Josh Segall unplugged

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.