AL-03: Josh Segall will not run in 2010

Why didn't he announce this earlier ... (4.00 / 1)

... so that some other Democrat could run against Rogers? Why make the announcement on the day of the filing deadline? Won't Rogers be unopposed now?

---

by: CallidaMater @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 20:11:46 PM UTC

The decision was just made a couple of days ago (4.00 / 3)

And it's based on the latest information -- polling, the DCCC's intentions, the current political environment.  Segall has been working nonstop for 3 years to defeat Rogers -- no one has sacrificed more than he has in that cause -- but if he couldn't see a realistic path to do it this year, it's far more honest to say so now, rather than ask his supporters for another million $ which could be better spent elsewhere.  One mark of leadership is knowing how and when to pick your battles. 

I would have continued supporting Josh had he stayed in the race because he's a smart, honest, progressive candidate. Unfortunately, this year it would take a major scandal to make Rogers vulnerable -- if he turns up in bed with a live boy or a dead girl in mid-October, we'll all be kicking ourselves.  Otherwise, this is the right decision.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 00:31:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Solid Edwin Edwards reference! (4.00 / 2)

---

by: luc LeBlu @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 15:48:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you. (4.00 / 1)

Do you know that Huey P. Long is on the 2010 ballot in Alabama as a Democrat?

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 17:35:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the DCCC should be blamed if anyone (4.00 / 2)

had they put him on Red to Blue in 2008 he would have had a great chance. had they put him on early in 2010 it could have kept this competitive. Without their support this would have been nearly impossible.

they knew that they were to blame when Turnham lost in 2002

---

by: gradyw @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 17:22:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The DCCC (4.00 / 2)

Once again they are going to pour all their Alabama support into AL-02 (keeping Bright in office) and AL-05 (defeating Parker Griffith).  Nothing left to help a Democrat who's well to the left of Bright take out a GOP incumbent.  I'm so glad I quit giving them money. 

Give directly to candidates you like!

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 17:37:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know Segall did everything he (4.00 / 2)

could to make the best race possible.  However, the deadline for filing is when you have to look at reality.  In a non-presidential election year the turnout of Democrats in the third district will simply be low.  In addition the national party has simply decided to ignore Alabama's real Democrats.  That is the reality he had to face before paying out a lot of money and risking the loss of respect by losing again.

---

by: drg @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 21:17:32 PM UTC

Seems selfish to wait till this time... (0.00 / 0)

Not that he had a prayer, last year was the best bet.

But I call BS on the best interests of his constituents because he kept another liberal out of this race.

Do better.

Dale, I have to say you were right - mooncat

You're an entertainer son! -Parker Griffith

---

by: DaleJackson @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 21:27:22 PM UTC

Isn't calling Segall a liberal a bit like calling Scott Brown a conservative? (4.00 / 2)

maybe for their States, but nationally? Not so much.

---

by: luc LeBlu @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 21:57:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who did Josh Segall keep out of the race? (4.00 / 1)

Ron Sparks?

I haven't heard of anyone else interested in AL-03 and if they had been I'm sure Josh would have welcomed a primary -- a contested primary actually does a lot to raise the profile of a candidate.

 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 00:17:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dale, you get to comment about Parker Griffith and that's about it. (4.00 / 1)

Otherwise, your comments may not be quite so welcome. Don't try to be divisive here. We are quite disappointed right now, so it is not the time for your BS.

---

by: Sundog @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 01:11:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The intent may be divisive but the point is valid (4.00 / 2)

There may have well been another potential Democratic candidate out there who looked at this race and decided he/she would not run if Segall did. Bailing out at the last moment could cost the Democrats a candidate period.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 01:31:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

i don't think Segall kept anyone out (3.50 / 2)

before Josh nobody was lining up to take on Mike Rogers.

He made a good go of it and I think that the current political climate in this state dictated this would be tougher than expected. Plus Rogers hasn't done anything that crazy lately.

