Earlier I posted some thoughts on how progressives can win in Arkansas.  Now I’m posting something on WHY progressives HAVE to win.  Some of these videos have been on Blue Arkansas before, but they need to be shown again and again.

These are the people we’re fighting for. On the same day these people were standing in line for needed help, Blanche Lincoln was threatening to fillibuster the public option. Mike Ross had already done everything he could to derail reform, voting against the health care reform bill in the House after a lot of hard work trying to kill the public option. So much for conservative moral values and Jesus right?

These are the faces of the victims of an immoral and unworkable health care system that is leaving our economy to hemmorage. There are other faces out there-the farmer who’s way of earning a living is threatened by climate change that conservative Democrats and Republicans are ignoring; the gay teenager who strings himself up with a bed sheet because of homophobia that conservative Democrats and Republicans do nothing about or even encourage and take part in. To those that say conservatives are the only people that can win here, all I can say is this-not only are you wrong, you’re part of the problem. These people are the reason we’re fighting, they are the reason we will continue to fight, no matter what, and they are the reason we will win in the end, because the need is to great, the cause too important for us to fail.

(Credit goes to blogger nyceve for the videos.)

It’s been a long time since this was published, way back in 2005 when Democrats were trying to put themselves back together post 2004 disaster, but some of the talk in the comments got me thinking that it needed to be taken off the shelf, dusted off, and shared with people who hadn’t looked over it.

Now, I’m not David Sirota’s biggest fan by any stretch.  I think he has a lot of good ideas though, and his Democrats’ Da Vinci Code is probably his best.  To sum it up, Sirota basically lays out an alternative to the DLC and the Blue Dogs and the whole run to the right mentality, something that has never really gotten us anywhere.  What Sirota suggests, with ample evidence that it works, is for Democrats to focus on the economic issues of poor, working, and middle-class Americans, rather than the economic interests of corporations under the guise of centrism.  Sirota sums it up nicely:

Fight the Class War

If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, crying “class warfare” is the last refuge of wealthy elitists. Yet, inexplicably, this red herring emasculates Democrats in Washington. Every time pro–middle-class legislation is offered, Republicans berate it as class warfare. Worse, they get help from corporate factions within the Democratic Party itself.

But as countless examples show, progressives are making inroads into culturally conservative areas by talking about economic class. This is not the traditional (and often condescending) Democratic pandering about the need for a nanny government to provide for the masses. It is us-versus-them red meat, straight talk about how the system is working against ordinary Americans.

In Vermont, Representative Bernie Sanders, the House’s only independent and a self-described socialist, racks up big wins in the “Northeast Kingdom,” the rock-ribbed Republican region along the New Hampshire border. Far from the Birkenstock-wearing, liberal caricature of Vermont, the Kingdom is one of the most culturally conservative hotbeds in New England, the place that helped fuel the “Take Back Vermont” movement against gay civil unions.

Yet the pro-choice, pro–gay-rights Sanders’ economic stances help him bridge the cultural divide. In the 1990s, he was one of the most energetic opponents of the trade deals with China and Mexico that destroyed the local economy. In the Bush era, he highlighted the inequity of the White House’s soak-the-rich tax-cut plan by proposing to instead provide $300 tax-rebate checks to every man, woman, and child regardless of income (a version of Sanders’ rebate eventually became law). For his efforts, Sanders has been rewarded in GOP strongholds like Newport Town. While voters there backed George W. Bush and Republican Governor Jim Douglas in 2004, they also gave Sanders 68 percent of the vote.

Sanders’ strength among rural conservatives is not just a cult of personality; it is economic populism’s broader triumph over divisive social issues. In culturally conservative Derby, for instance, a first-time third-party candidate used a populist message to defeat a longtime Republican state representative who had become an icon of Vermont’s anti-gay movement.

The same message is working in conservative swaths of Oregon, where Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio keeps getting re-elected in a Bush district. For DeFazio, the focus is unfair trade deals and taxpayer giveaways to the wealthy. When Republicans promote plans to “save” Social Security, DeFazio counters not by agreeing with privatization but with his plan to force the wealthy to start paying more into the system.

