Experience: Rogers noted the “obvious experience” that separates him from his challenger. Rogers also ran for office in his late 20s, he said – for county commission.

Family: Rogers noted that he is a married man with children, whereas Segall is not. “I believe life experiences matter, as well,” he said.

Affiliation: “I believe that the most important vote a member of Congress casts is his first one,” Rogers said, noting that Segall would support Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as the House organized. That decision would have a “chain reaction of issue consequences,” Rogers said; one is Pelosi’s opposition to domestic oil drilling.

(I found that last point—about Pelosi—to be a bit disingenuous. Yes, Segall has said he would support Pelosi for speaker. But Rogers spoke as if her leadership of the House is in jeopardy. It isn’t. The Democratic Party is widely expected to pick up a number of seats – perhaps even as many as 20 – next week; even with Rogers’ vote for a Republican leader in organizational session, Pelosi’s hold on the speakership is assured. In other words, Nancy Pelosi is going to be running the House for the next two years, regardless of who wins in the Third Congressional District.)

Rogers then tackled the economy, his support of the not-a-bailout bill –

SIDEBAR: I get so annoyed sometimes with euphemisms. Taking $700 million in taxpayer money and putting it into foundering private enterprises can’t be known as anything other than a bailout. But the Bush Administration, elected officials who voted for it and certain economic observers who believe the bill was necessary call it an “economic rescue package.”

I just call it the “not-a-bailout bill” – and grumble to myself about the scourge that is political nomenclature. END SIDEBAR

– and how it was absolutely critical for the American economy that Congress passed that bill.

Rogers recounted in detail the process – and startling speed – by which the not-a-bailout bill became law. He said congressional leaders were briefed on the situation by administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson; those leaders, in turn, shared the information with rank-and-file members in encouraging them to support the bill.

By then, the bill was about as popular with the country as tofu burgers at a cattlemen’s convention (my analogy, not his), and Rogers acknowledged that his vote for the not-a-bailout bill went against the wishes of most of his constituents. His staff fielded a tidal wave of sometimes-angry calls and e-mails against the legislation, he said. But Rogers stood by his vote, insisting that the failure of the package would doom small businesses to bankruptcy right along with Wall Street; credit had become virtually nonexistent, he said, and legislators had been told that unless the bill passed, the world would suffer a “global credit meltdown” within a week.

Most of the opposition to the not-a-bailout bill was attributable to the fact that the American people just didn’t understand the gravity of the situation created by the failure of major mortgage lenders and banks, Rogers said; even in near-daily statements from the White House, “the president couldn’t tell the country how bad it was,” because it would spark a panic and a run on banks.

Rogers went on to describe the vote as one of the most difficult of his career, because even though Republicans had succeeded in incorporating “significant oversight” provisions into the bill by the time the House considered it a second time, it was built on government intervention in the private market. But if the bill hadn’t passed, he said, “it would have had a direct impact on folks in East Alabama. I had to make sure they didn’t suffer adverse consequences for something that was not their fault.

“The easy thing was a ‘no’ vote,” Rogers said. “But people count on me to do right.”

Rogers then described in minute detail the intricacies of the not-a-bailout bill: Enabling the government to buy mortgages from financial institutions will free up credit in the market, because the government can “unbundle” the mortgage packages financial institutions sell to each other, resell the solvent ones back into the private market and hold the insolvent ones – the “bad paper” – until they can be sold at a better price. The government can hold those depressed assets for a year or two until the market comes back, Rogers said; private financial institutions can’t.

In addition, Rogers said, there are strings attached to the deal: Banks that sell mortgage packages and unload “bad paper” on to the government give Uncle Sam control of their dividend calculations and executive compensation. They also agree that if the government is unable to recoup its investment in “bad paper” – i.e., it is unable to sell properties for what it paid for them – those banks will make up the difference.

Finally, Rogers noted that the government created the mortgage meltdown by creating Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and requiring them to lend money to borrowers unable to meet their obligations. “It’s a laudable goal to help people get into homes,” Rogers said, “but we’ve reached the point where we’re just getting silly about who they’re loaning to.” Rogers expressed hope that the lending requirements set by the government in the Community Reinvestment Act would be eliminated going forward.

