Hm, to me it was a classic makes-me-want-to-punch-Josh-Molina line, especially after the well-deserved "are you just here to waste my time with wordplay, like some overwritten character in a prestige drama" style-over-substance complaint. Would've loved it if the guy stood up and barked "STYLE OR SUBTANCE, BAILEY?" as he started walking out the door.
Effete - overrefined or over-educated to the point of being ineffectual. Aristocratic yet incompetent. Just a little something in case someone didn't know. What a great word.
(necessary element is being ineffectual) there's bunches of those (great ... and they are) words that have no substitute. this one came up recently for an auntie that got pulled over for +3 mph over speed limit (welcome to wisconsin, baby!) regarding the cop's attitude: "officious" (don't confuse this w/ "official") - assertive of authority in an annoyingly domineering way, especially with regard to _petty or trivial matters_.
"Well, I like to think I have a certain flair" What a fantastic line. Sorkin wrote this character perfectly. Such a shame he was wasted by John Wells as a second rate antagonist to Josh in the subsequent seasons.
I love the moment where he tries to one-up the guy in front of him by casually referring to the former Supreme Allied Commander Europe as "Tom" and asks if Will is related. He clearly expected the answer to be, "No, but ooo, you know that big important guy? You must be really, really important, too!" Instead the reply wa s "He's my father." Bwahaha! A guy did that to a female relative of mine once, trying to dismiss her expertise in a STEM field, and then upon hearing that she had a degree in the field, pompously insisting to a male cousin that outside of Harvard, all university programs in the US in her discipline were just paper degrees. My cousin: Funny you should mention Harvard, that's where she got her doctorate...
Yeah, that line didn't make any sense. From what I've seen, both Republicans and Democrats like having a big military they can send anywhere. The only difference is that the Democrats say they don't.
I think that line refers to the parties circa 1940 to 1980. WW2, Korea, and Vietnam were all considered Democrats' wars to many contemporaries. It was probably dated already when this aired, and has only become more antiquated since.
The big wars are just whoever is sitting in the seat at the time. FDR, Truman, Johnson, Bush... it's a response to what's going on in the world. It's the smaller engagements, the things that don't get declared by Congress (not counting OEF/OIF). Of course, people seem to forget the 80s existed. Libya, Lebanon, Grenada, Honduras/Nicaragua, the Persian Gulf... and then, of course, 1989 comes around and the War on Drugs (the actual War on Drugs, down in South America). And, of course, Desert Storm in '91, rounded out Bush 41's presidency. Of course, Kosovo and Bosnia happened under Clinton. Had Somalia, Macedonia, Haiti, Desert Strike... The list goes on. It tends to be fairly balanced that whoever is sitting, Republican or Democrat, sends the military around wherever they assess a need to respond. It's a cute joke, but that's really all it is.
The fact that it doesn't accurately describe Republicans is one-half of why it was so deserving of an eye-roll response. It's a false stereotype on both sides, and this pompous choom from State thought he was being clever to quote it as though it were a universally acknowledged truth.
The actor playing the Under-Secretary of State narrated just about all of the PBS "Frontline" episodes. He did some acting in the old "Spencer for Hire" series. Originally from Boston, but don't quote me on that. If he is, he hides his accent well, hardly a dropped "R" to be heard.
The worst part is he knows so little he has basically turned over free reign even more to the military establishment which never met a war they didn't like
Sorry, but Foreign Policy is the direct purview of the President, alone. Maybe not the right thing, and an unfortunate consequence of the Constitution being written with the knowledge that George Washington would be President, and forgetting that fools like Woodrow Wilson would be, also, but there it is. Actually, calling Wilson a fool is like calling the German leadership when they were tried at Nuremberg fools; von Ribbentrop, the foreign minister, had an IQ of only ~120, whereas the others tried in the first group were all Genius and Near Genius. Malevolent, wrong, but not stupid.
@@MattAlbie He dings the guy on wording...twice...after being scolded about wasting time with intellectual style over substance the first time. Maybe we have different definitions of effete. Also just comes off as a twerp at all times, but that could just be me.
YOu're like that kid in high school that called kids "fags" you were jealous of and then later you came out of the closet once you left your little hometown torture chamber
Neither one was effete, unless you change the definition from "fussy and overly concerned with the appearance of status" to just mean "educated". The State Deparment guy was pompous, but not effete.
I'm pretty sure that he was placing the clause there in Article I to suggest to emphasize that such a clause would be out of place in our constitution. Clearly the legislative branch doesn't get to decide the powers of the presidency, the Constitution did. But it's divided into articles for the sake of ease of organization; you could put a restriction on executive powers in article I.
Although at the time, Will was just a temp, here for 3 weeks and gone. There was nothing to show Will would continue to be a thorn in this guy's side for a few more years.
@@jkcarroll In case you didn't get it, the Mr. Potter thing is a reference to It's a Wonderful Life. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O4ne13Zft9Q.html
@@jesusthroughmary I am impressed, I think this is the first time I've seen someone pick back up their conversation after 8 years haha, let alone to make a correction! I applaud you both :)
Rather disappointing that the writers made a glaring mistake by locating the Commander in Chief Clause in Article I, when it's actually in Article II of the Constitution. For a show that's otherwise so well written, The West Wing occasionally had these inexplicable slip-ups - the other one that jumps to mind is the very first episode when Toby very confidently (and very inaccurately) says "Honor thy father" is the Third Commandment, when it's actually the Fifth (or the Fourth, for Roman Catholicism).
