An interesting survey... my response

Late this session, I received what was termed a "confidential survey" about my first legislative session, from someone I do not know. I did check out the source and a few references, and while I trust the confidentiality of the survey, I did not agree with the general premise of many of the questions. I thought about it a great deal, and finally decided to send this reply. The specific questions are below my reply.

Mr. [XXXXXX]-

I have given your survey a great deal of thought since receiving it in the late days of session. I do have some responses to the issues you've raised, but I decline to share them in this format right now.

Political rhetoric has unfortunately declined below even the lowest common denominator. Every statement - whether public, semi-public, or 'confidential' - today become fodder for the nastiest of attack campaign literature, or just political attacks outside of campaign cycles.

I developed collegial working relationships with many of my Republican colleagues during my first session. The vast majority of them are engaged in what I would call true public service; they suffer the slings and arrows of public office because they believe, as I do, that we can work together to craft forward-looking solutions that might actually improve the quality of life here in Minnesota. In different areas, our pholosophies about the means to the ends may diverge, but we do agree on the end goal.

Yet, I observed that there are some extremely caustic members of the Republican House that are not intent on doing good work for the people of Minnesota, but rather on obstructing the process of legislating for the common good. There is always a degree of politics in politics (imagine that!) but I do not believe that the legislature has ever seen such a concerted effort to do nothing but filibuster, obstruct, delay and deny legislative progress solely for the sake of political gain, and dare I say, individual ego. Long-time Capitol observers, journalists and lobbyists shared with me their own confirmation of the lack of good faith by a handful of angry legislators, acting out simply for the sake of acting out.

Turf wars are to be expected, within reason. Passionate debate on the House Floor, in the media, and in committee is to be expected, within reason. And irreconcilable differences are to be expected in a few areas, within reason.

But until there is a broadscale return to the ethic of decency, decorum and basic respect for individuals with different perspectives, I believe it best to stay silent with respect to the specific questions asked.

Any issues I have with individual members, be they my first-term classmates or party leadership, I choose to share only with them. My thoughts about specific issues can be found very easily in my weekly columns to my local newspapers, as well as in any of a number of other online or printed sources.

I wish you the best of luck in your work, and I do not wish to make your task more difficult.

My best,
Jeremy

Here is the email I received initially:

This is a follow up e-mail regarding a brief survey I am conducting for the Center for the Study XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

This short survey is being distributed to 32 DFL Representatives, each of whom was elected in House districts carried by Governor Pawlenty last November. A similar survey is also being distributed to a few dozen GOP Representatives. We are very interested in your views on the challenges you face of being a DFL Representative in a moderate to right-leaning House district.

- - - -
- - - -

Center for the Study XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Questionnaire

1. How concerned are you that the House DFL agenda in this session is too liberal for your district: very concerned, somewhat concerned, only a little concerned, or not at all concerned?

2. During the current session, have you ever felt you were more in step with the GOP minority than with your DFL majority and leadership? If yes – with what bill?

3. What is the most important vote you have cast this session and why?

4. How concerned are you that the House will be unable to override Governor Pawlenty's veto on the transportation bill with the nickel per gallon gas tax increase: very concerned, somewhat concerned, only a little concerned, or not at all concerned?

5. What GOP legislator has impressed you the most this session and why?

6. At the beginning of the session, there was concern that the new DFL leadership in the House and Senate would be too liberal. At this point in the session, do you think the DFL leadership has been too liberal, not liberal enough, or about right?

7. Do you approve or disapprove of the job the DFL leadership has done so far?

Lastly, I have two questions about Election 2008 …

8. If Al Franken is the DFL nominee for U.S. Senate, do you think his presence on the November 2008 ballot will be asset to other DFL candidates running in your district, a liability to other DFL candidates running in your district, or will it make no difference?

9. If Hillary Clinton is the DFL nominee for President, do you think her presence on the November 2008 ballot will be asset to other DFL candidates running in your district, a liability to other DFL candidates running in your district, or will it make no difference?

Thank you very much for participating in our survey.