---

by: gradyw @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 02:00:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rogers moved distinctly leftward (4.00 / 2)

... after his close call against Segall in 2008.  In a very middle of the road district, that made him an even harder target.  It's reminiscent of the close call Bud Cramer had back in 1994.  He moved well to the right after that and essentially kept the seat as long as he wanted it.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 02:19:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I see Steve Segrist is listed as having qualified today (4.00 / 3)

I suspect there was scrambling to find someone to fill that slot.  I wish Segrist well. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 02:22:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Steve Segrist has a long way to go. (0.00 / 0)

Your above note about him is the only time a Google search finds his name.

---

by: drg @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 16:20:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Segrest. (4.00 / 1)

The correct spelling is Steve Segrest.  Sorry.  He ran for Treasurer in 2006 and I believe ragged on Kay Ivey about how the PACT program was not sustainable.  Damned fine crystal ball, there.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 17:34:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What did I tell you? (0.00 / 0)

All the guy did was run for a little while to pay off all of his campaign debt. I am dying for someone to replace Rogers, but I said in the beginning that Segall was not capable of doing it. Most everyone told me I was wrong, but I stuck to my guns. I told you I used to work for the guy. I know him.

Now all of this time we could have been looking for another candidate that was serious about running, instead we have been doing nothing. While Rogers has been fundraising continously. Any candidate that enters the race at this point will be way behind in fundraising. I will vote for this Segrest guy, if only because he is not Rogers. Segrest has already lost two races, and I think that he is only running for us to have some sort of presence in the district. Sort of like how Pierce did in 2006, which he was a good guy, but he had no money.

Yeah I was JudsonCrow then I lost that email that belonged to that account.

---

by: southerndem86 @ Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 21:26:32 PM UTC

I wonder (0.00 / 0)

if Segall will return the campaign contributions he has already received?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 01:25:20 AM UTC

As a former Segall supporter, this really bothers me... (0.00 / 0)

It does look an awful lot like he only "ran" this time to retire his previous campaign debt. I really like the guy but... come on... it's the day before campaign qualifying and you drop out? Looks very bad for him and probably hurts him more in any potential future efforts at political office than another loss in this race would have.

Didn't Mooncat label Hinton Mitchem a tool of the Republicans when he did this by the way?

---

by: bluebearcat @ Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 18:59:39 PM UTC

that's quite an accusation to make (4.00 / 1)

Do you know the guy or do you have any information at all about why he dropped out?  That's the kind of accusation that could only be made on a blog by an anonymous poster. 

---

by: jpo227 @ Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 19:14:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think Josh or Mitchem is a tool of the Republicans... (0.00 / 0)

that comment was about the direction that this blog has taken more than a criticism of Josh's actions. Some Democrats' are apparently more suspicious than others, no matter what their actions are.

That said, his actions (not dropping out, but dropping out when he did) were hurtful to the party. AL-3 is the closest thing to a competitive district we have in the state. Yes, AL-5 and AL-2 have both elected Democrats recently but as everyone here has noted the Democrats in those races have been extremely conservative and their PVI is much more Republican than AL-3. I firmly believe that the right progressive Democrat with strong enough ties to the district (i.e. not Ron Sparks) could win in AL-3.

For a state legislative race, qualifying day is put up or shut up time. For a congressional race where a lot of fundraising has already been done and where your father helped "clear the field" in the primary (nothing wrong with that if you're actually running), it's way too late in the game to drop out. You also owe it to your supporters and your party to let them know the instant you decide when qualifying is days away.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 22:00:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who did they "clear the field" for? (0.00 / 0)

Honestly, I never heard anyone else was interested.

And Segall was notifying supporters as soon as he made this decision.  I can't imagine the party was far behind.  Of course, if it gets to a couple of weeks before qualifying and no one has qualified, the party ought to be checking into that anyway.

 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:29:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And as far as him only running to retire his campaign debt... (0.00 / 0)

I can only speak to the very strange rise and fall of this particular congressional campaign. They put the word out almost immediately after the last election was over that he would run again. I waited to hear more from them as I was among their supporters on facebook, etc. and there was nothing. The campaign never seemed to really take form and I was only ever contacted once by anyone with his campaign after having been impressed by their tenacity last go round.

Honestly, I would not begrudge him running again only to retire campaign debt if he had made sure another quality candidate would have a shot at the race. 

---

by: bluebearcat @ Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 22:04:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The obvious way (0.00 / 0)

for Segall to dispell the idea that he ran simply to retire campaign debt is to return all the contributions he got this time.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 00:05:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You should find out the facts before you shoot your mouth off, Bluebearcat. (4.00 / 1)

Segall ran to win and make Alabama a better state. Never once did he run to retire campaign debt. He still has new debts to pay.

As for the person who worked for Segall, Southern Dem, you sound like the person who was fired last go round. And justifiably so, you were one of the reasons he lost last go round, you and the DCCC. You ought to be ashamed. Saying you worked for Segall is a joke, you never worked at anything but making yourself a hefty salary. You are lucky that campaigning is a small community and Segall has chosen the higher road with you. I don't have to. 

---

by: Sundog @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 00:47:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He did not run to win... (0.00 / 0)

He dropped out of the race before qualifying. That is not running to win. I like Josh Segall as a candidate but this really bothers me. He owes his supporters (like me) more than this, especially people who contributed to his campaign.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 16:10:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He's been calling his contributors (0.00 / 0)

The recent ones, at least.  I got a satisfactory explanation, so please don't waste your outrage on my behalf.  Good Lord, the Republicans do outrageous stuff daily, let's go after them now and again instead of navel gazing all the time.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 00:04:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

YOW! Did Segall have a campaign debt from before? (4.00 / 1)

I ask an honest question because I truly have no idea.

I do know that he contacted me regularly during the campaign to discuss fundraisers, strategy, polls, and the antics of worthless Mike Rogers.  And it wasn't like I was a HUGE contributor in 2008 although Daddycat and I did give some.

I feel confident that if I asked, Josh would indeed return the contribution we sent right before the end of the quarter.  And I may ask for some of it back; I can send it to other progressive Democrats running in Alabama.

God knows, they won't get much support from the ADP or DCCC....

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."  - John Kenneth Galbraith

---

by: countrycat @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 01:16:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll be stunned if the DCCC doesn't play in AL-05 (0.00 / 0)

Shocked and stunned. 

If Griffith hadn't switched, they might have put some resources into AL-03, but not now.  It's ironic, because the day Griffith announced his switcheroo, Josh Segall was one of the first people to call me and he was adamant that this was a great opportunity for Democrats to elect a much better Democrat than Griffith had ever been.  He saw Griffith's switch as an opportunity for the Democratic party, but it probably also meant that he would once again be left high and dry by the institutional money.  It's doubly sad that he also gets bashed by the grassroots, because I know he's worked damned hard to replace a poor excuse for a congressman in the 3rd cd.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:24:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like you bbc, but you're full of it this time (0.00 / 0)

After 2008, Josh Segall had $129,000 of campaign debt.  He raised that much in the 3rd quarter of 2009 alone.  Don't you think if this was only about retiring the debt he would have stopped raising money and paid off the debt then?  He didn't.  He was raising money in 4Q 2009 and was still raising money 10 days ago -- I was at one of his fundraisers that recently.

Josh Segall was serious about taking on Rogers and beating him this time.  From the day he called me and said he was running again he was convinced he could beat Rogers.  His campaign laid out a plan and milestones they needed to reach in order to do it and Josh worked very hard to meet those milestones.  From what I hear, the milestones moved quite a bit recently and he could no longer see a path to victory.  As a supporter, I appreciate the honesty that moved him to say it just doesn't look doable this cycle so that I don't continue to pour my efforts into a race that is out of reach -- especially since the DCCC once again chooses not to play in AL-03.  My resources can now go elsewhere, into races that are more winnable.

BTW, I reviewed the recent Hinton Mitchem post because I don't remember labeling Sen. Mitchem a "tool."  Sure enough, I didn't label him a tool or anything like.  And for those who may not have considered this, there's a big difference between not challenging an incumbent at the last minute and an incumbent deciding to retire at the last minute.  The latter is far more devastating because what's on the line is actually loss of a seat your party already holds, not just loss of an opportunity to take a seat from the opposition party.  I'm convinced that if Bud Cramer had given more than 3 weeks notice that he was retiring in 2008, we would have been able to field a much better candidate than Parker Griffith and we'd still be represented by a Democrat up here in the 5th district.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 02:19:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dropping out of a major race right before qualifying... (0.00 / 0)

is always a bad move.