Rogers then pivoted to talk about energy independence, what he called the “overriding issue” in the country right now. The silver lining to the $4-a-gallon gasoline problem that plagued the country during the summer is that people will now demand alternatives, Rogers said. But out of an annual budget of $1 trillion, the federal government spends only about $1.8 billion on research and development of renewable energy resources.

Enter the “Furthering Renewable Energy and Exploration (FREE) Act,” Rogers’ primary bill this year.

According to Rogers’ description to the editorial board and a news release from his legislative office, the FREE Act has two major goals: One, to lift the ban on environmentally safe energy exploration in ANWR to help increase domestic energy supplies; two, to direct all federal royalties and taxes collected from ANWR drilling sites into a new Energy Independence Trust Fund. The trust fund would become a “steady, dedicated funding source for homegrown renewable fuel development,” Rogers said in the release. That trust fund, he told the board, would provide grants to educational institutions and private enterprise to facilitate their research and development efforts.

Rogers said congressional budget staffers have told him that under his plan, the federal government’s alternative energy development funding could triple, from its current level of $1.8 billion to $6.5 billion. In addition, Rogers said, a colleague suggested that those revenues be bonded; under that arrangement, R&D funding could reach $30 billion a year.

Congressional district bonus: Rogers envisions institutions in East Alabama – most notably, Auburn University and Tuskegee University – taking advantage of those grants and continuing their nationally and internationally known efforts in alternative energy development.

In short, the FREE Act is just the kind of creative, innovative legislation that congressmen and women should be producing.

Rogers filed the FREE Act on July 31 of this year, and it was referred to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, chaired by U.S. Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA).

The legislation has 30 co-sponsors, but six of those are the rest of the Alabama congressional delegation in the House. All of the co-sponsors are Republican, save two – Democratic U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, a member of the Alabama delegation, and Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall of Georgia.

(Incidentally, it was Marshall who suggested to Rogers that the revenue be bonded.)

If Rogers is re-elected, it will be interesting to watch the progress of this legislation. Since Pelosi opposes drilling in AWNR, the FREE Act won’t see the light of day as long as it hinges on drilling there. It will be interesting to watch Rogers negotiate with colleagues and whether he is willing – or able – to amend the bill to focus on other oil-related revenue sources. Diverting those revenues to a new R&D trust fund would mean diverting them away from wherever they go now; I’d be willing to bet that there won’t be a whole lot of congressmen lining up to give up tax revenues from their districts to a new program.

Rogers talked briefly about the War in Iraq. Rogers said that he would still vote to authorize the war there, though “so many things in hindsight were done wrong.” For example, Rogers said, maybe 300,000 troops should have been sent in the original invasion instead of the 150,000 that were dispatched. Rogers was asked if he would have supported the war if he had known that no weapons of mass destruction would be found: “It wouldn’t have made sense without WMD,” he said. Asked whether it made America safer, he replied that he knows America is safer, since we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. That’s “not an accident,” Rogers said, considering that he believes another attack on America to be imminent. “We can deter it, but it is imminent,” he said.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, Rogers has been privy to the establishment and organization of the Department of Homeland Security. Noting that it was the biggest reorganization of American defense since the establishment of the Pentagon, Rogers compared DHS’s struggles to a “gangly teenager trying to gain control over his growing limbs.” He also said he believes that Afghanistan will be more of a threat going forward than Iraq.

With regard to the Compound 1080 issue, Rogers continued to maintain that he has never met Charles Wigley, the owner of Tull Chemical, or read the bill to ban the poison that Wigley’s company makes. Wigley’s $1,500 contribution to Rogers’ “American Security PAC,” Rogers said, came as a result of a newspaper article Wigley read about the PAC and its goal, which is to elect people who share Rogers’ view on national security issues.

Here’s my problem with Rogers’ explanation: If I was questioned about a piece of legislation with which I wasn’t familiar, and especially if I knew that the legislation was going to be a continuing issue throughout my re-election campaign, I would go out of my way to familiarize myself with it precisely because I didn’t know anything about it.

And that’s not even considering the contribution to Rogers’ PAC.

So, just to review, Rogers accepted a $1,500 contribution from a man who lives in the Rogers’ district and owns the only business in America that produces a chemical that one of Rogers’ colleagues wants to ban. But Rogers says he hasn’t read the bill.

