Rewriting the Red Mass / Debate Format Trade
Plot Beats
The narrative micro-steps within this event
Sam enters and engages Bartlet about changes to the Red Mass speech, showing the collaborative speechwriting process.
Who Was There
Characters present in this moment
Not present; contributes moral seriousness by example.
Mentioned by Bartlet as Caesar's debating counterpart in the first public death‑penalty debate — another rhetorical touchstone used to argue for depth over performance.
- • Reinforce the idea that early public debates tackled moral complexity.
- • Provide weight to the demand for substantial exchange.
- • Moral questions require extended, probing debate.
- • Modern formats fail to live up to historical standards.
Not present; implied adversarial and defensive about format changes that could harm his advantages.
Mentioned as the opposing candidate whose people would resist format changes; functions as the bargaining counterparty though he does not appear.
- • Preserve debate formats that maximize his strengths.
- • Avoid concessions that could expose him to sustained interrogation.
- • The fewer debates or the more theatrical the format, the better his chances.
- • He will resist changes that risk detailed scrutiny.
Pragmatically opportunistic — willing to risk sounding silly to shape the narrative if it helps the President.
Seated across from Bartlet, C.J. listens and pragmatically pivots the moral argument toward media tactics: proposes drafting an 'urgent memo' to lower expectations and advocates asking for a different debate format as a bargaining move.
- • Lower public expectations for Bartlet's performance to blunt a potential Ritchie advantage.
- • Use a leaked memo to shape media framing and force Ritchie's camp onto the defensive.
- • Negotiate a different debate format by offering a concession.
- • Perception can be weaponized even if the tactic is imperfect.
- • Ritchie's team values something the White House can trade for format changes.
- • A well‑timed media leak can change the trajectory of negotiations.
Respectful and quietly strategic — focused on tradeoffs and what can realistically be achieved.
Enters and presents the Red Mass draft; reads Bartlet's edits, affirms rhetorical choices (the '80‑20' line), and supplies the tactical arithmetic: they wanted five debates, Ritchie none — the number of debates is their remaining leverage.
- • Ensure the Red Mass is rhetorically strong and defensible.
- • Identify tactical levers the campaign can use against Ritchie.
- • Avoid foolish public stunts that won't advance the President's case.
- • Substance in speechwriting matters to public perception.
- • Not every media stunt helps; some can make them look silly.
- • They still hold a bargaining chip that can be used strategically.
Not present physically; implied to be exacting and likely to insist on sign‑offs before public performance.
Referenced offstage when Bartlet instructs Charlie to 'Get Toby to sign off' — Toby's presence is implied as a gatekeeper for the President's public remarks.
- • Ensure public remarks meet communications and policy standards.
- • Protect the President from unvetted messaging.
- • Control over messaging is essential and requires sign‑offs.
- • Debate and speech content must be carefully vetted by communications.
Calmly dutiful — focused on practicalities and respectful curiosity about the speech.
Enters to announce that the car is ready, offers to retrieve the speech for Bartlet, and asks a closing question about the Red Mass while facilitating the President's departure.
- • Ensure the President leaves on schedule and with necessary materials.
- • Support the President's needs and clarify any last-minute questions.
- • Maintain smooth transition from private strategy to public engagement.
- • Logistics matter in preserving strategic timing.
- • The President should have his speech available and signed off.
- • A quick, orderly exit preserves the work done in the bedroom.
Not present; invoked as a standard for moderation behavior.
Referenced by Bartlet as the ideal empowered moderator who should press for answers — the persona Bartlet wants the debate commission to emulate.
- • Serve as a model for empowered, inquisitorial moderation.
- • Enable follow‑up questioning to elicit substantive answers.
- • A debate moderator should have authority comparable to a judge or congressional questioner.
- • Enforcing answers is essential to meaningful debate.
Not present; functions as moral and rhetorical authority.
Referenced by Bartlet as the exemplar of Roman deliberation — used to justify demanding more rigorous debate rules and follow‑up questioning.
- • Provide historical precedent for exhaustive public debate.
- • Legitimize the demand for accountability in modern debates.
- • The Roman Senate's practices are a useful standard for modern democratic deliberation.
- • Invoking revered historical figures lends moral force to political arguments.
Not present; invoked to underscore consequences of substantive debate.
Mentioned in Bartlet's historical recounting as the conspirator who was tried and executed after a prolonged debate — an example of high‑stakes accountability.
- • Serve as a stark example of debate leading to real consequences.