If he had already raised enough money to pay off his past and current debts and continued to raise money, I would like to know where all that money will go now. I gave Segall some money last go round. I have some friends who gave Segall some pretty fat checks this time around and they are steaming.

I don't know why Segall did it but the timing of it looks suspiciously like he was never serious about running. I say that as much because of the very weird way his whole campaign operation acted this time.

As for Cramer and Griffith, there were basically two candidates on the radar that I was aware of - Griffith and Susan Parker. Parker had her chance to run (don't we all wish she had taken it) and turned it down. I don't remember the short window being a factor in a better candidate declining (Ron Sparks would not have been a better candidate in that race based on what we knew in 2008).

You never specifically used the word "tool" in reference to Hinton Mitchem, Mooncat, but you did strongly insinuate that he his behavior was designed to help the Republicans win his old seat i.e that he was being used as a tool of the Republicans, which was bunk. I will eat crow if and when Hinton Mitchem endorses a GOPer for that seat as your anonymous source suggested.

You say there's a different standard for an incumbent vs. a challenger in this situation; I say there's a very different standard for a 72 year old man who has been wanting to retire for nearly a decade dropping out of a state legislative race with over a month to go (and 3 candidates qualified on his ticket) and 30 year old Congressional candidate whose already raised hundreds of thousands of dollars dropping out the day before qualifying. 

My bigger problem with Josh dropping out is that his father worked really hard to clear the primary field both in 2008 and 2010. This is the closest thing we have to a competitive district in this state and the Democrats have almost always been able to field a decent candidate.

I don't know why Josh made the decision when he did. I do know that this looks very bad for him.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 16:33:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just to be clear... (0.00 / 0)

I definitely don't think Josh did this to help the GOP in any way. I have met the guy and I know that he is a progressive. But I do wonder if he was mainly focused on retiring his campaign debt this time around. It does take money to raise money, so the fact that he raised an amount equal to his previous debt in 2009 doesn't mean that he could actually pay that debt off without incurring more debt against his current costs.

My big problem is this: I gave Josh money (not much as I was unemployed) last go round and I have friends who gave him quite a bit this time. I don't expect anything more from the candidates I donate to than for them to carry through on their promises to the best of their ability and use my money wisely. If that candidate loses - even if that candidate loses terribly - so be it. My money was spent to spread a message that I support. If - in a rare instance - that candidate drops out because of a medical situation or is revealed to be a secret tranny hooker or whatever, hey, I could only make the decision based on what I knew at the time. But I do expect the candidate to run and run hard if they are able. Dropping out right before qualifying because the polls look lousy is just unacceptable in my opinion. 

---

by: bluebearcat @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 16:43:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I used to respect you as a solid individual with a wealth of good information. (4.00 / 1)

I viewed you as consultant material. My opinion of you has dramatically changed. This is not just a simple disagreement but a more fundamental issue about someone who spreads untruths. First, I would like to know how Segall's father cleared the primary field in 2008 and in 2010. This is news to me.

If that candidate loses - even if that candidate loses terribly - so be it. 

I believe you have lost perspective with this one. If one loses terribly, then one has no future in politics. Segall made the absolutely correct, brave, tough decision based on sound information. Something which you just don't seem to possess. I am finished with you. You can take up any issues you may have with the former candidate. You burned your bridges with this blogger.

---

by: Sundog @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 23:24:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think that's true... (0.00 / 0)

especially if you have the connections that Segall has within his family. Jim Folsom ran against an incumbent Dem back in 1980 and then won the primary and lost the general to the first GOPer ever to win a Senate race in Alabama since Reconstruction. That was a terrible embarrassing loss. He recovered to get elected Lt. Governor back in the 1990s then became Governor when Guy Hunt was removed for office. Then he lost once again to a goofus Republican in Fob James. He has once again made a political comeback.

Segall would have had future opportunities if he had run a good campaign against Mike Rogers. I think his baseline even in this political climate would be 43%+ and that is firmly in the competitive category. He could have easily made a foray into statewide politics next go round after a performance like that.

