Both Causey and Wooldridge are now up on tv:

Those are both good ads, though I’m not sure they change the dynamic of the race much, other than increasing Causey’s name recognition and reminding people that Wooldridge is running.

Also, the fundraising reports are coming in:

Bryles: 54,125
Causey: 270,378
Cook: 30,559
Wooldridge: 240,063

Still waiting on Green and Ponder. In an ominous sign, Rick Crawford is going to be loaded for the general, raking in just over 300,000.

It looks like we’ll have an announcement on Blue Arkansas’ role in this race later this afternoon. Stay tuned.

Just checked my inbox and found press releases from the Ponder and Kennedy campaigns.

Ponder did a lot better than I expected, raising $25,000.  While that’s not much compared to the Causey and Wooldridge campaigns, in such a crowded race it could help him get places if he spends it wisely.  I’m convinced that this race is going to be decided by a particular region of the district-namely the area stretching south of Wynne to north of Cabot.  Whoever invests the most in that area, the “black belt” of the district, will pull this off.

Down in AR-02, Patrick Kennedy didn’t do so well, raising just over $5,000.  But at least he’s got a sense of humor about it:

After my take on his answer to health care reform question last week, I am a little surprised that Ben Ponder (who I’ve gotten to know pretty well over the course of this campaign) is still on speaking terms with me. But Ben’s a good guy, policy based criticism aside, and he got right with me to talk about my concerns. I think he was a little stung by the criticism-as I said, we’ve gotten to know each other a bit of late and to that point I’d become a very vocal supporter-but he rose to the occasion and, rather than sweeping it under the rug and trying to run from it, took the health care issue head on in a series of video conversations.

Now, normally I’d post these right to the page. However, these are proving a little large for Blue Arkansas’ format, and rather than leave jsamuel with eight videos to resize I think it’s best that I just link to Ben’s youtube channel where you can watch the health care videos and more.

Ben went a long way towards reassuring me with these videos. He stuck up for a lot of the good elements in Obama’s health care reform, namely the ban on preexisting conditions. He also struck down the notion of repealing the bill as unrealistic. He also explained his previous statement on not being able to vote for the Senate bill as it was, pointing out that he had not been in Congress to work on the bill and had he been so he would have worked to make it the best bill possible.

From there, he criticized the individual mandate for making us all essentially captives of the insurance industry. He’s right about that. However, his solution to the problem isn’t a public option, but to make health insurance companies into non-profit cooperatives. I think that’s a pretty good idea, though if he can’t get that I hope he’ll come around to a public option or Medicare buy in. Hell, Ben’s young. If he ends up in Congress for a long time he could well have a chance to vote on single payer before all is said and done with. So I hope he’ll be open to other good ideas.

He really shined when discussing preventive care. That’s something everyone talks about, but Ben knew the ins and outs of the matter, explaining in detail what those two little words meant.

Now, try as I might, I cannot see eye to eye with Ben on the issue of ownership as he puts it. That’s just a personal thing. Nor an I get on the same page with him on tort reform. But none the less, he’s gone a long way towards addressing my biggest concerns on this issue.

One last thing I want to point out. If there was ever a sign that Blue Arkansas is beginning to have an effect on the discourse in our state’s politics then this is it. Ben saw the post himself and worked to respond in person. Whatever your views on his health care proposals or any other policy, you have to admit that that’s commendable. It’s also a sign that at least some politicians and candidates are paying attention to us and realizing that they now have to deal with both the left and the right in Arkansas politics. As time goes on and Blue Arkansas matures, more of them are going to sit up and take notice. Mark my words.

It really pains me to have to post this video.

Now, it’s no secret that I’ve really warmed to Ben Ponder these last few weeks.  He impressed me.  He still does in many ways.  We were beginning, here at Blue Arkansas, to discuss making an endorsement.  But this is just too big an issue to just say we simply disagree and while I can’t speak for the rest of the Blue Arkansas frontpagers, I think I know them well enough to know this is as much a deal killer with them as it is with me.  This is, frankly, a disappointment that can’t be shaken.

