| I told my business partner about Mike Rogers closing comments in a Montgomery forum where he asked if voters wanted a young zealous advocate with no experience. I had thought it was just an idiotic thing to say and immediately thought of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct (I'll get back to that). My much more historically knowledgeable friend had a different idea about what that may have meant.
I'll offer you both of these ideas.
1. As an attorney, which both Rogers and Segall are, you are taught to be a zealous advocate for your clients. In fact, the comments of the rules of Professional Conduct say that you should be a zealous advocate for your client. Zealous does not have a negative connotation. Being a zealous advocate for your clients mean you are representing them as a good advocate and still mindful of your other duties in professional responsibility. Now being over-zealous might be a problem but Rogers did not say over-zealous. And I do not think Josh would be over-zealous to the point where he cannot see the big picture of being a great Congressman.
In this context, I thought well it would be a great thing to want a zealous advocate like Segall who will fight for jobs for the residents of the 3rd Congressional District. Has Rogers been zealous of protecting jobs in the 3rd Congressional District or protecting the health and safety of his constitutents? So I would argue Rogers is negligent of his duties as an advocate and should have serious problems in being re-elected.
2. As I was reminded the term zealot has a strong historical meaning. Zealots were a Jewish Political movement that revolted and rebelled against the Romans. Now, I still don't find this as being negative. But it does invoke religion something Rogers may clearly be trying to do.
When someone goes on a religious tirade they are often called a zealot. I can't find where anyone thinks specifically that the use of the word zealot in this context would be anti-semetic. However, it could be a subtle attempt by Rogers to invoke religion into this race.
I think either way you analyze these comments, or even if you believe it was a double-entendre, Rogers saying that his experience matters is clearly ludicrous. Rogers has done absolutely nothing to be an effective advocate for the constituents of his district. In fact you have to wonder who he has been the advocate for over the past six years. Mike Rogers doesn't realize that the constituents are the clients, not CEO's of Companies that do not live in the district. |