Yes, but look at the context: *Lilly*: "This White House has to be careful about the use of force, it's a hostile Congress [...] This President can't write himself a blank check when it comes to foreign policy. Especially this President." Baily was sarcastically commenting about a fictitious clause in Article I (which deals with Congress) as a means of highlighting that it's the President, not Congress, that is Commander-in-Chief. Congress can't revoke those powers on a whim. I.e., another way of phrasing it might have been "I must have missed the clause in Article I that says that if Congress really doesn't like the President then the Speaker of the House gets to be Commander-in-Chief instead."
Just based on instinct and vague memories, I'd put even money on Will's final line getting interrupted by Toby's rubber ball hitting the divider between their offices :)
"efette" I think, with this meaning: soft or delicate from or as if from a pampered existence ".....peddled … trendy tweeds to effete Easterners -William Helmer .....effete tenderfeet
Ever had brain freeze from eating ice cream too fast? Right behind the eye. Don't know why thinking about the Bailey's would cause that particular pain, but there it is.
@@danieldickson8591 Less abrasive? He deliberately made snide comments about the language twice that had nothing to do with the substance of the meeting, after the Ass. Secretary had pointed out the very fair point that Will's extremely temporary position made it hard to trust his standing to speak for the administration. I wanted to slap the hell out of him in this scene.
He did not. He tried to get out of talking to him twice and failed. He tried to dictate the terms of what the President was allowed to do and was put in his place and stormed off.
I miss Rob Lowe's Sam Seaborn. Joshua Malina's Will Bailey didn't get very in being interesting and/or entertaining, and was severely underdeveloped through seasons 5-7.
It was quite accurate. The Republicans liked very large militaries. They used them as a show of force. They loved them for political ads and parades. But they were incredibly reluctant to get involved until pushed in many cases throughout the world. It's the wars of choice or for things like oil where Republican leaders chose to jump in recklessly and without much consideration. Often without an exit plan. Democrats tend to want far less military spending, but then find all sorts of reasons to intervene around the world. Including peace keeping missions or keeping warring factions apart.
@@ScorpiousDelectus If you can define the current GOP and tell me what it is they believe in regarding the department of state or defense then I would be happy to hear it. They seem to be an absolute mess.
@@seanwebb605 Have a look at the year that the comment you're replying to was posted. Now have a think about what might have inspired that comment at that time.
I’m sorry I’d be insulted too if I was being lectured by a temp worker who could not possibly have institutional knowledge of the situation. Yes the State guy is a pompous ass but what were you trying to accomplish? Toby was throwing weight at the State Department by having Will deal with him and intentionally pissing him off. Great. Now State is pissed off. And we wonder why our Government can’t function. Will also started by correcting the grammar. Great now he’s really pissed off. Did he deserve it? I don’t care. What were you trying at actually get done? Piss off State? Done. Get State to change its position? Not now.
We're talking about speeches and written communications that inform others of intent and purpose. If you're not concerned about grammar, accuracy and meaning then why say or write it at all? The old man's agenda doesn't come at the expense of the administration's goals. The military answers to civilians. So does the state department.
Sure, all true. But what was your goal? Getting them to do something you wanted? Or piss them off. You catch more flies with honey. Was there a way to deal with the pompous State Department guy with some respect that might have gotten him to consider doing what you wanted? Now you HAVE to pull rank and they may still do it but then again, “oops, we forgot to make those changes, sorry.” Happens all the time. Will was a very smart cookie, would have liked to see him handle this in a way that maneuvered State into doing it, not just pissed someone off.
*If I were sent to 'meet someone' who to me is 'over-sized child' I would turn and walk away and tell my superiors "You can have my resignation at any time you think appropriate because I will NOT BE 'LECTURED-TO' BY A JUVENILE!"*
@@forrestmartin2115 *I didn't state it was* *But, at least I don't make 'pissy observations' that lack substance or merit* ( *Your arsenal of observations are...inane* )
@@gerrynightingale9045 “‘I will NOT BE ‘LECTURED-TO’ BY A JUVENILE!’” You wanna tell me where this quote doesn’t overflow with age superiority? Not to mention the rest of your quote where used the term “over grown child”. You’re really gonna sit there and tell me that you don’t think that because you’ve been able to grow older like millions of other people before you that you somehow have accomplished something? Sorry dude Im not buying. You don’t have to explicitly say that you think you have accomplished something by simply growing old, your words do that for you. Finally if you have a problem with people younger than you challenging you or telling you that you’re wrong about something then you need to fix your own issues. Your age doesn’t grant you special treatment.
@@forrestmartin2115 *NO...my intellect and abilities that reach far beyond anything a juvenile could possibly know or understand means they have nothing to impart to me other than meaningless trivia* _____________ *My age means little...it's my mind that towers above anything a juvenile could comprehend and many other adults for that matter*
@@gerrynightingale9045 There are actual geniuses that know more and can do more than you will ever be able to do. And guess what, some are younger than you. So once again, you’re age affords no special treatment nor superiority.
What amazes me about this show is how much it makes the case for Donald Trump's complaints about vindictive legislators from the other party and how bad the deep state swamp is.
@@larrygilbert7273 As is loved to be hurled at this show in regards to politics: "It's fiction, they can write it so, but it doesn't make it real." ... and that sentiment comes from all sides, with anywhere from wistful abandon to axe-grinding cheer.
@@larrysmith2638 My eyes are wide open and I see the truth more every day. The Democrats stole the presidential election, similar to 1960. The only reason they didn't win the legislative races is because they were concentrating on the presidential election. The only way they'll win the GA Senate races is through theft. The Deep State's existence and enmity toward Conservative values is revealed by their struggle over the last four years to oust Trump by all means necessary, including buying fake dossiers. The current war on religion and the nuclear family is part and parcel with the Democrats' socialist beliefs that nothing should be higher than the State in people's lives. You need to wake up and smell the Constitution burning. Then again, you're probably one of those who would fan the flames.