The only conclusion we can draw from this is that Rogers is distancing himself from the bill to avoid taking a position on it.

Rogers did say that he probably would oppose the bill to ban Compound 1080 anyway – not because of what it does but because of who sponsors it: U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR). DeFazio, Rogers said, has a reputation as an “ultra-left-wing liberal.”

“I can tell you that if he’s for it, I’m against it before he even introduces it,” Rogers half-joked.

Asked for examples of times when he broke with his party’s leadership, Rogers cited his opposition to President Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security and his support of the minimum wage increase.

But Rogers was at his best on the Farm Bill, which Segall has criticized as a subsidy-heavy giveaway that does little to help farmers themselves. Rogers vigorously defended his much-maligned vote in support of the legislation, which he said is 75 percent nutrition programs. Rogers animated as he described his recent visit to an elementary school, where he observed children inspecting the new fruits and vegetables in their cups and tasting them for the first time (with Ranch dressing, of course). That program, he said, is funded by the Farm Bill.

And the “subsidies” that have been so criticized are not subsidies as we traditionally understand the term, Rogers said; they function as a safety net for farmers who invest time and effort and resources in a crop with no control over factors that could ruin them. In effect, they are incentives for farmers to take the risk that comes with planting and growing and throwing themselves on nature’s mercy. “It’s very important to our agricultural system,” Rogers said. “Farmers need to know there’s a floor. We could let them go under, but then we would become more dependent on foreign countries for our food, and then it becomes a national security issue,” he said.

SIDEBAR: I couldn’t help but think that Rogers and Segall, if they weren’t destined to be political enemies, might find themselves on the same team more frequently than not. Rogers clearly demonstrated a passion for the perpetuation of Alabama farming, and Segall runs an organization called Homegrown Alabama, which encourages schools to use produce grown by local farmers. It’s a shame – for farmers and for the candidates themselves – that they ignore these common threads. END SIDEBAR

Regarding the tone of his campaign, which has drawn condemnation among Republicans and Democrats alike, Rogers stood his ground.

He was unapologetic – proud, even – about the now-infamous commercial featuring two elderly gentlemen discussing Segall while standing behind a pickup truck. Rogers was asked whether that commercial, with its stereotypical portrayal of Alabamians using incorrect grammar, is really how he views his constituents.

“Absolutely,” Rogers said without hesitation. He explained that the two men, Oscar and Kyle, are family friends of his, and they are representative of his neighbors; “I’m proud of those people,” he said.

After three terms in Congress, is Rogers surprised at how close his re-election bid is? I asked.

“It’s not that close,” Rogers said. “It never has been.”

And what about Ayers’ statement that Rogers is “fatalistic?” I asked.

“I intend to be the biggest pain in Nancy Pelosi’s a—for the next two years,” Rogers said with a grin. “I can’t wait to go back.

“Brandy (Anniston Star publisher Brandt Ayers) – I love him, but he wants me to be fatalistic because he wants a Democrat in this seat.

“Brandy must have been in the brandy that morning,” he laughed.

We didn’t get to the abortion issue in our editorial interview with Rogers, but I asked him afterward whether he supports the 95-10 Initiative. He was unfamiliar with the bill, so I gave my information on it to Snider. She got back to me about a week later with the following statement on Rogers’ behalf:

I am proud of my 100 percent pro-life record and will continue to fight for the rights of the unborn. While I am somewhat familiar with origins of the 95-10 initiative, as a member of the Pro-Life Caucus, I believe a better solution for protecting the unborn is simply for Congress to pass specific pieces of legislation that have been in the public realm for years. Those include the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act that was signed into law, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and the Parent’s Right to Know Act.

That Rogers supports those initiatives is great news for pro-life voters. But considering that none of them is even remotely likely to come to a vote under Pelosi’s leadership, Rogers’ support for them will be moot, at least over the next two years.

I’m just at a loss in understanding why a legislator who opposes abortion would not support legislation intended to decrease the number of abortions. So I asked Snider whether there are specific provisions within the 95-10 Initiative that Rogers opposes.

I didn’t hear back from her.

