Hostage‑Taking Rider: Veto or Swallow
Plot Beats
The narrative micro-steps within this event
Leo informs Bartlet about the land-use rider attached by Eaton and Broderick to the Banking Bill, revealing a retaliatory move.
Bartlet and Leo enter the Oval Office where staffers await, and Toby explains the rider as retaliation for Bartlet's campaign victory.
Who Was There
Characters present in this moment
Irritated and affronted at being targeted; privately determined not to be seen as weak, balancing wounded pride with a need to preserve a legislative victory.
Sits at center of the debate, asks blunt clarifying questions, admits personal dislike of the perpetrators and frames the decision as both political and personal, then physically settles on the couch to receive counsel.
- • Resolve whether to sign or veto the amended banking report
- • Protect the Presidency's authority and reputation while securing policy wins
- • The President must not be held hostage by petty revenge politics
- • Winning matters — both policy victories and public perception of strength
Righteously indignant and quietly urgent — convinced that principle and messaging outweigh short-term concessions.
Identifies the rider as retaliatory, argues forcefully for a veto as moral and communicative leverage, and asks for time to consult, positioning himself as the moral voice shaping presidential message.
- • Convince the President to veto and send a clear signal against hostage-taking
- • Preserve the President's moral authority and communications discipline
- • Language and precedent matter; acquiescence rewards bad actors
- • A veto would communicate non-tolerance for punitive legislative tactics
Anxious but focused on damage control and maximizing policy outcomes; some members express impatience with principled posturing.
Collective presence: Sam and other aides articulate the pragmatic case to 'swallow' the rider to secure the banking bill and Montana's electoral votes, while the group physically gathers around the President awaiting a decision.
- • Secure passage of landmark banking reform
- • Protect electoral advantages (e.g., winning Montana) and minimize political fallout
- • Policy victories are worth tactical compromises
- • Electoral arithmetic can justify unpopular short-term tradeoffs
Vindictive and opportunistic — willing to weaponize process to score political points.
Named as a co-conspirator in the rider insertion and framed as acting in tandem with Broderick; his maneuver is the proximate cause of the Oval Office confrontation.
- • Use the rider to damage the administration politically
- • Reshape land-use outcomes through legislative leverage
- • Political leverage in conference reports is legitimate and useful
- • Punitive measures reward their political strategy
Controlled urgency — concerned about institutional consequences but focused on practical next steps rather than rhetoric.
Delivers the initial intelligence crisply (naming Eaton and Broderick), frames the development as an explicit political act, and stands as the operational anchor offering counsel to Bartlet throughout the exchange.
- • Ensure the President has clear options and understands the tactical stakes
- • Preserve the administration's ability to pass the banking reform with minimal collateral damage
- • Decisions should prioritize institutional stability
- • Political attacks require measured, procedurally-sound responses
Indignant and morally adamant — angered by the idea of being manipulated and determined to resist political blackmail.
Leads the counterargument for principle: insists on vetoing despite the political cost, trades barbs with Sam, and frames the choice as a test of character and leverage rather than simple policy arithmetic.
- • Block the rider with a veto to punish and deter Eaton and Broderick
- • Protect institutional norms by refusing to be manipulated
- • Political capitulation undermines long-term credibility
- • Some concessions are unacceptable regardless of short-term gains
Off-stage actor whose legislative maneuver (sponsoring and inserting the rider) catalyzes the internal White House conflict; present only as named …
Objects Involved
Significant items in this scene
The upholstered couch in the Oval functions as the staging prop where Bartlet sits to preside over the gathered staff. It shifts the scene from hallway briefing to intimate decision-making, creating a physical center for the moral and strategic argument.
The Vindictive Land‑Use Rider is the catalytic object: a terse amendment attached to the banking conference report that would open Big Sky to development. It is referenced verbally as the weaponized clause forcing the White House to choose between a major bill and protecting public land.
Location Details
Places and their significance in this event
The Oval Office is the battleground where the policy-versus-principle argument takes place, hosting the full cast of senior staff and serving as the formal locus for the President's decision; its mix of ceremonial weight and domestic intimacy intensifies the moral stakes.
Leo's Office functions as the brief staging point where Bartlet and Leo step in and exchange the first lines about Big Sky and the Federal Reserve before moving to the Oval—it is the private corridor where the news is transferred and the tone is set.
Big Sky (Montana) is invoked as the threatened landscape and political prize: the specific land at risk if the rider stands. It functions narratively as both ecological totem and three electoral votes, converting policy abstraction into tangible moral stakes.
Narrative Connections
How this event relates to others in the story
"Leo's professional-political divide during breakfast parallels the team's debate over whether to accept the land-use rider for the sake of banking reforms."
"Leo's professional-political divide during breakfast parallels the team's debate over whether to accept the land-use rider for the sake of banking reforms."
Key Dialogue
"TOBY: "It's retaliatory, sir.""
"SAM: "Swallow it.""
"BARTLET: "I don't like these people, Toby. I don't want to lose.""