Let’s go through it, piece by piece.

First, it’s important to note that this video was taken before the health care reform vote.  The first thing out of Ben’s mouth is a little joke about how there would be a vote, “or not vote”, on that Sunday.  First, we all know there was a vote, and we, along with the folks at Talking Points Memo, have hashed all this out and how it was done.  Here, Ben was spreading misinformation on how Congress was going to proceed at a time when that was THE LAST THING Democrats needed.  Now, that could be just an honest mistake.  I could accept that explanation.  But to then say he was against Reconciliation to pass the bill, or, in reality, the bill’s fixer upper, when we literally had NO OTHER OPTIONS, that’s bad form.  A lot was riding on that vote-including the election here in AR-01.  Had health care reform died in Congress, there’d have been a lot of Democratic voters deciding that there was no reason to turn out to vote…yes even in Arkansas.  Besides that, after all we went through with this and all the fighting we’ve done against Blanche Lincoln, Marion Berry, and Mike Ross, I’m not interested in supporting someone who’s vote would have gone right along with them, regardless of the reasoning behind it.

Now, the most maddening thing about this whole video is that Ben makes clear that to a great extent he understands the problem.  He says himself there’s no excuse for us not to have the best health care system in the world and acknowledges that we don’t have that, but from there it kind of falls apart.  Now let me be clear.  I love his idea for making all health insurance companies work as non-profit cooperatives.  It’s a great idea and one that would work as a great fixer upper to the system going into place under the new law.  What’s more, he is absolutely 100% right about the negative aspects of the insurance mandate when he talks about how it’s going to make us all part of a captive market.  But then he strikes out.  First he knocks single-payer (nationalization as he refers to it) and then, in the same breath, says he’s against a public option/medicare expansion, without laying out any reasons why.  We’ve been over this time and time again here, most notably in my interview with Wendell Potter, and the public option is the best way to insure competition in the current system.  Now, to be fair, Ponder’s proposal on shifting to a non profit model for insurance companies might be an excellent substitute.  But there’s no guarantee he’ll get that, and I want assurances that he won’t make what he sees as the perfect the enemy of the good.

The points Ben makes about preventive care and improving face time with primary care physicians are spot on.  And I’m not opposed to health savings accounts if they’re part of a broader package.  But the way he talks about encouraging ownership of health (which I’ve heard him say before, but never quite like this) and people using the emergency room for primary care sounds almost callous.  These folks haven’t been lolly gagging into ER’s because they don’t take their health or the cost of health care seriously.  They’ve been having to do that because they couldn’t afford to do it any other way or get the insurance that would enable them to actually take care of their health care needs before they had to go to an emergency room, all of which is addressed by the law that Ponder says he would have opposed, the law he says we asked the wrong questions to reach.  The whole illogical circle is just plain maddening.  And speaking as someone who, out of college, had no insurance (still don’t) and had to pay bills from two ER trips when I should have gone to a clinic if I could have…trust me, no one else pays.  It took me a long time to pay those bills off so that they wouldn’t hurt my credit, and that was after I finally found a job and after a lot of nail biting over what my financial future held.

It’s always the person you like to ends up disappointing you the most.  This isn’t just another issue.  This is THE issue that spawned Blue Arkansas back when I was so frustrated over the actions of Blanche Lincoln and Mike Ross on health care reform.  This is the issue that we lobbied Congress over, that we worked to primary a U.S. Senator over, that we fought so hard for, that we got emotionally invested in as we digested the stories of the people whose very lives were hanging in the balance.  There is no way we, or at least I, can look the other way on this and agree to disagree, even when we were so, so close to getting in behind Ponder full force.  The worst thing about it is that Ben has excellent positions on education, the economy, and campaign finance reform, and is at least tolerant towards LGBT people enough that his other social conservative positions become tolerable.  But this is the big one, and none of us can rightly harp on Lincoln, Ross, Berry, Wills, and Causey while hyping someone who’s position is essentially the same for different reasons.

