On Obama Scandals, Public Shrugs

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/americanprogressaction/3098074555/">Center for American Progress Action Fund</a>

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Remember the supposed White House “scandals” in which Obama administration officials tried to get two Democratic politicians, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Penn.) and Colorado’s Andrew Romanoff, to drop their respective US Senate bids by offering them other jobs? If you answered “No,” shrugged your shoulders, or just don’t care, then you’re likely among the 44 percent of voters, according to a new Rasmussen poll, who say such offers are standard operating procedure for Washington. Only 19 percent of those polled said they saw anything unusual about the Sestak and Romanoff snafus. “While politicians profess to be shocked at the job offers, voters see business as usual,” Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, said.

Now, that’s not to say the two events mean nothing to voters. According to the poll, 62 percent of respondents said the White House’s efforts to get Sestak and Romanoff to ditch their Senate campaigns would be somewhat important to how they vote this fall. (Only 32 percent said the White House’s gaffes will have a major impact on how they vote.) The public’s view of the Obama administration’s ethics also took a hit from the Sestak-Romanoff flub: 40 percent believe the Obama White House is less ethical than most of its predecessors, while just over 30 percent say Obama and co. are more ethical.

What’s certain is that, on voters’ priority lists, Dropout-gate isn’t anywhere near the top. Any candidate railing the administration’s supposed ethics lapses—and not economic or national security issues, which huge majorities list as their top priority—should just, well, drop out now. Word on the street is the White House is hiring.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest