Posted by The recent independent rankings of congressional influence had to be unsettling for Mike Rogers (R – Saks).
Rogers not only has the least influence of any Alabama Republican, but of the 46 House members elected in 2002, Rogers comes in 44th. Rogers would be next to last if one his fellow Republicans (Rick Renzi) weren’t currently under indictment and thrown off all committees, relegating him to the congressional cellar. In a chamber so driven by partisanship and seniority, the still relatively junior Republican has some excuse for his paltry influence rating. But again, even looking at Republicans elected in 2002 some are 250 spots ahead of Rogers. Fellow Alabamian Jo Bonner landed a slot on the Appropriations Committee and is 21 spots above Rogers, even though both were elected in the same year and face the same partisan obstacles.
Alabama has a long history of names like Sparkman and Bevill, Dickinson and now Bachus – members who rise through the ranks of the seniority system to wield considerable clout for our oft forgotten state. Rogers may indeed reach that level someday, but one has to wonder what a voter in Alabama’s 3rd would think about having their congressman in the bottom tenth of congressional influence.
Related Articles:
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
He may lack influence as a congressman, but he has immense influence as PRESIDENT . . .of the Hair Club for Men.
It’s time to take a mulligan on that seat and get somebody new in there. I’m glad Rogers finally has a serious challenger this year. With his skills, I think Josh Segall can do what the previous challengers couldn’t, not to mention do things that Mike Rogers can’t! A low-ranked minority party rep like him is not going to get much done for the 3rd…
Don’t kid yourself. Rogers works hard for his district which is why he is able to raise money and leads in all the polls. An ACLU liberal trial lawyer like Segall doesn’t stand a chance. Since he will be running on the same ticket as Obama or Clinton, Roger’s seat is safe.
His SEAT is safe . . .but how about his LID? I bet he checks for wind advisories before every public appearance . . . .
I don’t buy the argument that Roger’s seat is safe. Segal is the strongest challenger he has faced in a long time. There are a stronger contigent of die hard old fashioned Dems in AL 3 than in AL 2. Gore nearly won this district. Segall has more establishment support than any other candidate for this seat in recent memory and, in a cycle that already appears to be trending Democratic, he could pull a major upset.
SamfordDem – I agree. Segall has excellent fundraising and organizational abilities, and with the amount of work he’s done to boost agriculture in the state, his appeal will extend beyond Montgomery.
Lyn Johnson – As far as I am aware, Segall has never done any work for the ACLU and is not a trial lawyer. I believe he does bankruptcy counseling. Are you just making things up or did you get that from somewhere?
Anonymous #6 is right. Segall is not a trial lawyer. The fact of the matter, however, is that Mike Rogers WAS a trial lawyer before he went to Congress.
Knock on wood, Alabama could possibly have 4 Democratic Reps come November. That would be a huge shock to DC.
Out of curiosity, what has Segall done to boost Alabama agriculture since college?
Agree with SamfordDem’s conclusions. With indifferent support, little money and no name recognition, Rogers opposition got 38% of the vote last time. A more establishment candidate with loyalist name recognition, a big bankroll, a “strong on defense” plank and a good yellow dog calling speech should do much better.
This could get pretty hairy for Rogers. The bald truth about his influence under the dome does not require searching for information with a fine-toothed comb. This could be thinning his supporters.
Walt Moffett – My understanding is that Segall helped get a farmer’s market off the ground in Tuscaloosa, lobbied the University of Alabama to increase its use of locally-grown agriculture, and now teaches an agriculture course at UA. In speeches, he talks intelligently both about how the government can assist farmers and how to boost the manufacturing sector in Talladega.
I don’t mean to suggest Segall’s agricltural pedigree is as strong as, say, Ron Sparks, but I think he has a real chance to convince voters outside of Montgomery and Macon county that he has something to offer them, which is something the past few Democratic nominees couldn’t do.
If Harri Anne Smith goes to Congress, Alabama can have “Harri and Hairless” in adjoining congressional districts . . .
Kudos to anonymous for the best analysis of the day.
What a hatchet job of a story. I can’t believe Danny would put something with such a biased slant on his site. But the story blows any credibility by itself when it compares bachus to the likes of dickinson and bevill in terms of influence. that is totally whacked.
