The Republican Governors Association is using Seven Days‘ Legislative Survey as campaign ammunition to attack a Democrat running for governor this year, Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin (pictured).
Makes us wonder if the GOP even read the whole survey. If they had, they might realize they’re shooting blanks.
From the Rutland Herald‘s blog:
On Wednesday, Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin – a 2010 Democratic gubernatorial candidate – was named “most ethically challenged” in a survey of Statehouse lawmakers and staff by Seven Days, the weekly Burlington newspaper.
Today, the Republican Governors Association – the national GOP group supporting Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie’s bid for the job of Vermont governor – sent out a press release using that finding to slam Shumlin.
Here’s what they had to say:
Yesterday we drew your attention to a story in which several people accused Sen. Peter Shumlin of being misleading when talking about Vermont Yankee, and today we bring you the results of a survey conducted by Seven Days, in which his own peers voted him “Most Ethically Challenged.”
What the RGA neglects to mention is that only 30 people responded to the survey. And only 12 people voted for Shumlin in this category. That’s hardly a referendum.
Seven Days agrees, which is why we took pains to explain the survey’s low response rate and the likelihood that “winners” of our dubious categories could have easily been victims of lawmakers ganging up to smear an opponent. As a front-runner for the gubernatorial nomination, Shumlin certainly has a big target on his back.
As we pointed out in the survey piece, however, the cross-section of respondents who voted for Shumlin — while small — was notable: Seven legislators, three lobbyists and the only two statehouse staffers to take the survey voted Shumlin least ethical.
Were those seven lawmakers Republicans? Do the three lobbyists work for Entergy, owners of the nuclear power plant Shumlin and his fellow Senators voted to shut down last month? Do the staffers have some axe to grind with Shumlin because of his politics? The survey was conducted anonymously so we’ll never know for sure.
But what if survey respondents answered the survey questions honestly? It still wouldn’t be conclusive, but it would make you go hmmmm…
Still, if I were the Republican Governors Association, I’d save my political attacks for something with more meat on the bone. Even we admit the survey had limitations — and is hardly reliable ammo for political war.
This article appears in Mar 17-23, 2010.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
So, here’s my question -If you knew that the “survey” was a bust and that it had no meaningful value as news, why did you publish it as the cover story?Some of it was pretty fun as petty gossip and humor but it clearly wasn’t news in any meaningful way. Your presentation gave it undeserved legitimacy that is now being exploited by those of dubious integrity. Shocker.What did you think was going to happen?
Who cares what the NGA has to say? But Chris is correct. media sponsored surveys should be ignored as the ignorant polling for the ignorant.
You’re asking why Seven Days put this on the cover? Didn’t Andy’s intro say it all? While the sample size was disappointing — and we took great pains to be transparent about that — the results weren’t. We feel strongly that the questions we’re asking are legitimate — especially during a week devoted to open government. We also thought the lack of participation was newsworthy in its own right. What’s the legislature afraid of? In the age of Yelp, Angie’s List and Trip Advisor, shouldn’t there be a mechanism for rating our lawmakers? This story will on the cover next year, too, when we survey the State House again.
An incredibly worthless survey pool should have cost the story the cover.And Paula’s assertion”We feel strongly that the questions we’re asking are legitimate — especially during a week devoted to open government.”is lost when catagories include best flirt, hottie, etc.Open government deserves serious review. A better story is do citizens get full and open access to the government, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on corporate campaign funding.
So the survey is not a binding survey by any means. It would not matter if everyone surveyed participated because it was not binding by any stretch of the imagination. But this looks just like an election day when people simply do not have the ambition to get their lazy behinds out and vote and participate. Bitch Bitch Bitch but they will not participate.I Bitch more than most but I earn that right by participating. asking questions of officials, candidates and the like. Stay informed and Vote.Voter Apathy Is No Excuse.Great point Paula of what the legislature is afraid of.
If the survey results were worth publishing, then it was fair for the Republican Governor’s Association to use them. Ya just can’t have it both ways.And, fact is, we all know that the particular result cited by the RGA is true. We were all just waiting for someone to come out and say it.
I’m normally a big fan of Andy’s work, but this story was a bust. An Oxymoron’s point is pretty valid – some of those questions were more legitimate for a high school yearbook than a “pol poll” that purports to be “a mechanism for rating our legislators.”Moreover, the problems in the story – in my opinion – are compounded by the defensiveness in Paula’s response. “What’s the legislature afraid of?” I would expect some of them might have been afraid that results would be a.)taken out of context b.) overblown c.) used by opposition, etc. Which is what happened. Is a self-reporting poll really an appropriate “mechanism for rating our lawmakers,” as Paula put it, or is it more of a circle jerk?It seems like you also lost a little bit of perspective here. Legislative Council’s point is a good one; it’s not really appropriate for those charged with working on a non-partisan basis with legislators to comment on their clients. I would think a newspaper that has to disclose that its coeditor and publisher is a live-in partner with a state senator might understand just how small a state this can be. Christopher raised some valid points in his initial comment on this; I find the tone of Paula’s response defensive and a little arrogant – not the first time for Seven Days. You folks have built a great newspaper, and that may give you the right to make whatever comments you like in response to reader feedback but it doesn’t make you smarter or better than us.
“What’s the legislature afraid of?”Probably not the local free entertainment listings circular. Especially if they got a glimpse of the view counters 7dvt.com had on original content before they were removed.
The story never should have been published with only 30 malcontents responding. Seven Days Publisher Routly should be ashamed to have her publication used as fodder for what will become campaign attack ads for at least this election cycle. Why wasn’t an effort made to get responses for more legislators, lobbyists and staff if you really wanted to do such a story? Why ask questions that did nothing but allow political opponents to take some cheap shots against those on the front line making the very decisions some of the readers of 7D endorse? Shumlin was smeared by a handful of lobbyists who work for Vermont Yankee and a handful of legislators who oppose marriage and other hot button social issues. Most people won’t read this blog, or even 7D, but they will hear the campaign ads this summer attacking Shumlin and others who won dubious distinctions.
The 7 days “poll” was and is worthless, and so is Ms. Routly’s pathetic excuse of a defense.If 7 days were serious about who is the most “ethically challenged” legislator, it would get off its lazy a** and do some investigation, like:*Correlating legislator votes with their sources of income or their business interests – i.e., who’s voting to make it easier for themselves to make or retain $.*Correlating legislator votes with sources of campaign contributions, particularly larger size contributions.Then maybe readers would get something real.Instead, 7 days just presents a National Enquirer-like gossip poll and says it’s a good thing because rating legislators is like rating restaurants.Lame all the way around.
The 7D survey may not have been scientific, but it’s clearly Democratic operatives or sympathizers who are shedding the melodramatic 11:49 and 1:02 tears above. One wonders whether they would be so offended if the Legislature were Republican-controlled and the results of the very same type of survey harmed Republicans. I think not.And newsflash for “Joe”: you don’t know that it was only VY lobbyists and “a handful of legislators who oppose [gay] marriage and other hot button social issues” who supposedly “smeared” Shumlin. It could have been liberal Dems for all you know. And, frankly, Shumlin’s reputation doesn’t need any help in the “smearing” department from the people you mention.
It certainly was not 7das best day! When I first read the nonsense, I thought I was in the wrong site. Very shabby job,not up to the good work 7 das usually does. Better luck next time.
http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2010/03/shumlin-overstates-himself.html