And let me make this clear: I will vote for Josh Segall again if he is on the Democratic ballot. I like the guy a lot, but he handled this situation very poorly and he doesn't deserve a free pass on it.

I don't think he did what he did to intentionally screw over the party, but screw over the party he did. AL-3 and AL-7 are the only two districts with the potential for real progressive representation. Had we the time to do so, we might could have recruited a legitimate progressive who was potentially competitive and committed to the race. That is my rub here. Nothing more. It is all about the timing.

 

---

by: bluebearcat @ Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 05:02:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

hmm (4.00 / 2)

Maybe you should talk to Segall rather than hiding behind a blog. Have you talked to him to get answers to these questions rather than making a lot of accusations?

What gives you the impression Segall didn't think about whether there would be a good democrat and that we are screwed now?  Do you know the rules?  The rules are that when dems have someone on the ballot by qualifying, that person can drop and be replaced by someone else.  We do have someone on the ballot.

And what on earth makes you think someone else could have won this election?  Segall clearly doesn't think he could win because it's a bad year.  But you, in all your wisdom, are sure there's someone else out there?  

Why do you think Segall's father cleared the primary?  Who do you think wanted to run and didn't?  I'm pretty close to the campaign and I've never before heard anyone say anything out it.  I last time heard Segall say that HE had talked to potential competitors.  But I've never heard about his father doing anything.  

And let's get one other thing straight: what exactly was strange about Segall's campaign this time?  He raised a lot of money starting early last year.  The fact that you didn't get a call (since you were unemployed last time and didn't give much) is not surprising.  At this point, campaigns are mostly raising money and mostly over the phone.  Maybe you've never worked on a campaign and just don't know anything about how campaigns work.  Do you live in the district?!?  I got invited to several fundraisers.  Do you live somewhere that suggests you should have gotten invitations too?

 

 

---

by: jpo227 @ Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 00:24:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bobby Segall is a good man (4.00 / 1)

and I also seriously doubt that he "cleared the primary" as the commenter suggests. Josh is a hard worker and his own man.  

---

by: gradyw @ Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 13:40:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is nothing wrong with that... (0.00 / 0)

people are acting like I made some type of wrong allegation against the elder Mr. Segall. I know he is a good man and I know about all the great work that he has done as an attorney. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a relative, especially one as prominent as Mr. Segall, helping you out politically. Part of that is providing introductions, helping you to raise money, etc. Part of it is also finding out who else might be interested in running and giving a little nudge in another direction. I don't know of anyone that Segall personally talked out of running, but I do know that he had secured the support of several Alabama Democrats, including candidates for other races, to not only support his son but to try to keep the primary clear of big name challengers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that and that does not in any way mean that Josh is not his own man. This was simply a bad move politically and not to acknowledge that is simply unfair to Josh and to the other Democrats who have been criticized on this blog.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 22:11:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I gave Josh a lot (for me!) both times (0.00 / 0)

Far more than I would ever give a forlorn hope candidate.  I appreciate his honest and frank appraisal of the current situation so I can go forth and put future contributions into contests more likely to produce a good outcome.  Also, he did offer to refund my contributions.

It's easy to check the state of his campaign finances instead of just sowing doubt about it.  Last time I checked he had far more on hand than the amount of his debt. 

You may be disappointed or even angry with Segall, but let's keep this civil and fact-based.  And please leave out the family stuff unless you can back it up.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 23:35:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I gave and raised a lot for Josh both times (4.00 / 1)

and I completely respect and agree with his decision. Josh is a clear thinker and I think this was the right decision.

It's tough and it hurt, but you have to look at the reality of the situation and what we are facing here in 2010.  

---

by: gradyw @ Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 13:44:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

AL-05 in 2008 (0.00 / 0)

The short window was a huge problem for candidate recruitment in 2008.  I talked to a number of people about that race and I absolutely begged Susan Parker to run.  Here's the problem they were facing.