Overall, as I told Rogers after the interview, it was good to have the opportunity to sit down with him and hear him talk about his passions – alternative energy development, programs that perpetuate farming, etc. It was good to get to listen to the man aside from his commercials. It’s unfortunate that Rogers’ campaign has spent so much time talking about Segall; it’s left very little time for Rogers to talk about himself and the reasons he wants voters to return him to Washington.

And that’s a shame. Rogers is missing an opportunity to connect with them on those issues, share his passion for them and make his case to them that there’s a reason to vote for him – and not just against Segall.

Economic development: Segall talked about the untapped potential that exists throughout the district, but especially in Tallapoosa County. Lake Martin is one of this state’s most beautiful areas, Segall said; what is keeping the people of Dadeville, Jackson’s Gap, Stillwater and the surrounding areas from harnessing the power of their natural resources and turning them into an economic development steam engine that powers job creation through tourism and related industries? Nothing but infrastructure, he said.

Energy independence: Segall took his concern for jobs in the Third District and wrapped it around one of the biggest issues facing this country. He spoke eloquently and passionately about his desire to see East Alabama become a national leader in alternative energy research and discussed how scientists are exploring ways to extract natural gas from Alabama’s abundant shale rock stores. It is only the lack of infrastructure – bridges, in particular – that is keeping us from being able to build refineries right now in the Third District, Segall said. Properly funded infrastructure projects will produce much-needed jobs throughout the district, Segall said; as infrastructure improves, it will pave the way for other opportunities, like refineries, that will produce more jobs.

Natural phenomena, like the weather: Even last year’s disastrous drought was “an infrastructure problem, not a nature problem,” Segall told the editorial board. We know how to irrigate land. We just don’t have the tools to do it, and Alabama’s farmers – and consumers – suffer as a result, he said.

For Segall, addressing East Alabama’s economic woes isn’t just a dollars-and-cents issue; it’s a cultural issue, too. As a fourth-generation Alabamian, Segall was able to come back after college to make a life in his hometown. But many young Alabamians aren’t as fortunate, he said. One of the saddest things that’s happening because of the state of the economy in East Alabama is that young people who want to return to – or even stay in – their hometowns to raise their families are no longer able to count on those jobs at the factory, plant or mill. As a result, those families are leaving those rural areas and small towns. It won’t be long before those areas – those communities that are so integral to the character and history of Alabama – simply vanish, Segall said, adding with frustration that “neither party has a real plan” to address this cultural problem.

Overall, Segall’s passion on the economy is plain. He talked about how, ever since he was growing up in Montgomery, Alabama has always “been at the back of the line economically” and how the state’s people fight the perception that they “can’t accomplish as much.” But Alabama as a whole and the Third District in particular have a huge amount of economic potential, Segall said, and his experience working for former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner showed him how job creation in rural areas can breathe life back into forgotten corners of a state. The keys to a good economy, he told the board, are good educational opportunities and good infrastructure, along with the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere where jobs and businesses can thrive.

Talk turned to Rogers, the incumbent whom Segall called “a do-nothing congressman asleep at the wheel.” Segall acknowledged that Rogers sits on influential committees in the House but argued that Rogers has done little with the potential that exists in those appointments. Rogers sits on the military and foreign affairs committee, but “what is he doing to make the prosecution of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan better?” Segall asked. Rogers sits on the agriculture committee, but has he done anything to encourage more use of Alabama’s farmers? Segall asked, adding, “I don’t see it.” And Rogers sits on the Homeland Security committee, but even though he served as the chairman of the subcommittee that is charged with the oversight of FEMA before, during and after Hurricane Katrina, “has he done anything to make FEMA better?” Segall queried.

Segall called Rogers’ bill to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR) “an election-year stunt.” He added that he finds “implausible” Rogers’ explanation for never having read the bill to ban the potent poison known as Compound 1080 – even though the single individual contribution to Rogers’ PAC was a $1,500 contribution from Charles Wigley, the owner of Tull Chemical in Oxford – the only facility in America that produces it.