The message is also used by Mississippi Congressman Gene Taylor, who represents a district that gave 65 percent of its vote to Bush in 2000 and was previously represented in the House by Trent Lott. Taylor bucks his district’s GOP tilt by mixing opposition to free trade with what the Almanac of American Politics calls “peppery populism” and a demeanor that is “feisty to the point of being belligerent.” “Unlike the policy hawks who never leave Washington … I know the owners of factories, the foreman, and the workers, and they’ll all tell you it’s because of NAFTA that their factories closed,” Taylor told newspapers in late 2003, criticizing the trade deal signed by President Bill Clinton.

This message contrasts with that of the DLC centrists, who promote, for instance, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh’s free-trade, Republican-lite positions as a model for winning in red states. What they don’t say is that Bayh comes from one of Indiana’s most beloved political families and wins largely by virtue of his last name, not his ideology. Where a corporate message like Bayh’s has been put to a real challenge, it has been a disaster. In Louisiana, for instance, the state’s tradition of electing Democratic populists like Huey and Russell Long gave way to centrist politicians like Senator John Breaux, a man best known in Washington for throwing Mardi Gras parties with business lobbyists. When a Breaux clone ran to replace the retiring senator, he was crushed by a moral crusading Republican.

In North Carolina, instead of following John Edwards’ class-based formula, Democrats anointed investment banker Erskine Bowles as the nominee to replace Edwards in 2004. At the time, party insiders brushed off concerns that, as a Clinton White House chief of staff, Bowles was an architect of the free-trade policy that helped eliminate North Carolina’s manufacturing jobs. But Bowles’ opponent, Representative Richard Burr, made the Democrat pay for his free-trade sellout. “You negotiated the China trade agreement for President Clinton, which is the largest exporter of jobs not just in North Carolina but in this country,” Burr said at one debate, robbing Bowles of an economic issue that might have offset North Carolinians’ inherent cultural suspicions of a Democrat. On election night, Bowles went down in flames.

As I said, it’s good stuff, and it’s something progressive Democrats can put to work here in Arkansas to be successful.  In fact, I’d argue that it’s the future of the Democratic party here.  As it stands, we seem to be looking into an abyss, and if conservatives continue on their route to push the party right, we’ll fall right into it (and they’ll of course blame us progressives in the process).

The best part is that the economic ideas that Sirota suggests Democrats should run on aren’t just good politically, they make good policy.  Fighting for small businesses against big corporations, protecting small farmers against big agribusiness, protecting the environment while appealing to sportsmen, going after white collar crime, making government honest and accountable, and using “the values prism” for something besides bigoted gay bashing would not only help us win here in the Natural State, when inacted as policy they would work to issue in change and renewal that are desperately needed.

The whole thing is worth a read, and it works as an effective counterargument to those that would suggest that only a right wing Democrat can win in states and districts like ours.

Now, as I’ve said in the past, I like Marion Berry.  I have no real problems with Marion Berry.  I’ve voted for Berry and supported him enthusiastically.  I don’t usually have much to complain about with him like I do Mike Ross.  But when someone is wrong they’re wrong, and I reserve the right to call them on it.

Take a gander at Berry’s interview with John Brummett.

There are a couple of lines I take particular contention with.  First, there’s this one-

What Berry related was that he and other Blue Dogs kept warning the White House that the big stimulus package enacted early last year wasn’t wise either as policy or politics unless it had offsetting spending reductions. These Blue Dogs kept sounding an alarm that this would be 1994 all over again, when Democrats lost their majorities in the mid-terms because Clinton had lurched left out of the presidential gate.

Basically, the Blue Dogs want to work towards balancing the budget and cutting spending in a recession…which is what Herbert Hoover tried…

According to Keynesian economics (which is the basis for economic practice in the United States), balancing budgets in recessions, especially severe ones like this one, is some bad juju.  Now that’s not to say we shouldn’t balance budgets-we should definately do so when we’re in better economic times like we were in the 90s.  Doing so now though would be a prescription for disaster.  That’s why so many progressives are worried about Obama’s proposed spending freeze right now-if it’s done when the economy is bad (and yes the President is waiting until 2011 to do it when, we hope, the economy will be better) then it will make a bad recession worse.

But what really gets me is this, and I don’t know whether this is really Berry’s thoughts or if Brummett is ad libing a bit here, but regardless it’s just plain stupid:

His compelling point is that the Blue Dogs were proven right — and by a state, Massachusetts, with nary a Blue Dog in sight.

They were right not only about holding the line on the deficit, but also about how health care reform could be done for less cost and in a simpler bill of 30 pages of so.