Griffith threw his hat in the ring almost immediately.  He's filthy rich and had shown no reluctance to spend his own money (about $300K just for the primary) to get into the state Senate in 2006.  Everybody figured he'd be willing to spend at least that much for Congress.  All the other potential candidates had to decide in less than 3 weeks whether they could raise at least a quarter of a million to face PG in a primary that was about 11 weeks away.  That's a daunting prospect even for Susan Parker, who is widely admired and has a history of successful fundraising.  It was an impossible hurdle for the state legislators and county commissioners who might otherwise have jumped in.  Even Steve Raby, with all his connections, didn't find the prospect worthwhile.

I get that commonsense and I have stepped on your toes with regard to Mitchem.  Your tender spot has been noted. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 23:55:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My tenderspot relates to the truth... (0.00 / 0)

I have met Mitchem but I don't know him personally. I don't find myself agreeing with him on progressive issues all that often. However, someone whom I do know personally was in a professional position to know and specifically refuted the charges that were anonymously leveled at Mitchem on this blog. I will issue a full apology should Mitchem endorse a Republican in the SD-9 race but, until then, I think you guys were wrong to run with a diary that made such a potentially damaging unsubstantiated allegations.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 05:05:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The truth is my tender spot too (0.00 / 0)

If you recall, that diary was clearly labeled as "people close to Mitchem are telling me" and it turned out that the part about Mitchem deciding to retire was spot on.  I spoke with the diarist -- who is on the ground in that district -- and was convinced the people saying this were indeed close to Mitchem.  Would he have announced his retirement without some heat from Democrats, or would he have just quietly let the filing deadline come and go with no Dem on the ballot?  I guess we'll never know for sure, but it's completely within the rules of the game to fire a warning shot like that.  Heck, maybe that's why people close to Mitchem floated the idea anyway -- sometimes information is leaked to guage public reaction.

What you're doing on this thread with Josh Segall is simply rank speculation as to motive -- always a risky proposition.  You haven't talked to Josh, you haven't talked to his family and you don't provide an iota of information supporting the charges that he was only in the race to pay off debt and that his father "cleared the field" twice.  Probably because there isn't any because it didn't happen that way.  It's unsubstantiated speculation, based on thin air, that hurts a fellow Democrat.  Examine your motive, please.  And if it's because you just like to argue, why not start a new thread so we can argue about something that's at least marginally useful, instead of uselessly divisive to the progressive, or at least Democratic, cause.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 15:49:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I never took issue with the allegation that Mitchem would retire... (0.00 / 0)

I sought out the information on that front from the person who would know best and divulged that information. I took issue with the allegation that Mitchem's retirement was part of a larger plan that included him endorsing a Republican in the race. It was unsubstantiated speculation that questioned not the political competency but the personal loyalty of a fellow Democrat.

Here, on this posting, I speculated about the way in which Josh's exit from the AL-3 race looked. You nor I nor anyone else can ever know why someone does something. We can evaluate the evidence and come to our best conclusion.  I doubt Josh got into this race for the express purpose of getting out only a few months later; however, the timing of his exit makes it appear that way. He is in the business of politics and, in that business, appearances matter.

As to his father's role in the race, you act as if I made some terrible allegation against him. Bobby Segall is one of the biggest names in Alabama progressive legal circles; why should it be any surprise that he would work the people he knows in the lead-up to the primary in order to secure a clear path for his son? The elder Segall spoke with plenty of Alabama Democrats, including some candidates for other races, to ensure that not only did they lend political support to his son but that they discouraged others from running. Was there anyone I can specifically name that stayed out of this race because of Bobby Segall's actions? None that I know of, but that's the point. When a candidate with a prominent last name like Segall is in a race, challengers are usually going to sit it out.

Could there have been a military vet with a law degree and a progressive streak sitting in Auburn thinking about getting into this thing? We'll never know. 

That was the whole point of my article: the timing of Josh's exit hurt the party and it hurt it considerably worse than Mitchem's retirement. I don't think Josh Segall ever set out to hurt the Democratic party at all and I never suggested that he did. It happened nonetheless and he doesn't deserve a free pass without a little more explanation.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 22:05:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

bluebearcat (0.00 / 0)

why don't you call him, get the explanation, and get back to us? 

---

by: jpo227 @ Sun Apr 18, 2010 at 02:55:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]