Musings on Rogers-Segall

By Jennifer J. Foster

Published: October 30, 2008

(Editor’s note: This is the third of a three-part series exploring the Third Congressional District race and the editorial endorsement of the Opelika-Auburn News. To read Part 1, “Josh Segall unplugged,“ click here; to read Part 2, “Mike Rogers unplugged,“ click here.)

Recapping:

As I said before, I sat in on the editorial interviews with both U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers and his Democratic challenger, Montgomery attorney Josh Segall. From my perspective, as someone who has participated in editorial endorsement interviews both as a journalist and as a surrogate for a candidate, both candidates had great sessions.

On Sunday, the Opelika-Auburn News endorsed Rogers’ re-election bid.

I am neither an employee of the News nor a member of its editorial board, so I cannot speak to the process by which the endorsement was made. But I was a bit taken aback by the reasons the News gave for backing Rogers.

I have planned this post since I read the endorsement in Sunday’s paper. But since I’ve spent much of this week making a Halloween costume for one of my daughters—

SIDEBAR: Note to readers: If you have just taken up sewing in the last year or so, do not attempt to make your child a Halloween costume, no matter how much she begs. Trust me: A $20 investment at Wal-Mart or a winning bid on eBay is a bargain compared to what you’ll spend in materials—and time—trying to get the job done. Just some friendly advice from the voice of experience. END SIDEBAR

—I’m just now getting down to writing it.

Interestingly, when I opened the paper yesterday, I found that I’m not the only one who found the reasoning behind the endorsement curious. Here’s a letter to the editor that appeared on the editorial page this morning:

You’ve got to be joking!

Mike Rogers ran an “incredible misguided campaign that has brought out the worse in politics,” ranks “403 of 435” representatives and last among Alabama’s representatives in congressional influence, “puts the needs of Washington above the needs of Roanoke, Opelika and Phenix City,” and needs to be “more of a Representative.” But he is in office.

Josh Segall “has a number of great ideas” and “fire, wit and intelligence.”

Therefore, you endorse Mike Rogers?

Your endorsement is beyond understanding. In what world is it better to be divisive, lazy and incompetent after four years on the job than to be smart and eager to serve the Third District? We hope the voters can reason this one out.

Roberta Jackel and Dr. Christopher Newland
Auburn

Jackel is a former Auburn city councilwoman.

In politics, there are endorsements—you know, where someone says you can use their name in your ad—and then there are endorsements, when people will stand by you and campaign with you and ask their friends to contribute their hard-earned money to help you.

The difference lies in how much that someone believes in you.

The News produced for Mike Rogers the first kind of endorsement. He can say the paper backed him, but not much else.

Anytime an endorsement begins with the phrase, “Despite the fact ...“ you know that the backing that follows will probably leave something to be desired.

The endorsement does acknowledge a few positives about Rogers—he serves on three committees in the House, he shows an interest in solving America’s financial crisis and he demostrates a “desire for finding solutions toward reducing America’s dependence from foreign oil.“

But congressional committee appointments are part and parcel of the job, and the News says that Segall shares Rogers’ determination to find alternative energy resources.

On the financial crisis, the paper notes that Segall said he would have voted against the not-a-bailout bill. But is that a negative? Segall hasn’t said he doesn’t believe in solving the crisis—in fact, quite the opposite is true. He did say that he would have voted against the not-a-bailout bill, but he also shared with the editorial board his thoughts on what should be done to right the economy. So whether his opposition to the not-a-bailout bill is a positive or a negative for Segall depends on your opinion of that bill and what you think of Segall’s ideas about how we should solve the financial crisis.

That leaves us with only a stated fact—that Rogers’ experience “in local, state and national politics dates back to the 1980s.“

We are left to assume the News considers that experience a positive—perhaps, then, the only positive?—of Rogers’ re-election bid.

So is it?

Again, it depends on the eye of the beholder.

Some people consider it a negative for candidates to be in politics for 20 years or more. The newbies trying to oust the longtimers call them “professional politicians.“

But for the purposes of argument, let’s consider long political experience an asset. It should give the incumbent a lot of good things to say about what he’s done in office, right?

One would think that a congressman with six years invested on Capitol Hill would offer at least a couple of items detailing his own accomplishments. But if you listen to Rogers’ television commercials (and if you live in the Third District, you have listened to them ... and listened to them ... and listened to them ... and then you’ve read his mail—I’ve gotten two pieces from his campaign over the past five days), he doesn’t have much to say about his own record. He’s spending almost all his time—and money—talking about Segall.