Just three points:
Only 1.4% of the labor force in the 3rd CD is in Agriculture, Forestry, Hunting, and Fishing. Focusing of farming is not going to get many votes.
The current configuration of the 3rd CD has voted for a Democrat in every race where a Democrat actually campaigned as a Democrat. If Turnham had not tried to out republican the republicans and not distanced himself from Siegelman he could have won. Siegelman actually carried the district in 2002 against Riley despite it being Riley’s home district and Lowder costing Siegelman more than 3,500 votes in Lee County. If all the calculations were not based on presidential votes this would show up as a district ripe for turning Democratic. The problem is it has been a long time since the Democrat running for president has campaigned here so those numbers are low.
Finally, despite what the republican operatives say, Rogers is more useless than tits on a boar. At least the number of a boar’s tits can determine how many his daughters will have.
WORST wig on Capitol Hill but not quite as bad as AL Rep Ron Johnson:
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/graphics/housepics/johnson_r.jpeg
or AL Rep Jody Letson:
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/graphics/housepics/letson_j.jpeg
As bad as it is I am not altogether certain that isn’t Jody Letson’s actual real growing-from-his-head hair . . .
Bachus is a ranking member of a key committee in Congress, he’s extremely influential.
Is this Josh, “My father was important” so I must be also?
Letson looks like the grandfather Ross, the public access tv painting guy. “I think a little tree might want to live here, there.”
Anonymous in #11, Talladega is not the area that needs an industrial boost, Fort Payne, Tuskegee, Rockford and Valley do or help adjusting to becoming ghost towns surrounding gas stations/fast food places.
GetReal, this story isn’t slanted or biased. It’s noteworthy Alabama political news, which means it needs to be on this site.
walt moffett – Anonymous #11 here. I meant Talladega to be an example of a place with manufacturing jobs where Democratic candidates haven’t done very well the past few elections.
If I recall, previous Democrats have won Tuskegee and at least pulled close in Rockford. You’re right about Valley. Does the 3rd district include Fort Payne? That seems too far north to me.
Talladega County generally trends Democrat, lots of yellow dogs, strong ADC office, yet lots work at AAD and won’t vote for anyone that jeopardizes those defense jobs.
If the Democrats ever lose Tuskegee/Macon County, there will be an alarm clock is going off in R’lyeh.
AL-03 doesn’t include Fort Payne, my error, northern most town would be Cedar Bluff. That particular area is settling down to being farm land surrounding summer homes on Weiss Lake.
AL 3 does not include Fort Payne; that would be AL 4. Strangely, that makes Ron Sparks’ home district about the only one he has not considered running in this year. Just kidding. I wish he had made a run against Aderholt; someone needs to make an effort to slow the rush of union manufacturing jobs out of the district.
Hahaha! I get it! Mike Rogers is bald! Well done, Anonymous! Don’t stop, though! I am sure that the more you tell it, the funnier it will be! Got any bowling ball jokes in there? We’ve got ourselves a regular Steve Martin on our hands.
As to the article itself, Joshua Segall, try though he may, will be unable to win this race. While those who are close to his father will donate out of loyalty, even the so-called “establishment backing” is not done out of a sense that he has a chance of winning. It is about what his father has done for them, which, if I am honest, is very commendable.
Incidentally, I do think Segall has a future in politics. If I had to wager, he probably envisions himself as a Bill Clinton sort, losing a race to a Congressman to get his name circulated within the state party before making any major moves. If I were him, though, I would find something more to boast about than hosting a farmer’s market. Also, I wouldn’t post pictures of myself wearing khakis without a belt.
On a different note, SamfordDem, I would love your explanation of why the North American Free Trade Agreement and Central American Free Trade Agreement have caused union jobs to go to China.
Will,
The point is not that he is bald, it is the dishonesty of the wig that pegs him as a fraud at heart. His rating at the bottom of this list is a good measure of his poor, not just poor – awful, service as a Congressman.
Unless my public education was much worse than I remember, China is not in Central America. Before he provided the deciding vote on CAFTA, Adherholt claimed that he received specific “assurances” that sock-manufacturing jobs in Ft. Payne would be protected. That was not the case and many of those jobs have now been moved into countries covered by that agreement.
