Congressman Mike Rogers is one of those pragmatic office holders more interested in solving problems and improving the lives of the people he represents than peddling the destructive arguments of ideologues and engaging in the tactics of "no" at any cost. [View video]

Yet, who do we see before the U.S. House chamber a few days ago, giving a one-minute speech on health care? It looks like Mike Rogers, and the voice, well, there is that certain east Alabama, touch of the hills, accent we are familiar with. But this can't be the Mike Rogers we know, for this man is shrill, delivering an angry diatribe aimed at the effort to tackle health-care reform.

To put a particularly foul-smelling garnish atop this un-like Mike speech is a reference, more than once, to the "Democrat majority." Oh, turning this noun into an adjective is a small thing, one the most recent President Bush was so fond of using. But in this era, when the current president is at least attempting to tamp down the rancor, it comes off as cheap and petty.

Massively more important is what our local Mr. Hyde went on to do in the following 45 or so seconds. He proceeded to reinforce fears of pending doom, based on partial truths about health care.

He quibbles with semantics, attacking the verbiage "public-option," preferring to use the words "government-run health-care plan."

That's wasted time, of course. We could have the same discussion about Social Security or Medicaid or Medicare, couldn't we? Call it what you want, just have a substantive discussion and raise legitimate reasons for why it should or should not be part of an overall health-care reform plan. That's what the real Mike Rogers would do.

But this Mike Rogers, for some reason, is trying to rattle you. Frightful days await, he seems to be saying.

We wonder, are the black helicopters of the one-world government far behind?

The other Mr. Rogers pushes on with his philosophy of no.

Take this passage from the mini-speech, excerpted from C-SPAN's Web site: "[The American people] know the Democrat majority proposes to cut costs by rationing care by deciding whether or not you get to go to the doctor, which doctor you get to go to; if you need a specialist, which specialist you need to go to, when you need to go; if you need surgery, when you get to go, if you get to go."

Come now, Mr. Hyde. Is that kind of misleading tactic really necessary? The truth, of course, is that we are still a long way from seeing any kind of bill emerge from Congress. No one, with the possible exception of very large donors from the health-care industry, have much of an idea of where this is going to come down.

The Mike Rogers we know wouldn't be muddying this issue. He would find the important points that legitimately need to be addressed; he would offer constructive criticism of plans offered by Democrats and he would offer some ideas of his own.

That's the guy we know.