So what do we do now?  I don’t know.  I personally am wondering if David Cook is worth looking into.  I could still buckled down and vote for Ben-I do like the guy a lot and he does still impress me, but after this it will be a hard, bitter pill to swallow unless he can somehow mend the fence on this one.  An endorsement is out of the question now at this stage.  It’s a shame, Ponder was surging up to this point, mostly I think due to progressives disenchanted with Chad Causey, and both jsamuel and I were praising him for his leadership on the debates.  This, unless he can pull off some sort of miracle, breaks that momentum.

Between this and Obama’s offshore drilling announcement and the administration’s move away from cap and trade, this has been a disappointing day in a lot of ways.

Oh, and one last thing.  About that tort reform-if a doctor operates on me and leaves a sponge in my kidney, I want to see him filing for bankruptcy afterwards.  That’s all I’ll say on that.

Update: It didn’t take long for Ben to get back with me directly with an email. We had a little chat about health care and he says he plans to do a broader speech discussing the issue. I’m hoping he’ll at least express a willingness to support a public option if he can’t get his cooperatives proposal (which I again have to say that I like) passed. If he’s willing to recognize the good parts of the new law, express some openness on how to make it better, and doesn’t sign on to any repeal effort, I think I’d be willing to try to break bread over that.

The Ben Ponder campaign has got some videos up.

I like both of those videos. The first one is more of Ben’s high minded talk, which is great, but I think he needs to narrow it down a bit into specific issues. In the one on agriculture, he lays out a great argument for support for small farmers, which is much needed, though hopefully he’ll be willing to differentiate between small farmers and big agribusiness in the future.

So far I have had nothing but good things to say about Ben. I have another video I found though that has left a sour taste in my mouth. I don’t have time to post it now, but I will shortly, with commentary.

Ponder comes clean. His crime? Leadership and accountability to the people of AR-01:

MESASGE FROM BEN PONDER

Because of the timing of Congressman Berry’s retirement announcement,
this is an extremely compressed primary campaign schedule. Everything
moves very fast. Unfortunately, there is no independent “Commission on
Congressional Debates” to serve as an intermediary between the
campaigns. The media organizations, which normally would set up the
debates, are hampered by a lack of time and resources and the
challenge of coordination between six hectic campaigns. This is the
“state of the debates” for the Democrats in District 1:

In mid-February, I conferred with Chad Causey, and we agreed that it
would be a good idea to debate the issues in a series of public
forums. On March 9, the Causey campaign issued a press release calling
for a series of three debates before the May 18 primary election. In
that release, he called for “an open and honest discussion about the
issues facing Arkansans.” A flurry of emails to the press ensued. But
then two weeks passed without communication between the campaigns. My
campaign manager then spoke with Chad’s campaign manager, and it
became evident that little progress had been made toward scheduling
the debates—primarily because of a lack of responsiveness from the
other campaigns. It became clear to me that unless one of the
candidates took on this issue personally that the primary would come
and go without Arkansas voters getting the chance to hear the
Democratic Congressional candidates’ views and positions on the
issues.

I took on that challenge—in the midst of conducting a busy campaign
myself—because political debates are fundamental to the process of
free and fair elections upon which our democracy is established. We
are not running for Senior Class President where the election is a
referendum on our popularity or coolness. We are running for the
United States Congress. After the general election in November,
Arkansas’ First District will send a new congressman to Washington,
someone who has never before served in that office. We are all
unproven in that regard. Our new congressman will not be judged on his
or her ability to shake hands and smile for cameras. Our next
congressman will be judged on his or her ability to grasp and
articulate the urgent issues affecting our nation and to work
effectively for positive change on behalf of constituents in Arkansas’
First District. How will voters know which of the candidates will do
that most forcefully without our debating the issues and answering
hard questions during the primary? And let me stress: candidate “meet
and greets,” though valuable, are no substitute for substantive
debates.