Will, I agree with you that Segall will have a tough time winning this race, but the fact is that, all things being equal, AL 3 is more favorable to Democrats than AL 2 or AL 5. This cycle, both of those happen to be open seats which obviously evens things up a bit. Rogers does have the advantage of incumbency, but I’m not sure how strong that advantage might be for him this cycle. There’s a lot of anti-incumbent sentiment among voters, especially the kind of Reagan Democrats Rogers needs to keep winning his seat. The two open seats will be the races everybody focuses on, but this is the dark horse race to watch.
Will, let me also say that the joke is not that Rogers is bald, it’s that he does such a terrible job of pretending he is not.
the problem with running against an incumbent is that not only do you have to get someone to vote against the incumbent — you have to get them to vote FOR YOU.
Put me in with the people who doubt Segall’s ability on point #2, verily.
Josh Segall will win this seat. It looks like a longshot now, but something is going on underneath the radar. People are ready to throw out Rogers and try something new. Segall picked a winning year to take on Rogers.
To begin, SamfordDem, you proved my point regarding China and CAFTA and NAFTA.
Second, I will be forgiven if the strongest evidence of a Segall victory is “something is going on underneath the radar” or “there’s a lot of anti-incumbent sentiment out there.” Even in years where “anti-incumbent sentiment” exists, we see over 95% of incumbents re-elected. With the exception of political insiders or those who work with his father, no one knows who Segall is. As I say, time well tell what kind of campaign he runs, but to suggest that Segall is any different than those who have already lost to Rogers is a tad bit premature. When the Chairman of the State Democratic Party fails, what makes anyone think that a political neophyte is going to shock the world?
I’m not sure why Will continues to see a relationship between China and CAFTA but I do hope Republicans continue to share his view that this seat is safe enough that they should not expend money or effort there.
Will –
Your latest comment is an embarassing strawman. You chose two random phrases out of the comment section, asserted they were “the strongest evidence of a Segall victory,” and then attacked them. This, despite the fact that a dozen commenters have written in with both things they think are positive about Segall’s campaign and reasons they believe Rogers is vulnerable.
Look – I can do the same thing using your posts: If the strongest argument against Segall is that he’s been photographed without a belt on, he’s a guaranteed win!
P.S. I do agree with some of your post. Its too early to know how effectively Segall will manage his campaign. First quarter financial disclosures are due out soon, and I think that will give us a solid indicator as to how strong a campaign he will be able to organize. If he’s only raised a few thousand dollars since “those who are close to his father” contributed last year, he’s in trouble. If he’s at $100,000 or above, it will be the closest race Rogers has had since he won office.
Once again Anonymous, if that even is your real name, no reason is provided for those who think Segall will be a strong candidate. The purpose of this entire post was an attack upon Rogers. Though some are more diplomatic regarding its nature, that fact still remains.
I get the feeling that there are those on the blogosphere who hear the comments of like minded individuals and believe some sort of groundswell exists. In truth, the vast majority of those in the district do not know who Segall is.
If all he can claim is that he asked the University of Alabama administration to buy more locally grown products and that he hosted a farmer’s market, how is he remotely labeled a strong candidate?
Prediction: Segall will continue being the darling of leftist bloggers until election day. He will lose fairly soundly, though better than all other opponents of Roger’s other than Joe Turnham. This will then be used as evidence that Segall has a strong future in the state Democratic Party.
Opinion: This has been Segall’s hope all along.
Incidentally, I agree with you SamfordDem. Perhaps you should tell those within the Democratic Party to stop blaming claims of jobs going to China on trade deals within North and Central America. Only those who lack an understanding of economics could look at the global economy, see the advances in technology that permeate throughout all American industry, and blame job losses on NAFTA and CAFTA.
Will (re comment 35) & GetReal (re comment 14),
I would be interested to know what specifically about this post you believe to be untrue or unfair.
Thanks!
Danny
Danny,
I don’t recalling saying this post was “unfair.” As I said, “The purpose of this entire post was an attack upon Rogers. Though some are more diplomatic regarding its nature, that fact still remains.” When phrases such as “one has to wonder what a voter in Alabama’s 3rd would think about having their congressman in the bottom tenth of congressional influence” are used in a post, I think it is fair to say that said post was not pro-Mike Rogers.