- • Reinforce the seriousness of deliberation.
- • Debate can have mortal consequences; therefore public debate should be serious.
- • Historical extremes highlight modern inadequacies.
Wryly critical and engaged — confident, mildly impatient with procedure, but energised by the moral seriousness of the argument.
Lounging on the couch, Bartlet takes Sam's Red Mass draft, announces praise, then edits aloud. He pivots from copy editing to a rhetorical lecture about the decline of substantive debate and pushes for an empowered moderator; he signs off to leave only after logistical confirmation.
- • Sharpen the Red Mass so it communicates moral and institutional seriousness.
- • Frame the public debate as requiring accountability rather than spectacle.
- • Secure a debate arrangement that allows real answers and follow‑ups.
- • Public debate should be interrogative and substantive, not theatrical.
- • Historical precedent (Roman oratory, Senate procedure) gives moral authority to demand tougher formats.
- • The White House can force better accountability through argument and negotiation if it chooses to press.
Not physically present; the coach's voice functions as a calm corrective to complacency.
Invoked by Bartlet as the source of the Super Bowl locker‑room halftime analogy about the difficulty of changing a winning strategy — serves as a narrative prop in Bartlet's reasoning.
- • Illustrate the difficulty of changing strategy midstream.
- • Provide a sports metaphor to persuade action.
- • Changing a successful pattern is both risky and necessary if it's failing.
- • Authority figures (coaches) can justify bold midgame shifts.
Not present; acts as illustrative authority.
Referred to (as 'Ceaser') in Bartlet's litany about early Roman debates — used to give breadth to his historical argument.
- • Anchor Bartlet's argument in iconic Roman statesmanship.
- • Show that great leaders engaged in consequential public argument.
- • Historical models of debate demonstrate the gravity of public argument.
- • Invoking great figures strengthens contemporary claims.
Objects Involved
Significant items in this scene
C.J.'s proposed 'urgent memo' exists as a tactical instrument in the conversation: she voices exact copy she would send to frame Ritchie's debating ability and explicitly proposes leaking it to shape expectations and media narrative.
Sam's draft of the Red Mass is the material focus: Bartlet praises it, takes it, and makes audible edits (adding a section). Sam sits to read Bartlet's changes. The draft anchors the scene's rhetorical work — both the textual revision and the rhetorical framing of debates.
The President's car functions as the immediate logistical constraint that ends the bedroom strategy session: Charlie reports it is ready, prompting Bartlet to request Toby's sign‑off and then depart, converting the private strategy into imminent public action.
Bartlet's bedroom TV plays a football game in the background; it supplies the halftimes/coach/locker‑room imagery that prompts Bartlet's sports analogy about changing strategy midgame.
Location Details
Places and their significance in this event
The residence hallway is the transitional space Bartlet and Charlie move into as the bedroom meeting ends. It functions as the physical cut from private strategy to public performance — a corridor of motion where plans become action.
The Roman Senate floor is evoked in Bartlet's historical riff — used as an authoritative comparative stage for exhaustive deliberation, lending weight to his claim that modern debates are unserious.
The Super Bowl locker room is invoked metaphorically by Bartlet's coach anecdote to explain the difficulty of changing a fortunate but failing strategy at halftime; it functions as a rhetorical location that clarifies his argument about risk and correction.
Organizations Involved
Institutional presence and influence
Congress is invoked metaphorically by Bartlet — particularly the idea of a member of Congress pressing a witness in hearings — as a model for how a debate moderator should behave; Congress functions here as the institutional template for accountability.
The Roman Senate appears as an invoked organization, serving as Bartlet's model of exhaustive deliberation and institutional gravity. It supplies rhetorical authority that the President uses to criticize modern debate formats.
Ritchie's Campaign functions as the offstage negotiating counterparty whose preferences determine debate format. In this scene the campaign is the leverage target — the White House debates trading debate quantity for format changes with Ritchie's people as the imagined responder.
Narrative Connections
How this event relates to others in the story
"Bartlet's emphasis on substantive debate formats mirrors Josh's argument about the dangers of oversimplification in leadership, both advocating for intellectual rigor."
Key Dialogue
"BARTLET: "It's a joint press conference. It's not neccesary for the candidates to be in the same room. That part's just theater.""
"SAM: "Sure we do. Sure we do. We wanted five debates, they wanted none. We have exactly one thing left that they want.""
"C.J.: "Ask for a different format. We didn't get the number of debates we wanted, so why not ask for a different format?""