Berry himself has filed a bill in several congressional sessions to require that Medicare negotiate drug prices, permit prescription drug re-importation, let people over 55 buy into Medicare and protect pre-existing conditions from denial of coverage for those over 55 choosing to go into Medicare.

He’s wondering what would have been so wrong with going that route. He says optional Medicare at 55 at no expense to the government was popular until the mood got poisoned.

How the hell did Massachusetts prove that!?!?  Seriously, what exit poll has show that the Senate race there had ANYTHING to do with deficit spending?  If anything, that race proved that Democrats have a base problem and need to work to get their base out, that and avoid running crappy campaigns (like Blanche Lincoln is doing).  Seriously, dumbest thing said in Arkansas so far this year. I’m sure it will be topped though…

Secondly, isn’t it funny that Blue Dogs and other right wingers more or less shrug their shoulders at the idea of universal health care?  Sure expanding Medicare like Berry suggested is a great idea.  But you know what, there are plenty of people under 55 in desperate need of reform too.  I’m not willing to leave them to die for the sake of “fiscal responsibility”, especially since the Blue Dogs were never so keen on harping on that point when they were voting for the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq War funding bills that created this huge deficit in the first place and were far worse from a policy perspective and from a humanitarian perspective.

Oh, and you really can’t talk about how toxic the health care debate became without talking about conservative Democrats’ efforts to weaken the bill, namely killing the public option (a popular and effective part of the legislation).  Berry himself doesn’t deserve any blame for that, in fact I’ve said many times on here that he deserved praise for supporting the bill.  His cohorts are another story though.  Their foot dragging and mixed messaging on this bill have inflicted deep wounds on the Demcratic party, and these damn liars and hypocrites are happy to point their fingers at progressives and rush to lecture us that we need to just go along and accept things we don’t like or the party will lose.  Physician…heal thyself.  Seriously.  Oh, and shut the hell up while you’re at it.

Democratic state Senator Randy Laverty (Jasper) is considering running for the third district U.S. congressional seat if Rep. John Boozman does not run.

ArkansasBlog

Reached on another matter Friday morning, Laverty, 56, said he would know closer to the March 1 filing date. He said he would not run if Boozman changed his mind about challenging U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

But when Boozman began considering his run for U.S. Senate, Laverty said he started getting phone calls urging him to run for Boozman’s seat. “I intend to win,” he said, but if he doesn’t he still has three years left on his last term in the state Senate.

While Laverty may be a good candidate, the idea that he will only run if Boozman is out rubs me the wrong way. Boozman is the Republican and Laverty is a Democrat. Why would Laverty only run if Boozman does not? Is the district not worth Democratic attention unless there is no Republican incumbent? I don’t think so. I think we should be fighting for the third district seat every two years. You cannot build a party base in an area if you aren’t building it year round every year. Trying to win a seat once every 20 years will lead to an impossible hill to climb. While I certainly see the political realities of the red leaning district, you never know what a good candidate and a good campaign can do. Just look at what happened in MA last week. This is why Howard Dean’s (former DNC Chairman) 50 state strategy was so effective in 2006 and 2008; you fight every race and the Republicans have to fight for every one too.

Anyway, while ArkansasBlog made an honorable mention of David Whitaker, very little was included about how this would affect his candidacy. Would Laverty attempt to primary Whitaker? That would certainly be interesting since Whitaker comes from Democrat rich Fayetteville.

Update:
Giving his voting record a look over, I found one vote I disagree with. He voted for SB 959 which passed the Senate and outlawed homosexual adoption or adoption by heterosexuals who cohabitate and are not married. There were several Democrats who voted no and a lot who did not vote on this bill at all. It passed with a 20-7 vote despite there being many more than 27 senators. Of course, this passed in Arkansas with a relatively small majority as a ballot measure in 2008.

My sister-in-law was just chosen to be the addoptive parent with her wife of three young boys in Texas. They are actually legally married in Mexico, despite homosexuality being viewed more harshly in their culture. Anyway, one thing I wonder is if my wife would not be able to leave our daughter to her sister if something happened to us because she is gay. I don’t think that is right.

Vic Snyder’s Former Cheif of Staff, David Bowling is in the second district race.

PBCommercial

David Boling, Arkansas Democratic Rep. Vic Snyder’s former chief of staff, announced Friday that he is running for the congressional seat that Snyder is vacating.

