actor Alan Alda is and seeing him here with Martin Sheen is a match made in heaven.

@@PeterAden I still miss this show. I miss superb acting and great scripts where people can actually learn something from watching an episode. I learned so much about politics that I didn't know before watching the West Wing.

The least realistic 😂

Meh, who says God isn't a big fat fatty?

@@nickwithers2244 man made in gods image and all that 😂

And the headaches

Nah, you want the macadamia and white chocolate.

1 Corinthians 9:26: Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. Weight problem solved :-)

Wow he would have been equally brilliant

@BBB H "We don't serve your kind here!" The Democrat, black, says: "Racist!" The Republican says: "Communist!" The Libertarian says: "I'll see myself out."

@@sauron7839 found the libertarian

Yes... there is a joke in there somewhere.

@BBB H which one ordered civil liberties on the rocks?

Only in private can it happen.

I'm not sure that American politics/campaigns have ever been like what we see in TWW, particularly in the Vinnick/Santos campaign. Mind you, I happen to think that Trump, for all of his faults, is one of the most honest presidents we've had in memory. And one big reason I think that is because he's already very rich. He doesn't need sleezy, corrupt deals to line his pockets to make him wealthy we he leaves office. That said, I don't particularly think that this (candidates for higher office being independently very wealthy) is a good precedent, because we end up with candidates and office holders who can easily be out of touch with the American public. And while I don't think that it's entirely fair for the press to be asking gotcha questions like what's the price of milk, I do think that not being out of touch with your constituents is important. I remember how back in 2004 Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts (while running for president) literally did not know the names of two of the Boston Red Sox' most famous players in the year when the Sox were going to finally break their 86 year world series drought. It was thoroughly embarrassing to be that out of touch with what was going on in the state he represented as a Senator.

The American People no longer seek knowledge but instead believe the 1st headline they see...the west wing was great because it promoted intellect

Lmao this is a laughably delusional post

@@TigDegner That's because Wikipedia is a biased website. He could state incontrovertible facts and libs would claim that he was making them all up and even refuse to report on them.

@@crucisnh "Everyone else is lying. Only my hero tells the truth."

If this is what actual elections were like then America would be the greatest country in the world.

@@mountaineergirl255 It would. It really would. Obama v McCain - on those two people's own merits alone, without all the extra crap thrown into the mix - could have been a truly glorious contest. No matter which of the two had won.

If what I heard is true, they had actually not decided on who would have won the vote and only really decided shortly after John Spencer had died. They assumed there would be a last-minute sympathy boost for Santos. No idea if it was true, but if it is, they had left themselves with the benefit of giving it to the GOP, they allowed the show to have any winner and not guaranteed a Santos win. I definitely like what they did with Vinick making him Secretary of State. They don't agree on a lot, but they do on foreign policy and can work together on that.

@@ScorpiusZA. They found it too cruel for Santos to lose his running mate and the election. It was definitely on their part to let Santos to win, and give Vinick a cabinet position.

Yes, whereas Ray Sullivan as not likeable.

Yeah, total fiction. The West Wing sure is jerk off material for simps.

Reagan did it with drinks.

@@ictpilot no he didn't.

@@DavidHeffron78 Yes he did. Him and the speaker of the house at the time Tip O'Neal would occasionally sit down and talk over a drink.

In his memoir, Obama talks about having at least civil discussions and mutual respect with republicans. Then the Tea party happened.

Today for sure.

Yours are some of the most interesting words I’ve read in years.

Buckley is a turd. I watched him with Chomsky and every time Chomsky crushed his horseshit assertion he quickly pivoted elsewhere.

@@johnmcgowan2348 I have also admired Noam Chomsky for a very long time, and he has his critics, too. I just really liked the idea that there is a history of people debating politics where they actually know our history. I call "short term thinking" the American disease. Few people read past the fourth paragraph. We've fallen into a time of "sounds bites" and bias and hyperbole. I am so tired of it.

@Andrew Lyall Sadly, at that time being homophobic was just fine. I am certainly not saying that Gore or Buckley were saints, however, they studied US and world history and were well-informed and very much on opposite sides on many issues.

Here's an exercise: Look up the first televised debates of Kennedy and Nixon.

The art of debating has been led into extinction by progressives and the radical left with the help of fuckta.rds from big tech. May they all burn in Hell.

Yes, I can agree with you .... but it needs to be recognized and said that Sorkin falls too easily for bedroom politics and religiosity. Which is the primary reason *_The Newsroom_* lasted only 3 seasons .... and why *_The West Wing_* kept promoting what is essentially *_religious privilege_*

West wing was brilliant. The newsroom was sanctimonious rubbish.

It was.

That's the sort of thing to ruin a man's presidential campaign.

@@avae5343 Ainsley Hayes? Cliff Calley? Christopher Mulready? Chandler?!

And let's not forget the acting president at one point, Walken.

Yep

Yeah, and it was planned to be the Sam Seaborne Show.