That is not an indictment upon you, Danny, as I know your site to be a fair one. That said, when responses consist of jokes regarding Mike Rogers’ being bald, a fact listed ad nauseum in a manner that proves completely impertinent, and claims that Josh Segall is going to win this seat, which I personally find a ridiculous notion particularly at this point in the race, I think it is fair to offer criticism to those making those previously mentioned comments.
Once again Danny, my comments are not a criticism of you, only my own thoughts that just so happen to fly in the face of what many who have already posted consider conventional wisdom.
“don’t recall….”
That’s what I get for posting at midnight.
Will,
I’m with you on bashing the bald jokes. Those are stupid (though you seem to think there’s one poster called “anonymous.” There are obviously a half dozen. They reply to each other at one point during the thread.” I doubt the ones making bald jokes are the same as the ones making substantive points).
The rest of your posts seem like a lot of backtracking and shifting stories. You labeled the “purpose of this entire post” as “an attack upon Rogers.” That’s not fair to Danny. He posted on something that was obviously newsworthy – an independent rating of Congressional effectiveness. I have no idea how accurate the methodology is, but its clearly something that should be reported on this site. You’re right – “it is fair to say that said post was not pro-Mike Rogers.” It also wasn’t “an attack.” Heck, it wasn’t even “anti-Mike Rogers,” it was just a news story that happens to cast him in a bad light. Any political analyst who didn’t pose the question of whether an awful effectiveness review will hurt an elected official in the eyes of the voters isn’t doing his job.
You also claim that the other posters are being “ridiculous” in claiming that Segall is going to win the seat, which you find “a ridiculous notion particularly at this point in the race.” Reading through the posts, most of the posters that were high on Segall’s chances said things like “this could be a close election” and “If Segall has effective organization, he could win it.” The first commenter who guarantees a particular outcome is. . . drumroll please. . . you.
The other posters have had various, facially plausible reasons why Segall is a good candidate, Rogers is a poor one, and that demographics and circumstances could favor a change. I haven’t been following the race nearly close enough to know if these arguments have merit, but I’m a little amazed how you’re flatly insisting that nobody is making relevant points, issuing declarative statements, accusing the web host of attacking people, and then trying to back up and claim you’re the only detached dispenser of rational thought.
When jobs leave the US for countries covered by a free trade agreement, like Mexico or Costa Rica, it is fair to say that free trade agreement cost the US those jobs. I was not referring to job that went to China, nor was I referring to job losses due to technological advances. I was talking about jobs that left AL 4 for Central America because CAFTA made it possible.
Hey SamfordDem, In post #25 you refer to union manufacturing jobs in AL4. I thought you should know that the sock industry in Fort Payne was never unionized. As far as I know, the only manufacturing facility to unionize in the area was a large bakery. That facility closed shortly after unionizing.
Trying to drag this back, to counter this rating, what would work?
My thought is a series of ads, etc, featuring folks who report what Rogers has done to speed up SSA/VA claims, medicare snafus, etc, along with a “What I have done for you”, list of pork projects he has brought home.
Any other thoughts?
“When jobs leave the US for countries covered by a free trade agreement, like Mexico or Costa Rica, it is fair to say that free trade agreement cost the US those jobs. I was not referring to job that went to China, nor was I referring to job losses due to technological advances.”
SamfordDem, let me see if I can get this straight. The jobs going to China, a nation we do not have a free trade agreement with, leave based on some sort of economic magic. On the other hand, if a job goes to Mexico or Costa Rica, that job leaves because of free trade. You’ll forgive me if I ask how you can differentiate.
Jobs leave the United States because in a global economy this is not the nation that can produce certain goods in the cheapest fashion. Because we live in such an economy, though, we receive foreign auto plants and foreign steel plants. One cannot on the one hand attack trade deals for costing us jobs and then, on the other hand, praise foreign companies for locating in the United States. Protectionist policies can be blamed for the Great Depression as that so-called “Fortress America” led solely to an isolated economy and a power vacuum filled by fascists. I make no apologies for lambasting them as wrongheaded and extremely shortsighted.