Boling said he will seek the Democratic nomination for the 2nd District in central Arkansas. Earlier in the day, Boling had announced he was stepping down from Snyder’s staff. He has served as Snyder’s chief of staff since 2007.

Boling is the third Democrat to join the House race since Snyder announced earlier this month he would not seek re-election. House Speaker Robbie Wills and state Sen. Joyce Elliott of Little Rock have said they’re running for Snyder’s seat.

He declined to say why he is running, but plans to formally announce next week when we will likely get a better picture of what he intends to do as a congressman.

Joanna Pollock has called a protest against Blanche Lincoln’s support of the Murkowski Resolution by posting an event on Facebook. About 900 people have been invited so far. It is likely that the event will remain a small protest given the snow that is covering Northwest Arkansas this weekend (we have had at least 3-4 inches so far here in Lincoln).

They will be protesting Blanche Lincoln’s wishes to disallow the government from being able to regulate greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide.

Not JUST a good old fashioned PROTEST
Senator Blanche Lincoln-1 of 3 Democratic senators to back this GOP Murkowski Resolution!

Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Time: 1:00pm – 3:00pm
Location: 4 South College, Fayetteville

Senator Blanche Lincoln has disappointed and mortified us with her decision to cosponsor a resolution stripping OUR Environmental Protection Agency of the authority to regulate carbon dioxide! This is a gas that the EPA has determined is an endangerment to our health and safety under The Clean Air Act. Of course a pro-fossil fuel Senator like Murkowski from Alaska would create such a resolution because she clearly represents the interests of the oil, gas and coal industries. BUT our own Senator of Arkansas, as ONE of only THREE Democratic Senators, from the entire nation to cosponsor this resolution. This is really a crying shame that is an embarrassment to ARKANSAS! Are you disgusted and outraged? Let’s make this protest unique. Some ideas have been crime scene tape, personal letters, delivering climate change books to her door, puppets, we need visuals…we need PRESS COVERAGE. Bring your peaceful and creative ideas to the PROTEST from your heart!

They emphasize that Blanche Lincoln is only one of three Democratic Senators to support the bill. It will be interesting to see how this protest turns out. I will be attending, provided I can go during my lunch hour, to see and report what goes on.

 Some clear differences are on display in the Democratic primay in AR-02.

Wills, the Arkansas House Speaker, told reporters he was concerned about the cost of the proposed health overhaul to the state’s Medicaid budget.

“I would not have voted for it because I’m an ‘Arkansas first’ guy and I think any bill Congress puts out, the first thing it should do is no harm,” Wills said. “That bill is going to add $300 million or so to our Medicaid budget, and we have no idea how we’re going to pay for it.”

 Okay, IF the 300 million claim is true, I can see Wills point…IF IT IS TRUE.  I’m currently working on fact checking that figure and trust me, if it’s false, I plan on busting him big time.  For what it’s worth, the Governor’s office offers a lower figure for state medicaid costs:

Gov. Mike Beebe’s office has said the health care overhaul approved by Congress would add $200 million a year to the state’s Medicaid budget starting in 2017.

So at the very least, the Governor’s office is either off 100 million or, more likely, Wills decided to exaggerate.  Again, I’m looking into it, and I plan on busting him big if there’s even an ounce of falsehood in this.

However, there is an upside to all this.  Joyce Elliott seems to be offering voters in AR-02 a clear choice in the primary.

Wills’ only announced Democratic rival, state Sen. Joyce Elliott of Little Rock, said Thursday that she would have leaned toward supporting the health care bill.

“I would have done everything I would have to find a way to vote for something that was going to be helpful to this country,” Elliott said.

 You know, in the end that’s all we can ask, and I think that’s a great way of explaining it to voters…especially the primary electorate.  I’m not endorsing yet, but between the two of them, I have to say I’m finding myself preferring Elliott to Wills.

I was really hoping that my next post would be a positive one. Unfortunately, Blanche Lincoln has made that impossible by calling the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) an “extremist” group.

The LCV named Blanche Lincoln as one of their “Dirty Dozen” who are not standing up for the environment in Washington.

Politico

LCV gave the moderate Democrat a lifetime score of 49 percent on environmental issues, the second lowest for any Democrat up for reelection this year.