Segall spoke candidly and comfortably about all other issues we covered, from the not-a-bailout bill (he would have opposed it, and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has given an “erratic performance” throughout the crisis) to the war in Iraq (he supports leaving now) to the health care system (he believes there is “not enough capitalism” in the system and calls Democrats’ push for universal health care “dangerous”) to Social Security (he opposes privatization and believes Social Security to be “extraordinarily important” and “one of the best things this country has ever done”).

Segall’s only stumble came when I asked him what he believed a liberal is and whether he considers himself to be one. I was interested in his response because of the way Rogers used the word as an attack in his TV ads against Segall.

Segall was obviously uncomfortable as he felt his way through his answer. People have different explanations of the word, he said; labels don’t do anything to advance the level of discussion among candidates and the voters they hope to serve. I empathized with him as I watched him weigh the risk of alienating some in his party against the danger of not objecting enough to the word that Rogers has meant as an insult. But I knew it was a tough question, and that’s why I had asked it.

A few seconds later, Segall found his footing and articulated a response: Inasmuch as “liberal” means support for a weak military, high taxes and/or out-of-mainstream social policies, then no, he is not a liberal, Segall said. He rounded out his answer by adding that he wasn’t on a crusade to “reclaim the word” – a phrase I actually found quite funny.

As for the tone of the campaign, which has gone from contentious to downright nasty, Segall struck back against what he called Rogers’ misleading statements:

Rogers has made at least two television ads spotlighting Segall’s fundraising, insinuating that out-of-state cash is driving Segall’s campaign. It’s an “attempt to distract from the real issues,” Segall said. Rogers’ commercials have charged that Democrats are “desperate to have (Segall’s) vote in Washington” – but Rogers has collected twice as much out-of-state money from PACs as Segall has, Segall said. If campaign financing is any indication of an elected official’s vulnerability to outside influence, Segall said, “if anyone is going to be influenced by their contributors, it’s him.”

Segall rejected Rogers’ contention that Segall is “pro-abortion.“ No one is pro-abortion, Segall said; he just doesn’t believe it’s the government’s place to make that decision for individuals. Segall noted his support for the 95-10 Initiative, a package of proposals designed to reduce the number of abortions in America by 95 percent over 10 years. If Rogers wants to make abortion an issue, Segall said, voters should be able to “name one thing he’s done to decrease abortions.” In a thoughtful and deliberate interview with me later, Segall shared that although he is pro-choice, he does support a waiting period for women and some sort of notification procedure for minors seeking abortions; in addition, he pledged an open ear to the concerns of pro-life voters.

On independence from party leadership in Congress, Segall said that Rogers has himself been guilty of the kind of sheep mentality Rogers says Segall would have with Democratic leadership. On the Farm Bill, Segall said, Rogers “did what his party told him,” and “when they were OK” with the bill, “he was OK.” Similarly, on the minimum wage, Segall said Rogers voted with his party and against the increase five times before reversing course and voting for it. “Independence is the most important thing you can have in a congressman,” Segall told the board. This was a shorter version of what he had told me weeks ago. I had asked him what he would do if, as a congressman, he was asked by Democratic leadership to stick with his party and make a vote that hurt the district. “I would have to stick with my district,” he said. Even if his was the vote that defeated his leadership’s initiative? “I would talk with them about it and hope they understood, but even if they didn’t, I would still have to stick with my district,” Segall said. Even if it meant retaliation from leadership in the form of deep-sixing his legislation and submarining his budget priorities? “Look, it’s in my party’s best interest that I do well for my constituents,” Segall said, adding that the party would only be hurting itself by hurting Segall if he maintained a strong following in his district.

Segall said that if he is elected and spends six years in Washington, he would hope people in his district would hold him accountable for his campaign promises. If, over six years in office, “I accomplish as little as (Rogers) has, I deserve to be voted out,” he said.

As for Rogers himself, Segall said he “hasn’t brought anything to the table” over his three terms in office. Segall said that throughout the campaign, Rogers has reflected on Congress “as an observer, not a participant.”

Segall said he never thought he would run for Congress because he didn’t think Congress was the place to make an impact in economic development. But as the district has lost jobs to and become more reliant on China, Central America and the Middle East, Segall said he saw Washington reinforcing the trend that is moving America away from self-sufficiency.

“I’m running against this Congress, but also against the notion that a congressman can’t get anything done for you and is not worth a damn,” Segall said.