What’s a Scandal?

Scott Rasmussen makes an interesting point:

White House press secretary Jay Carney, speaking on CNN, dismissed “the premise, the idea that these were scandals.” However, voters see it differently. Just over half believe each of the three qualifies as a scandal. Only one out of eight sees them as no big deal.

Voters also reject the notion that the IRS targeting was the work of some low-level rogue employees. Just 20 percent believe that to be the case. A slightly larger number (26 percent) thinks the decision came from IRS headquarters. But 39 percent believe the decision to target conservative groups was made by someone who works at the White House.

At this point the scandals, if that’s what they are, aren’t touching the president himself. His personal approval rating remains high. However, remarkably, Republicans now have a two point advantage in the public opinion on governmental ethics and corruption and a whopping 23 point lead among independents. I don’t think that bodes well for a strategy that depends on trusting the government.

2 comments… add one
  • michael reynolds Link

    Actually, I think this round of scandal is just about over. Scandals require additional shoes dropping. They require a cover-up. And they require a link to the president.

    There’s no evidence of WH involvement. There’s a distinct lack of shoes on the AP and Rosen issues. No cover-up on either. The only thing that seems to have legs is the IRS thing. But even that seems to be slowing down.

    As for your belief that Obama has destroyed faith in government, you’re missing a very big development. The bids are in on health exchange policies in CA. They are shockingly low. Far cheaper than the scare stories.

    So, let’s see. Unemployment down a bit. The deficit dropping. Inflation under control. Obamacare doing well in early innings. But you think IRS misbehavior will alter people’s perceptions of government? Come on.

    And incidentally, Rasmussen? Really?

  • jan Link

    I don’t have a handle anymore on what the public really accepts or rejects, let alone is engaged enough with, dealing with facts and timelines, to call anything a scandal. So much is based upon “What am I getting out of this,” rather than anything vaguely voicing concerns over country or the welfare of future generations.

    I, however, continue to hold a minority outrage over Benghazi around here. This, IMO, was a major breech of loyalty, courage, and command, by the WH and the State Department. It was a matter of exercising resources that were available, in order to at least try and save your own, versus a CYA by both Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with all the partisan minions surrounding these people. What a bunch of deceptive cowards we have as heads of state!

    The politicizing of the IRA (which is exactly what it was), is more troubling for more people. Here we have a situation of conservatives being on a targeting skewer. However, if this is not corrected, it could easily switch, and in years to follow it could be the progressive dems feeling the heat. That’s what happens when ethics are governed by partisan optics.

    Lastly, the press subpoenas has put a little tremor into press relationships with their president. They have cooed over him, been an agent for news omission in his blunders and policies, for the duration of his time in office. The fact that Obama’s DOJ, though, has been shown to have had the audacity of secretly looking into some of their own personal communications is bewildering to them, to say the least. However, the MSM will eventually recover, reconcile their differences with the WH, and once again be on the same page with their president, in a jiffy, I’m sure.

Leave a Comment