Hardin Seals Off; Hoebuck's $115K Price
Plot Beats
The narrative micro-steps within this event
Toby enters Josh's office, seeking an update on the vote situation.
Josh reveals that Donna's efforts to contact Senator Hardin failed when Hardin's staff interfered.
Who Was There
Characters present in this moment
Furious and anxious; moral disgust at transactional politics fused with panic about time running out.
Sitting at his desk, Josh receives the crippling update that Donna was blocked and that Hoebuck wants $115,000; he reacts with anger, moral outrage, and immediate urgency, then grabs authority and exits to consult Leo.
- • Preserve the integrity and passage prospects of the Foreign Ops bill
- • Find an authoritative course of action by escalating to Leo
- • Prevent the administration from being cheaply bought or publicly humiliated
- • Buying votes with earmarks or dubious science is corrupt and unacceptable
- • Time is the enemy — immediate escalation is required to avert failure
Exasperated practicality — he recognizes the grotesque bargain but treats it as a political fact to be managed.
Enters Josh's office, calmly delivers the factual update about Hoebuck's demand and the Duke cardiologist; stands by as Josh processes the information and then leaves after Josh exits for Leo's office.
- • Inform senior staff of the Hoebuck quid pro quo
- • Frame the demand within institutional realities (federal funding precedent)
- • Signal seriousness without moralizing so options can be discussed
- • The federal government already funds many odd things, complicating simple moral rejections
- • Honest assessment and swift action are needed rather than rhetorical outrage
Frustrated and deflated (inferred) — her successful groundwork was negated, reducing options for Josh.
Mentioned by Josh as having attempted to 'flush out' Senator Hardin; her field work is described as effective but ultimately thwarted when the senator's staff made calls that closed access.
- • Gain direct access to Senator Hardin to secure her vote
- • Execute rapid field-intercept tactics to break logjams
- • Personal outreach and quick legwork can swing wavering senators
- • Staff and access barriers are tactical problems to be overcome
Calmly authoritative in implied presence — he embodies the responsible adult Josh will appeal to for a path forward.
Named as Josh's next stop — Leo is the authority Josh intends to escalate to; he is not present but is the locus of decision-making Josh seeks out.
- • Provide executive-level decisions and political cover
- • Coordinate a White House response that balances ethics and legislative necessity
- • High-stakes legislative crises require Chief of Staff-level intervention
- • Presidential credibility and institutional reputation are paramount considerations
Coldly opportunistic — using leverage to extract funding; indifferent to broader moral implications as reported by staff.
Mentioned by Toby and Josh as the senator making a grotesquely transactional demand: $115,000 for an NIH remote-prayer study in exchange for his vote; his tactics are framed as opportunistic and cynical.
- • Extract federal funds for a favored project or constituency
- • Leverage his vote to secure concrete benefits
- • Legislation and appropriations are legitimate currencies for political negotiation
- • Framing requests as scientifically backed (via a cardiologist) legitimizes otherwise dubious earmarks
Protective and procedural — acting to shield the senator and control access (inferred from staff action).
Functionally represented by the phrase 'her staff made two phone calls' — Ellen Hardin is the canonical staffer tied to Senator Hardin and stands for the staff action that sealed the senator off from outreach.
- • Shield Senator Hardin from last-minute pressure and control access
- • Ensure the Senator follows a considered timetable and political calculations
- • Staff must protect their principal from harassment and chaotic influence
- • Public and private pressures should be mediated to preserve reputation and decision-making
Impersonal, scientific authority used as rhetorical cover (inferred rather than directly observed).
Referred to by Toby as the Duke cardiologist Hoebuck brought to substantiate a double-blind study; functions as the rhetorical/technical authority invoked to justify the $115,000 request.
- • Provide empirical credibility to the remote-prayer study claim
- • Serve as expert backing to make the funding request politically plausible
- • Scientific studies can be used to legitimize funding requests
- • Double-blind methodology conveys authority regardless of policy context
Objects Involved
Significant items in this scene
Hoebuck's $115,000 NIH Prayer Study funding request functions as the explicit bargaining chip in this exchange — the price he attaches to his Foreign Ops vote. It crystallizes the ethical dilemma and becomes a concrete obstacle the staff must confront.
The Foreign Ops bill is the policy object at stake; the entire conversation orbits its passage. The loss of Hardin as reachable and Hoebuck's price both threaten the bill's viability and drive urgent escalation.
Organizations Involved
Institutional presence and influence
Foreign Ops represents the legislative object and administration agenda under threat. The organization's 'voice' in this scene is embodied by Josh and staff trying to secure votes, and the bill's fate structures the urgency and ethical friction.
The NIH is invoked as the institutional recipient of the $115,000 earmark Hoebuck demands. It serves narratively as the respectable, bureaucratic cover that makes a transactional request seem plausible and complicates a simple moral rejection.
Narrative Connections
How this event relates to others in the story
"Hoebuck's proposal to Toby about exchanging his vote for a study on remote prayer is later discussed with Josh, escalating the moral dilemma."
"Hoebuck's proposal to Toby about exchanging his vote for a study on remote prayer is later discussed with Josh, escalating the moral dilemma."
"Josh's initial anger over Hoebuck's demand escalates to a full team debate in the Oval Office, deepening the ethical conflict."
"Josh's initial anger over Hoebuck's demand escalates to a full team debate in the Oval Office, deepening the ethical conflict."
"Josh's initial anger over Hoebuck's demand escalates to a full team debate in the Oval Office, deepening the ethical conflict."
Key Dialogue
"JOSH: "She named names.""
"TOBY: "$115,000." JOSH: "Million." TOBY: "No, thousand.""
"TOBY: "An NIH study on remote prayer." JOSH: "I don't care if we're investing in communion wafers.""