Bobby Jindal’s political opponents have caught him in an embarrassing political scandal. Apparently, when invited to attend church services around the state, the governor attends them! Critics accuse him of scheduling unnecessary meetings with local officials so that he has an excuse to use a taxpayer-funded helicopter. “I’m glad he goes to church, but I don’t think we ought to be paying his way there,” said one.

Putting aside whether Jindal should be paying his own transportation costs on what appears to be legitimate state business, do his opponents really think they’re going to get traction with this? Especially in light of the improper use of state resources by some other governors we could name?

Update: Note to e-mailers: I’m not in a position to weigh in on whether Jindal’s Sunday meetings with local officials constitute legitimate state business. I would have to know more about the meetings. But consider this as a purely political matter: Use my handy scale to rate the seriousness of Jindal’s abuse of state resources:

Did your governor use state transportation:
To attend a campaign fundraiser: 5 out of 10 (10 being maximum political damage)
To attend his daughter’s piano recital: 3
To meet a mistress: 9
To have sex with a prostitute: 10
To fly his buddies to Vegas: 7
To speak at a political rally: 0 (This is arguably improper, but I believe it is allowed)
To go to church: 1

Even if “going to church” has political implications, which it probably does in Louisiana, at a certain point you have to wonder whether attacking a guy for going to church could backfire politically.