I have personally spoken with a representative of each campaign and
most of the candidates themselves on multiple occasions as I’ve worked
to set a framework for the debates. We were originally trying to
schedule the first debate as early as this week, but we switched the
date when it became clear that multiple candidates had a conflict. We
were unaware of any potential conflicts with the Bryles and Wooldridge
campaigns because we never received word back from them—phone calls
were not returned and emails were not replied to.

I am serving the voters of the First District and also my fellow
candidates by facilitating the scheduling of these debates. The
insinuation that I have somehow commandeered the campaign schedule is
both inaccurate and disingenuous. I have worked closely and
collaboratively with each of the campaigns to the extent that they
would reciprocate. I have personally coordinated with the Baxter
County Democrats, ASU Mountain Home, KTLO, the Baxter Bulletin, the
Jonesboro Sun, the ASU Jonesboro Political Science Department, the
Young Democrats of Arkansas, the Lonoke Leadership Class, and with our
peer campaigns. I have sent out a general framework for the debates to
the other campaigns for their ideas, feedback, and assistance in
coordination.

With regard to the first debate in Mountain Home, I received advance
commitments from ASU Mountain Home, the Baxter County Democrats, KTLO,
and the Baxter Bulletin that they would serve as hosts or sponsors.
Each organization was thrilled to participate. The press release from
my campaign was designed to assist those organizations with getting
the word out, not to commit them to anything new or different. I
apologize for the inadvertent early timing of the release from our
campaign and if the prose regarding the debate was unclear. We did not
intend to imply that the candidates had committed formally to the
debate but rather that the debate was geared specifically for the
Democratic field (an issue that had arisen in the planning of other
debates). I have coordinated with each of the campaigns and had
received word from the Causey, Cook, and Green campaigns that they
were eager to participate in this first debate. Our campaign (as did
others) committed early on to proceeding with any debate if we had
four candidates able to attend.

With that said, I have communicated with each of the campaigns and
have offered to reschedule the Mountain Home debate to ensure that all
six candidates are able to attend. Our campaigns are currently working
to coordinate the dates of the debates (including the one in Baxter
County) to guarantee maximum participation. When that date is set, the
host organizations and/or media sponsors will issue formal invitations
and a press release.

We’ve gotten the ball rolling with this first debate in Mountain Home,
and we welcome the involvement of the other campaigns in coordinating
the details of subsequent debates. Currently, I know that debates in
Jonesboro, Lonoke, and West Memphis are in the works. Because the
campaigns were not initially involved in the scheduling of the
debates, there quickly arose a conflict between the Jonesboro and
Lonoke debates. I have personally worked to resolve this conflict so
that both debates can proceed. I have also reached out to my fellow
candidates and encouraged them to set up a debate with media coverage
in their respective parts of the district. Anders Reynolds from the
Causey campaign has graciously agreed to coordinate a debate in
eastern Arkansas tentatively scheduled for April 29. In the event that
other debates are scheduled in Blytheville, Paragould, Williford, or
anywhere else, I will make every effort to adjust my campaign calendar
in order to attend. If I cannot attend personally, I will make sure to
send a trusted representative of my campaign to participate in my
stead.

That’s where we are as of March 31. In the event that we cannot get
100% participation in future debates because of scheduling conflicts,
I hope that any candidates who are unable to attend will value the
process and the voters enough to send a representative to the debate.
Whether in Mountain Home or in any other part of the district, our
campaign is eager to engage in a frank discussion about the values,
ideas, and solutions that will best represent Arkansans in Washington.

No outside party is going to organize a debate and herd these clowns into it. Ponder took leadership in trying to get this together, and while he may not have done the best job at it, particularly in counting his chickens before they had hatched, it’s Wooldridge and Bryles that are looking the worst from all this.

Ben Ponder obviously thinks of politics in a higher fashion than we’re used to in this district. He could have just run his campaign and avoided saying anything on the issues like most everyone else in Arkansas politics, but instead he tried to organize a debate. And while that high mindedness sometimes translates into him talking a little too much when he should be more blunt, as seen above, it is refreshing to see someone trying to lead and encourage accountability to the public in this race.

Thanks to commenter hxs01 for pointing this out.