Why?

Roll Call magazine, one of the top two or three publications on Capitol Hill, produces “power rankings,“ a rating system that purports to gauge politicians’ effectiveness in Congress. The ratings consider factors including positions on committees, including leadership positions; indirect influence, or how much the congressman can impact the congressional agenda; legislative activity, including bills and amendments that have shaped the laws moving through Congress; and earmarks—i.e., bringin’ home the bacon.

Rogers is No. 403 out of 435 in the House.

But he’s only served three terms, his supporters say; in an institution that doesn’t have term limits, it takes time to build influence.

Yes, that’s true. So let’s consider how Rogers is doing just among those with whom he was first elected in 2002.

He’s 44th. Out of 46.

And No. 46 is U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), who’s awaiting trial on 35 felony counts of conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, extortion and insurance fraud.

I am not saying that Rogers is a bad candidate. As I noted the other day, the Mike Rogers I met and questioned in the editorial interview was much different than the one his campaign has portrayed for voters. He was engaging and enthusiastic about his job, and he articulated a desire to advance interesting alternative energy legislation if he wins re-election.

As I told Rogers after the interview, his campaign is doing him a disservice with its combative, sour tone. I want to hear from a candidate why he deserves my vote—not why his challenger doesn’t. This is especially true if that person has already spent time serving me as an elected official.

And I’m not saying Rogers’ service is void of redeeming qualities. Indeed, as Roll Call notes, several things that make a congressman effective for his constituents—including casework, legislators’ visibility in his district and cultivated relationships with federal agencies that produce dividends for the district—are unquantifiable, so they aren’t taken into consideration for the power rankings.

I’m just saying that as long as we’re talking experience, it doesn’t appear that the experience Rogers cultivated during his time in state and local government has helped him much in Washington.

The News advises Segall to “use his fire, wit and intelligence toward representing areas on a more local level before joining the ranks of the sharks on Capitol Hill.“ And Rogers made a point of saying—twice—during the interview that his “life experiences”—i.e., being married, having a child—matter.

I know another congressman who was elected as a young man and went on to great things.

Mike Rogers knows him, too.

His name is Adam Putnam. Elected to Congress in 2000 at the ripe old age of 26, he now leads the House Republican Conference and is the third-highest ranking Republican in that chamber.

Roll Call pegs Putnam 3rd among the 37 members elected in his class, and 100th overall.

Incidentally, Putnam, now 34, has just two more years’ experience in the House than Rogers.

I highly doubt that Rogers would say that Putnam was ill-suited to serve when he was elected at 26. You can’t argue with the results he’s produced and tine influence he’s cultivated over the past eight years.

I say all that to say this: Someone’s young age shouldn’t be considered an automatic disqualifier for a leadership position, just as someone’s advanced age shouldn’t be considered an automatic qualifier for a leadership position. Likewise, someone isn’t necessarily unsuited to serve just because he’s never done it, just as someone isn’t necessarily suited to continue serving simply because he is. The News’ sole objection to Segall’s candidacy appears to be that he “has never held public office.“ But every elected official was a newbie once. The voter’s job is to look at the candidates as a whole—their ideas, enthusiasm, aptitude, attitude and everything else—and decide who and where—and when—you want them to serve.

People support incumbents for re-election and return them to city halls and state capitals and Washington primarily because they want to retain the incumbent’s experience.

Whether the people of the Third District return Mike Rogers to Washington likely depends on whether they believe Rogers’ experience is worth keeping.

As for Segall, he’s continued to plug away. His campaign released a poll last month that showed him only nine points behind Rogers; Rogers maintains the race is not now nor has ever been that close. But the Democratic National Campaign Committee recently added the Alabama Third to its “Red-to-Blue” program, a move that gave Segall national exposure and access to the DCCC’s huge donor base. And Segall’s campaign said this week that it has eclipsed the $1 million mark in fundraising. People don’t give money to refurbish a sinking ship.

Though it didn’t endorse Segall, the News noted on Oct. 17 that after editorial interviews with both Rogers and Segall, “we are confident that either candidate would represent this area in Washington well over the next two years.“

In endorsing Rogers, the News said, “Democratic challenger Josh Segall, 29, is a very worthy opponent who has a number of great ideas anyone in either political party should adhere to.“ The paper went on to note Segall’s “fire, wit and intelligence.“

Rogers might have gotten the endorsement. But Segall got the takeaway quotes.

As non-endorsements go, I’m betting the Segall camp will take it.