Search

The first three “scandals” to follow Watergate are discussed in this chapter. Using summaries of the bad behavior by government officials the chapter examines whether or not these behaviors meet our criteria for scandals (they do not), yet they do get some credit for their crossover to pop culture. Koreagate is the first time the “gate” suffix is used on a national scandal and Abscam, many years later, gets its own movie—American Hustle.

Election law, while seeking to provide a level playing field and reasonably fair elections, often contains certain quirks that make political activists and good government-minded individuals scratch their heads. The combination of a provision for the presumption of the validity of designating petitions, and the signatures on those petitions, with a late deadline for the filing of documents allowing candidates from outside a political party to run on the party‟s line creates one such quirk. This paper proposes to examine the loophole and its potential to tarnish a clear and fair process of candidate selection and the control of the nominating process by party regulars. Chemung County, NY, is home to two cases dealing with this issue which, together, establish and affirm the legal precedent of the presumption of validity. Using the case history, interviews, and first-hand knowledge of the most recent case, I will examine the law, suggest potential problems, and offer a simple solution.

This research is an extension of the body of work seeking to explain variation in levels of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) enforcement as a function of national and local variation in the agency's political environment. Although we examine a number of relationships, the new question is whether legislative oversight affects the behavior of OSHA compliance officers at the district level. OSHA is an interesting test case of the impact of oversight on bureaucratic output because of the way policy is implemented—enforcement takes place in the field by street-level bureaucrats, far removed from the federal office. Using data gathered at the congressional district level(1983-1995), results suggest that variation within OSHA's enforcement behavior is influenced by oversight committee assignment, overall oversight committee's and appropriations subcommittee's attitudes toward labor, and the district representative's disposition toward labor issues. We conclude legislative oversight indeed imposes limitations on compliance officers' district-level enforcement actions.

The contemporary system for advising presidents is a reflection of the modern presidency. It could also be seen as a remnant of the modern presidency in a postmodern era. The dawn of the modern presidency wasn’t, however, the beginning of the presidential advisory system, but the reforms associated with the New Deal administration of Franklin Roosevelt certainly provide the foundation of the system we can observe today.

The 1960s was a time of upheaval and just as Americans were learning to be more accepting of one another in society and African Americans and women were asserting their rights, politics was also changing. Some of the political change was directly related to the civil rights movement and the protests against the war, but some political change came about from a more generic need for reform and an opening up of the political process. Two campaigns, the 1960 John Kennedy campaign and the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign, had profound impact on the internal politics of political parties. These two campaigns, one from the left and one from the right, attracted new political amateurs to party politics. Regardless of party, these reformers were individuals with high hopes and high ideals who were perhaps taken aback by what they observed as they worked for their candidates (Wilson 1966). Most assuredly, the Democratic amateurs must have been horrified at the idea that a candidate (Vice President Hubert Humphrey) who hadn’t entered a single primary and who, at least symbolically, represented Lyndon Johnson’s position on the war in Vietnam would get their party’s nomination for president. They, and even their Republican counterparts, must have been further horrified by the events in the streets of Chicago during the Democratic Convention.

The history of the American presidency can be broken down into three basic periods or eras, and our perception of the office can be categorized into a number of views. The interpretations of context, boundaries, and purpose of the office from those who have served in it or studied it provide two basic functions. First, from both former presidents and observers, we are provided with plentiful fuel for debates over the extent and proper use of presidential power. Was there justification, for example, from these perspectives on the presidency for George W. Bush’s expansion of presidential power immediately after the attacks of 9/11 (and throughout his presidency)? Do such points of view allow us to be more accepting of presidents who are less active than others are? Second, the observations and reflections allow both average citizens and students of politics to see the presidency in a different light, perhaps, from the light in which it is regularly portrayed in the media.

In the 2008 presidential selection process, Barack Obama came from virtual political oblivion with a Messianic message and image to defeat the odds on favorite in the Democratic contest—Hillary Clinton—to become his party’s nominee for president. His message of “hope and change” resonated once the economic crisis hit hard in the fall and allowed him to easily paint his Republican opponent—John McCain—as more of the same. Only two years before his election, Obama was a member of the Illinois State Senate.

American humorist Will Rogers once joked, “The man with the best job in the country is the vice president. All he ever has to do is get up every morning and say, ‘How is the President?’” (Rogers n.d.). This political humor by Rogers certainly cuts right to the heart of the need for a vice president. As such, it also points to one of the, if not the, most significant decisions a president will make. It is so significant because it is an early decision, made even before the fall campaign begins—or soon after a vacancy. It is also a decision that is dissected by the media and academics, is debated by members of the party, and is the focus of nearly all the speculation just prior to a convention. Since the heart of this whole discussion has been about the individuality of the office, choosing one’s potential successor is a singular indicator of the character, personality, and style any president brings to the office.

Where the president’s relationships with Congress, the media, the public, and the bureaucracy all take daily nurturing, the relationship between the president and the judicial branch of government takes far less care and feeding. Of course, there are circumstances that influence the interactions of the two branches in either a positive or negative way. The most significant manner in which a president can influence his or her relationship with the judiciary is through the appointments process, where he or she attempts to fill a vacancy on a court with an individual who most represents the president’s thinking on policy, the law, and the Constitution.