Democrats on Tuesday raised the volume on their displeasure with the scandals. Scandals could roil 2014 elections

As a trio of scandals threatens to engulf President Barack Obama, congressional Democrats facing election next year are talking tough about the administration and taking the first steps to detach themselves from the president.

Yet even as Republicans see an opening, some in the GOP are urging caution: They say the party needs to avoid appearing so eager to damage Obama and score political points that it undermines what looks like their best shot in three years to go on the offensive.


With Obama becoming an ever-larger political target, two midterm elections that saw voters take out their anger at Washington in ways that could potentially come into play next year — 2010 and 1998 — loom large in the minds of both parties.

( Also on POLITICO: Behind the Curtain: D.C. turns on Obama)

The convergence of a renewed focused on the attacks on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, revelations about the IRS targeting conservative groups and the Department of Justice seizing phone records from Associated Press reporters is prompting Democratic calls for accountability and raising fears that their candidates next year could become collateral damage should voters grow unhappy with Obama.

Add in concerns about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and you’ve got a party dreading another 2010-style backlash toward perceived Washington excess.

Democrats on Tuesday raised the volume on their displeasure with the scandals, suggesting they were ready to create some distance from Obama.

( Also on POLITICO: Obama: IRS findings ‘intolerable’)

“First of all, when you look at this, it’s like when it rains it pours,” said Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), who’s up for reelection next year, about the IRS and Department of Justice stories. “It’s very, very troubling.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who’s also facing the voters in 2014, was equally tough.

“The IRS actions were outrageous and we need an investigation and to hold them responsible,” she said.

( Also on POLITICO: The IRS wants YOU — to share everything)

A pair of House Democrats running in potentially competitive Senate elections used blistering language to demonstrate their anger at the IRS.

“When the government targets organizations because of their political beliefs, it has a chilling effect on free speech and damages the very foundation of our country,” said Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), calling on Obama to fire the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt organizations and launch an independent investigation. “Sorry just doesn’t cut it.”

Rep. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, expressed similar outrage.

( PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)

“For the IRS to wildly misuse its authority and target people or groups on ideological grounds goes against the core of our democracy and sets a dangerous precedent,” said Peters. “Michiganders and the American people are owed an explanation.”

The hope among congressional Democrats is that quick hearings and thorough investigations are followed by political closure and a return to a policy agenda that can demonstrate productivity to their constituents.

But they acknowledge that the administration’s growing mess makes it harder to focus on issues.

“I think it makes it difficult,” said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), “but if we get some more bipartisan agreements on consequential matters like immigration and the farm bill, it will mitigate some of this.”

While they recognize the collective peril posed by the combination of issues, Democrats aren’t fretful about Benghazi, believing it to be a hard-to-understand GOP obsession that few unaligned voters are following.

But the actions by the IRS and Department of Justice are a different story, offering the appearance of unambiguous government overreach.

“That’s a problem,” said Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who’s facing a potentially tough reelection next year, about the IRS story. “I don’t care if it was President Obama, President Bush or President whoever — obviously and clearly [there was] a lack of oversight of what was going on over there.”

As for the tracking of the AP’s phone calls, Begich said of Obama: “He shouldn’t tolerate it. He should have zero tolerance on this issue.”

For Democrats on the 2014 ballot, however, seeking distance from the president is not without its own danger. Party strategists are already worried about a smaller turnout from their base of minorities and young voters in the nonpresidential year. And if their candidates run from Obama, it could further depress turnout among those Democrats loyal to the president.

A party strategist with deep experience in national politics noted that Obama has a floor of support above which he has remained since being elected in 2008.

“He’s the kind of guy who is less likely to have [Democratic candidates] running for the hills because he has a base of support,” said this strategist.

A red-state Democratic party chair said candidates must show dexterity when it comes to Obama.

“By no means do you cut the president loose, but it requires some deft maneuvering to make sure you’re not alienating the base or independents,” said the party chair. “So you focus on issues like the farm bill, women’s issues.”

What troubles Democratic operatives is the possibility that no amount of fancy footwork around the president saves candidates running in states where Obama is a drag. The concern is that 2014 becomes a replay of the previous midterms: whether you supported the administration agenda or opposed key bills was ultimately irrelevant when the political tsunami struck.

Democrats lost their House majority in 2010 and, were it not for a handful of poor GOP Senate nominees, would have lost the Senate, as well.

Navigating the need to show swing voters a degree of independence without turning off Democrats is as pressing in the House as it is in the Senate.

Thanks largely to the most recent redistricting process, just four GOP incumbents are in districts that favor Democrats, compared with 15 Democrats in districts that tilt toward Republicans.

That means — should the investigations gain steam — Democrats running in those districts are likely to come under increasing pressure to distance themselves from the White House.

“In 2010, there was voter fatigue at a party that couldn’t get its act together,” said a veteran Democratic pollster. “I think the concern now is that you have an administration that looks incompetent.”

Jim Graves, a Democrat challenging Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) in a GOP-leaning suburban district, said he for one would not be afraid to criticize the administration over whatever happens in the leadup to 2014.

“I’m a pretty independent kind of guy,” said Graves.

Rob Jesmer, who ran the NRSC in 2010 and 2012, said that, regardless of their individual moves, the hopes of Democrats are tied to their party. “They’re going to rise or fall with the brand of the party, and there’s not much they’re going to be able to do about it,” he said.

Yet even as Republicans express optimism at their change in fortunes following a bruising 2012, some party veterans are counseling caution, not wanting the probes to become witch-hunts.

Especially for veteran GOP officials and aides who were on Capitol Hill in 1998, when the impeachment of President Bill Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky prompted a backlash that resulted in Republicans losing House seats, there’s a desire to proceed with prudence.

GOP House leadership aides met Monday and discussed the importance of holding Obama accountable without crossing a line and making it personal, a source present said. The staffers are especially mindful of the need to not be disrespectful toward Attorney General Eric Holder, something that could fire up African-Americans who otherwise may not show up at the polls in 2014.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), the chief deputy whip, said the key for House Republicans in the months ahead is to legislate and conduct oversight simultaneously.

“You move forward on tax reform and at the same time hold the IRS accountable,” he said.

On Benghazi, Roskam said Republicans had adopted the correct posture and that it is “premature” to empanel the select committee some in the GOP are demanding.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, who has been among the loudest Republican voices on Benghazi, urged a measure of overall caution and took an implicit swipe at his conservative colleague, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, who floated the idea of impeachment in recent days.

“Let’s find out all the facts before we say the ‘I’ word,” McCain said.

But that’s exactly what Democrats are counting on.

“The rabid crowd driving the Republican Party today is certain to overreach, just as the comparatively tamer characters did back in 1998,” said Matt Canter, deputy executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “The result was a historic failure for the party in the midterm of a president’s second term.”

Added a smiling Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), after raising the 1998 comparison: “History does have a way of repeating itself.”

Manu Raju contributed to this report.