Hostage to Principle: The Veto Choice
Plot Beats
The narrative micro-steps within this event
Sam urges Bartlet to accept the rider to save the banking reforms, while Josh vehemently opposes, advocating for a veto.
Toby sides with Josh, suggesting a veto to send a message against being held hostage by Eaton and Broderick.
Bartlet expresses his dislike for the political enemies and his reluctance to lose, setting the stage for a strategic decision.
Bartlet concludes the discussion by asking what's next, signaling the need for a solution and moving the scene forward.
Who Was There
Characters present in this moment
Quietly irritated and personally affronted, masking the weight of potential political loss; determined to know options before yielding.
Sits at the center of the room, listens as aides quarrel, reveals personal animus toward Eaton and Broderick, then forces a decision point by asking "What's next?" He anchors the moral calculus and demands a path forward.
- • Clarify options and consequences before acting
- • Protect the presidency's reputation while weighing policy gains
- • Avoid being politically boxed in by retaliatory maneuvers
- • The presidency must be seen as morally coherent; reputation matters politically
- • Winning policy is important but not at the cost of core principles
- • Personal dislike of opponents can and should be acknowledged but not dictate policy
Controlled anger: morally offended but operationally focused on turning principle into communicable action.
Argues in favor of a veto to send a signal to the banking committee and punish Eaton and Broderick; offers to make calls and marshal messaging, trying to convert moral indignation into tactical action.
- • Use a veto to reassert the administration's standards
- • Shape public messaging to frame the veto as moral leadership
- • Prevent the White House from being seen as passive in the face of retaliation
- • Words and signals matter politically and morally
- • A veto can be both a policy tool and a moral statement
- • The administration's credibility is a resource that must be defended
A mix of defensive calculation and professional anxiety; some are resigned to compromise while others bristle at betrayal.
A cluster of aides circles the President; they provide rapid-fire interjections and statistics (Sam's electoral argument, others' quiet counsel) and embody the competing political instincts in the room.
- • Keep the banking reform intact
- • Avoid unnecessary political losses in the next election
- • Manage optics and preserve staff cohesion
- • Policy victories are scarce and must be protected
- • Electoral math (e.g., Montana's votes) is a decisive factor
- • Internal fights should be minimized when legislative wins are at stake
Concerned about managing fallout and preserving institutional wins; mildly sardonic about the absurdity of the attack.
Delivers the news, provides context, supports pragmatic considerations, and stands ready to advise operationally. Offers dry, managerial commentary (e.g., about the rocks) and listens as aides argue the political tradeoffs.
- • Preserve the administration's legislative victory
- • Minimize collateral political damage
- • Provide clear, executable options to the President
- • Practical governance often requires compromise
- • Political attacks should be contained administratively
- • The institutional outcome (banking reform) matters for more people than the immediate outrage
Angry and resolute, seeing the rider as an affront that demands punishment; tightly wound, defensive of the White House's honor.
Argues forcefully for a veto as the correct political and moral response; positions himself as the political hard-line, quick to see the long-term credibility cost of conceding to retaliation.
- • Defend White House credibility through a veto
- • Signal that retaliation will not be rewarded
- • Protect institutional integrity over short-term policy wins
- • Caving to retaliatory tactics undermines long-term authority
- • Political capital is worth preserving even at immediate cost
- • The administration must be willing to risk policy to maintain principle
Like Broderick, Eaton's off-stage action (co-sponsoring/attaching the rider) is invoked as an antagonistic force; the staff's reaction is built around …
Off-stage actor whose legislative maneuver (attaching the rider) is the catalyst; his presence is felt as a deliberate provocation shaping …
Objects Involved
Significant items in this scene
The Oval's upholstered couch functions as the final staging prop — Bartlet moves to sit on it after demanding a decision, physically lowering himself among staff to signal seriousness and to preside over the deliberation's closing moment.
The vindictive land‑use rider is the catalytic object of the debate: staff reference it as the clandestine amendment slipped into the banking conference report that would open Big Sky to strip‑mining, transforming abstract policy into a moral test for the administration.
Location Details
Places and their significance in this event
The Oval Office is the battleground where the moral and political tradeoff is publicly argued: staffers wait, circle, and press their cases; Bartlet listens and then anchors the choice, converting private anger and policy calculus into an institutional reckoning.
Leo's office is the transitional briefing point where Leo first names the Big Sky Federal Reserve and informs Bartlet about Eaton and Broderick's rider; it functions as a quick, private corridor of operational intelligence feeding into the Oval's decision moment.
Montana is evoked as the electoral and ecological stake — staffers cite its three electoral votes and the political calculus of carrying the state as a concrete reason to consider swallowing the rider.
Big Sky is the specific federal parcel under threat; it is invoked as the physical site whose protection would be surrendered if the rider stands, converting the debate into an ecological and moral test.
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
"SAM: Swallow it."
"JOSH: Veto it."
"BARTLET: I don't like these people, Toby. I don't want to lose."