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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.