Arkansas Blog

FROM BEN PONDER

We have strong commitments from Causey, Cook, Green, and myself.
That’s officially a quorum. I’m still working on Wooldridge and
Bryles. I will talk with both again sometime this afternoon. The
debate will happen. I hope both choose to participate.

As you know, it’s herding cats to get six campaigns to agree to
anything. We’re trying to get four debates set: Mountain Home,
Jonesboro, Lonoke, and West Memphis. Lots of moving parts, but I’m
working hard on it–personally–because I think it’s imperative that
we talk seriously about the issues facing our country right now.
There’s too much at stake in this election to evade the issues upon
which history will judge us.

So basically, what seems to be going on here is that we have Ponder being a leader in getting a debate going. He has sent invitations to all candidates and gotten strong commitments from enough candidates to hold the debate. Two candidates appear to be attempting to avoid this debate, Tim Wooldridge and Steve Bryles.

So it looks like Ponder did the right thing in getting an official debate going and the attacks on him are really just attempts to get out of the debate. Apparently, Bryles’ campaign tried to use some sly language to suggest he was never invited by slipping the word “official” in front of invitation.

Arkansas Blog – Bill Paschal (for Steve Bryles)

As of this morning my friend and client, Steve Bryles, has not received an official invitation to debate from ASU-Mt. Home or KTLO radio… Bryles will not be able to participate in the Mt. Home debate on the date picked by Ponder. He has a long standing event planned that evening in a far corner of the district…

As far as Steve Bryles’ pressing prior engagement is concerned… I don’t think anything is more pressing than a debate. Can’t it be rescheduled? Who is more important, a select group of individuals or the entire district getting to see you on television debating your peers? I think the answer to that is pretty easy. Although, I would like to know just what event is already scheduled. To his credit, Paschal did say that Bryles will debate at some point in the future.

Update:
Reminder that the debate is set for Tuesday, April 6th.

Some of the other candidate’s are balking at the word, spread by the Ponder campaign, that the first debate had been settled on.

Democratic candidate Ben Ponder distributed a news release last night about a Mountain Home debate among 1st District candidates. This drew a retort from a representative of Tim Wooldridge, questioning whether this was an agreed event, as the news release suggested, or an effort to maneuver other candidates into a debate.

I asked Ponder this morning whether there is a scheduled debate to which all candidates have agreed. I received a response that did not answer that question.

I got the following response from Bill Paschal, a consultant for Steve Bryles. Sounds like the debate was oversold in the Ponder release.

As of this morning my friend and client, Steve Bryles, has not received an official invitation to debate from ASU-Mt. Home or KTLO radio. From what we know, the Mt. Home debate is a product of Ben Ponder. While I applaud Ponder for taking the initiative to bring debate to the campaign, I also chastise him for creating a perception that the debate has been agreed to by all the candidates. Bryles will not be able to participate in the Mt. Home debate on the date picked by Ponder. He has a long standing event planned that evening in a far corner of the district. I have counseled Bryles to be pro-active in his scheduling not reactive. Too often candidates lose control of their campaigns by attending every event that he/she is invited to. To win on May 18, Bryles must execute his strategic plan. He will debate the other candidates in the race. I have been swapping calls with the Causey camp. I will work with them and the other campaigns to identify a date, place, time and format that is agreeable to all candidates. I’ll keep you posted.

Odd stuff. Ponder needs to come out and explain this one, but I hardly think it’s all that scandalous. Any one of those other candidates want to try out that “He tried to make us debate!” line? I don’t see that as much of a winner.

The first debate is set to take place in Mountain Home, according to this press release from the Ponder campaign:

MOUNTAIN HOME–The Baxter County Democrats and Arkansas State University-Mountain Home, in cooperation with KTLO Radio and the Baxter Bulletin, have announced a debate for the Democratic candidates in Arkansas’ First District congressional race. The debate is scheduled for Tuesday, April 6, from 7:00-8:00pm in the McMullin Lecture Hall on the campus of Arkansas State University, Mountain Home.