“Most regrettable is the fact that Sen. Lincoln is walking away from her previous support for climate legislation — and given the scope, urgency and magnitude of this issue, she has more than earned a spot on LCV’s Dirty Dozen,” said Gene Karpinski, LCV president.

Blanche Lincoln used this as an opportunity to move further to the right and attack liberals and environmentalists as outside special interests.

The Hill

A “dirty dozen” designation may be a good thing for Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), a Democrat facing a tough re-election in a conservative state. She gets to defend herself against attacks by a “Washington-based,” “liberal,” and “extremist” “special interest.”

In a five-paragraph response, the Lincoln campaign managed to slip in all those political pejoratives in reference to the League of Conservation Voters, which was responsible for the dirty dozen tag. The campaign reassured voters that “threats” from a “special interest” wouldn’t keep Lincoln from being a “strong and independent voice” for her state.

…

“Threats from extremist groups from outside our state tell me I’m doing something right for Arkansas.”

John Brummett questions if this is really smart politics. We can see first hand that she has abandoned her base on issue after issue.

ArkansasNews

The question is whether the rules aren’t so simple this time in Arkansas politics. It is whether the unpopularity of her party’s president and the widespread resistance to the health care reform initiative — and her own exasperatingly evasive style — have so eroded her support elsewhere that the farm and business communities can’t sustain her as she trades away the fervent backing of her party’s liberal base with its quotient of environmental activists.

Arkansas Democrats may have gone along with her in the past given that these anti-liberal statements and actions were only occasional annoyances in the past. However, they are a daily occurrence at this point. Her support among Democrats is so low right now that she faces a massive uphill climb just to get out of a primary (if a certain Democrat would get in the race), let alone the general election. As unpopular as Barack Obama may be in Arkansas, this does not explain her numbers at all. Mark Pryor is not anywhere near her low approval ratings. Democratic Governor Beebe is soaring in popularity with over 80% approval. This isn’t about an anti-Democrat feeling in general. It is about Blanche Lincoln.

PS – I promise I will get to that positive post soon.

Senator Thompson e-mailed me today to say he’s decided not to run for Congress, explaining that his three young kids come first-something I think we can all understand and agree with.

That said, he was my favorite candidate to hold the seat, but I’m sure there are plenty of others worth examining.  And I don’t think this is the last we’ll hear from Senator Thompson-he’s definitely a rising star in the party and one progressives should keep their eye on.  And I’ve invited him to visit us here on Blue Arkansas, an invitation I hope he accepts and puts to good use.

This one isn’t quite the hell no that Bob Johnson is in AR-02, but I’m still less than thrilled with the idea of former state senator Tim Wooldridge being my Congressman.  There are a lot of reasons for this.  I’ve met Senator Wooldridge twice back when he was running for Lt. Gov-he didn’t impress me.  He came off as wooden, phony even.  And then there’s his record and his issue positions…

Wooldridge is, by all accounts, a Republican wearing a Democrat’s clothes.  He’s conservative across the board, and I really can’t think of an issue I agree with him on.  Worse, he embarrassed himself in the past by introducing a bill that would have brought back public hangings.  Wooldridge said he regretted doing so and wouldn’t do it again, and if memory serves he said he was trying to make some kind of point.  Regardless, it was stupid and distasteful, and African Americans in this district were, shall we say, less than thrilled.

Add to that his attacks on Bill Halter from the right during the primary and there’s just no way I can stomach the guy.  Personally, Paragould’s new state senator, Robert Thompson, looks like a drastic improvement for that district, and frankly, he’d be a drastic improvement over Wooldridge for Congress.

On balance though, I guess I should say that Wooldridge ran strong here in the ‘06 primary….but there are plenty of other candidates, better Democrats included, who I think could do the same.

Didn’t catch the SOTU last night due to my work load, but I recorded it and watched it tonight.

This was one of Obama’s better speeches, and we all know that’s saying a lot.  It’s nice to have someone in the system who is happy to just say it like it is, no spin, no matter who it upsets, but still manages to do so with grace while appealing to what Lincoln called “our better angels”.  I think he set the stage for the Democrats to turn things around this year, but only if he leads and can keep a majority of Dems in line.

There were a ton of high points in the speech, everything from jobs, to light rail, to DADT, to health care, to calling out the Supreme Court with Alito sneering in the process.  He put my fears of the budget “freeze” to rest for the most part, but I could do without the calls on nuclear energy, off shore drilling, and so called clean coal.

