Rogers ‘doesn’t care all that much?‘

By Jennifer J. Foster

Published: October 13, 2008

Brandt Ayers, the publisher of the Anniston Star, published a column this weekend that grew out of a “candid conversation” he had with U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers after Congress passed the $700-billion, not-a-bailout bill about 10 days ago.

Ayers argues that Rogers, “a decent, intelligent moderate,“ has been victimized and discouraged by the deflation of the Republican brand in Washington. As a result, Ayers writes, Rogers is “not particularly energized by the prospect” of two more years on Capitol Hill; in fact, Ayers says, Rogers is “fatalistic” about the possibility that he might be defeated by Democratic challenger Josh Segall:

Segall is a long shot but he could win, and what I gathered from our sit-down with Mike is that he doesn’t care all that much.

Read the rest of Ayers’ column here.

I contacted the Rogers campaign for reaction to that column and Ayers’ characterization of the congressman himself.

Here’s the statement I received from Rogers’ campaign manager, Tripp Skipper, in its entirety:

East Alabama working families are struggling in this economy, and they’re looking for leaders with vision and determination—proven leaders who know the struggles of working families and will fight for them no matter what. That’s Mike Rogers—he’s our way of fighting back. If given the honor of again representing the Third District, Mike will once again take his vision and leadership back to Congress to fight tirelessly for our working families and for an even brighter future for East Alabama.

If you’re thinking, “What does that have to do with the column?“ you’re in good company.

I’ve spent a good amount of time in politics, both on the political and the policy side of the ball. If anyone ever wrote an article like this about my candidate, I would be chomping at the bit to respond.

On first blush, it doesn’t seem that bad: It’s obvious from the tone of Ayers’ column that Ayers thinks highly of Rogers. Rogers is from Saks, near Anniston; the Star is basically his hometown paper. And to be fair, Ayers’ column called out the Republican Party and its lack of leadership—not Rogers.

But the statement the Rogers campaign provided could have come from the campaign at any time, on any occasion and—apparently—in response to any article. It makes absolutely zero reference to Ayers’ contention that Rogers is “fatalistic” and “not particularly energized” about wanting to win—about wanting to serve the people of the Third District. It says that Rogers “is our way of fighting back,“ but since the statement comes from the Rogers campaign itself, I guess we’re to assume that Rogers is the Rogers campaign’s way of fighting back.

Secondly, the statement says nothing about Ayers’ contention that the Republican Party is an empty vase: “A slogan mixed with social issues nobody likes to talk about, a bellicose foreign policy and a free-spending, anything-goes economic anarchy left a party without a core philosophy that drew adherents and guided members.“

Is this what we are to believe Mike Rogers believes about his party?

Next, Ayers writes that Rogers seemed “as if he were a helpless observer-victim of political earthquakes over which he had no control, whose direction and personal consequences were unknowable. ‘I might be defeated,‘ he said flatly.“

Nothing in the campaign’s statement about that contention, either.

And here’s the problem with that: Congressmen and women are sent to Washington to be leaders. If their parties are failing to provide an effective vehicle for positive, effective governance, guess what leaders do?

They lead.

They lead their parties into new territories. They work with others to identify issues that can redefine the parties. They work hard at identifying with their constituents and assuring them that no matter what might happen to the parties, their representation won’t be negatively affected.

Rogers’ campaign is silent about Ayers’ characterization of him as a “helpless observer-victim.“

Finally, missing from the statement is any response from the campaign about Ayers’ contention that Rogers “doesn’t care all that much” about this election.

Is that what we are to believe?

Surely Rogers would refute all these things if he was sitting across the table from you or at your doorstep asking for your vote. (At least, we hope he would.) But here we are, stuck with this statement that has basically nothing to do with the issue. And that’s why, as anyone who knows me knows, I have little use for the cookie-cutter sound bites of political candidates and their campaigns. They dumb down the electorate, because they are created on the assumption that the general public just isn’t bright enough to get anything more than a phrase or two, or a sentence at most, here or there. This is why I refuse to post press releases on this blog. I want readers to have something better from candidates than that.

This is the best example in recent memory of why.