As to Matthew, I am glad we agree on the jokes. I enjoy a good ribbing on both sides every now and again, but at some point it becomes tedious and childish.
As to your opinion of the article, you are entitled to it. Having read it, I personally believe it to be an anti-Mike Rogers piece. That is, of course, not accusing this entire site of any sort of overt bias, though everyone knows that all work produced by humans contains some sort of bias. All I am saying is that statement such as “Rogers may indeed reach that level someday, but one has to wonder what a voter in Alabama’s 3rd would think about having their congressman in the bottom tenth of congressional influence” do not usually appear in articles that are merely reporting the news. Once again, though I do not consider it egregious, I do consider it anti-Mike Rogers.
I would suggest, however, that all claims do not hold the same merit. For example, you imply that my saying Mike Rogers will win is just as bad as someone implying that Josh Segall will win. Herein lies the difference: One is highly more likely than the other. Just because there may be two sides to an argument does not mean that both those sides merit as much credence. I am not asking you to accept my opinion regarding the race. I personally do not think hosting a farmer’s market and asking university administration to buy more locally grown food makes one qualified for office. That is what is being offered as evidence for the strength of a Segall campaign. That or the so-called strong party support. While I am more than aware that Lieutenant Governor Folsom and Commissioner Parker were both as his candidacy announcement, I am willing to wager that the vast majority of those in the district both do not know who was at that announcement and do not know that there was an announcement in the first place.
Let me say, once again, that you are completely free to disagree with my opinion. What I ask, though, is that one does not assume that the propensity of arguments on a particular website makes those arguments any more or less true. There is, after all, a reason Mike Rogers is given 1-11 odds of winning on this very website.
I stand corrected on the unionization issue. As to China, I never implied anything about economic magic. The fact is that China is able to produce goods so cheaply that the total cost of those goods, including cutting throught the red tape of our trade relationship with them, is often still much lower than if those goods had been produced in a second world central american country with whom we do have a free trade agreement. China and India are both on a different playing field because of the massive size of their respective work forces and the pitiful scale of their wages.
I was attempting to set China aside from the argument and talk specifically about the impact of CAFTA on AL 4, namely jobs that left AL 4 because CAFTA made it financially cheaper for those jobs to move to Central America. No matter how strongly you believe in free trade, you have to admit that rashly implemented free trade agreements between nations with radically different quality and wage standards can have some serious consequences for the nation with higher standards. I believe free trade should be our ultimate goal, but that he have thus far been very careless about the steps we have taken in that direction.
If you consider cheaper goods a serious consequence, I certainly agree with you. The point I make is this: the jobs we lose are going to leave no matter what. Whether or not we implement free trade agreements, the manufacturing jobs that leave this country will find cheaper labor elsewhere. We have two choices in dealing with this paradigm. We can accept economic reality and create the best possible system whereby we can enjoy the cheap labor of other nations that exists with or without our aid. On the other hand, we can create a tariff system that will cut off our own goods to the rest of the world, encouraging emerging economic powers, such as China and India as you mentioned, to fill the void left by our absence. I for one consider it a much better alternative to embrace a global economy and all that it entails rather than avoid the inevitable.
Hi Will,
Thanks for replying in #37. Probably not worth overtalking this… I agree that the post was not “pro-Mike Rogers” but that doesn’t make it an “attack” in my view. Like Matthew said afterward, I don’t think it was anti-Mike Rogers either.
You of course are welcome to a differing view, and I was not intending to be critical myself… was seeking some understanding of what you meant (or why you meant it).
Again, not that big of a deal…
I agree that there have been some most unflattering remarks about Rogers in the comments, along with some wide-eyed optimism about Segall. On the latter, I guess it’s spring when every baseball team starts tied for first place.
Thanks again…
Danny
Well said, Danny.
I don’t want you to think my comments are an attack upon your site. I believe it to be far and away the best in the state and have led many of my friends here with statements to the same effect. This was just my opinion of one article.
There’s no doubt free trade creates cheaper goods, but that’s obviously not the only consequence unless the loss of secure long-term jobs with benefits is no big deal to you. Like I said earlier, I firmly believe a world without trade barriers is a great goal, but carelessly implemented free trade agreements can result in exploitation and a lower standard of living.