Two things I noticed.

One, Ruth Bader Ginsburg looks horribly frail these days, more so than usual.  Sadly, it’s becoming clear that we may not have her with us too much longer.

Secondly, and this is a big thing, Roby is not as politically astute as myself and a lot of others I associate with, and watching his reaction I think provided a window into what the man or woman on the street was seeing.  Let me tell you, the Republicans did themselves no favor sitting on their butts scowling the whole time, and Bob McDonnell fell flat.

I feel good after this one.  Time to punch our way off the ropes!

UPDATE: Planned to add this in last night but forgot.  MSNBC should really fire this guy…

Huh.

Barring a last-minute change of heart, Rep. John Boozman (R) appears set to jump into Arkansas’ Senate race in the coming days.

Sources on Capitol Hill said Wednesday that Boozman, the lone GOP Member of the state’s Congressional delegation, has made it clear that he intends to challenge Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) in November. Boozman already has much of his Senate campaign team in place, and the announcement is expected to take place in Arkansas before the weekend is out.

More on this as it develops.

In a recent post (AR-Sen: Blanche Lincoln Vows to Oppose Passing Health Care Reform Fixes) I described how Blanche Lincoln opposes using reconciliation to pass fixes to the health care bill. This basically means that she opposes passing the health care bill altogether as it is the only way it will pass now.

The Hill

“If the House chooses not to pass the Senate bill as is, then I will work with my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to identify the basic reforms that we can agree on,” she said. “I hope that our efforts going forward will be truly bipartisan, because the high-pitched, partisan tone in Washington is not creating jobs, nor is it solving the health care challenges facing every American, whether it be cost or access.”

Lincoln claims that this stance is due to some commitment to bipartisanship. However, it seems she is only against reconciliation when it doesn’t benefit the rich and big corporations. Lincoln voted for and supported the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in 2001 which only passed because the Republicans used the reconciliation process. It only garnered 53 votes, not enough to withstand a filibuster. Those tax cuts are still in place today and will expire at the end of this year. However, some have been pushing to extend the tax cuts further, despite the record deficit and the fact that the tax cut only benefits the rich. When reconciliation is used merely to fix a damaged bill that would help average Americans and those least among us, it is just not acceptable.

This helps explain my post from earlier today as well (AR-Sen: Donations to Lincoln Average $1,300 per Person). Tax cuts for the wealthy and increase the deficit – pass by any means… Health care for everyone and decrease the deficit – no way, no how…

The Democratic Party of Arkansas sent out an email today listing the activity in the state. They included information on Dustin McDaniel, Marion Berry, and Blanche Lincoln. What caught my eye was a description of her fourth quarter donations. It says that she raised 1.3 million dollars in the quarter from over 1000 donors.

In other news this week, U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln announced that her campaign raised more than $1.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2009. The contributions were spread among over 1,000 donors.

Without knowing exactly how many donors there were, using a description of 1000 donors and dividing 1.3 million, you get $1,300 per donor. Keep in mind that the maximum individual donation is $2,300. That means that a huge portion of her total is due to those maximum donations. Just who can afford to give that much money? (~~Special Interests~~) For comparative purposes, the donations to Barack Obama in 2008 were under $100 on average.

So, in a state like Arkansas, with so many poor and lower income people, who can afford to give that much money? It isn’t the little people.

Could a rather appealing candidate be emerging in AR-01?  Right now I’m taking a very serious look at State Senator Robert Thompson from Paragould, who’s said to be considering the race.

Now for those of you not in Northeast Arkansas, it might be a little surprising how fast things travel by word of mouth here.  I found out about Senator Thompson from a friend of mine, and the more I investigate the more I like.

For instance, Senator Thompson has done some serious work on domestic issues that are popular with progressives.  He’s worked to create a drug court in his district for instance, and he’s been an advocate for bio fuels.  By all accounts, he’s one of the most effective state legislators in Arkansas, and everyone I’ve talked to about him has been impressed.

Now I still have some concerns.  I have no idea where he stands on health care, cap and trade, or EFCA, much less on social issues.  He’s from Paragould, which isn’t exactly a liberal bastion.  Still, he sounds like a drastic improvement over Paragould’s former senator Tim Wooldridge and like he’d stand head and shoulders above the rest of the crop.