Bob Knight of KTLO Radio will moderate the debate between candidates Steve Bryles, Chad Causey, David Cook, Terry Green, Ben Ponder, and Tim Wooldridge. The debate will focus on the topics of healthcare, the economy, and foreign policy. Each candidate will be allowed to make a one minute opening statement and a two minute closing statement. Each candidate will also be asked to respond to three questions related to the debate’s topics and formulated by the editorial staffs of KTLO and the Baxter Bulletin. Candidate answers to those questions will be limited to about one minute each.

Admission is free and seating is available on a first come, first seated basis with a few seats being reserved for each candidate’s representatives or family. The debate will be broadcast by KTLO and covered in the Baxter Bulletin’s print and online editions.

Mountain Home, which has never before produced a congressional candidate, boasts two candidates in the Democratic primary, Green and Ponder. According to Ponder, the debate provides voters in North Central Arkansas with an unprecedented opportunity to participate in the electoral process. He added, “Debates are so important in tumultuous times like these. We need to get our ideas and solutions out on the table to make sure that we’re electing the right people to represent us in Washington.”

In other news, Marion Berry endorsed Chad Causey.  Gee, who saw that coming?

Ben Ponder is on a roll of late.  This weekend he got a great write up from John Brummett, which will give him plenty of publicity.  Brummett seems to see all the things I see in Ben, and (while typically a bit cynical on his chances), definitely thinks he’s worth a look.  That write up will help Ponder big time at closing some of the ground between himself and the bigger name candidates.

Before that, Ben gave a speech on faith and values in Mountain Home.  Here’s the first clip, and you can catch the rest on his video page or read the transcript on his site.

Now, first let me say here that I’m not exactly thrilled with his points on abortion.  I expected such a position on marriage equality, but I am pleased that he did the right thing and took a stand against prejudice and discrimination towards LGBT people in other areas.  But I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I understand being socially conservative in Arkansas.  It’s everything else that I can’t understand putting a rightward tilt on.  That said, taken in the full context of Ben’s positions, this speech gives us a good view of his positions, and while Ben probably wouldn’t like the way I’m about to say this he appears to be a moderate Democrat with social positions that are fairly conservative and positions on other issues that tend to be more progressive.  The combination, I think, makes him a good fit for the district.

Lastly, there’s the position he put out on his Facebook page today:

What if we forgave 100% of the student loan debt for young teachers if they 1) finished in the top 20% of their college graduating class and 2) commit to teach in public schools for 10 years? Would that help us attract and retain our best and brightest to inspire our kids in the classroom? Would it cause you to consider the high calling of education for your career?

That, among other thoughtful positions, is why I really like this guy.

Update: Want to make it clear that this is NOT a Blue Arkansas endorsement…but it could become one…

It’s no secret around these parts that I’m a little cynical when it comes to politicians for the most part.  It’s also no secret that I’ve been a little less than impressed with the AR-01 Democratic feild.  But I said sometime bag that one of the newest faces, Ben Ponder of Mountain Home, had caught my interest.  Well today, I got to sit down with Ben and talk to him one on one.  If he interested me before, he impresses me now.  Dismissing him as just another face in a dull crowd is a mistake, let me assure you.  He is, and I say this as someone who’s been around long enough to become more than a bit disillusioned with politics, the most knowledgeable, thoughtful, genuine, and interesting candidate running for any office that I have ever met.  Very rarely do I approach a write up on much anything around these parts with any trepidation, but listening to Ben was such a unique experience that I’m afraid I might not be able to do it justice.  Still, I’m going to try, so here goes.

I started off asking just a casual question that I hadn’t really thought much of, and it was simply if he minded me saying that he was a dark horse candidate.  Ben ran with it and used it as an opening to lay out the reasons why he was running and what his candidacy is all about.  As he pointed out, the only reason he might be referred to as a dark horse is because he hasn’t held an office to this point, and he left it open ended as to whether or not that was a good way of judging a candidate’s qualifications.  He also related an interesting story about how when he was in Chicago he saw some poorly made signs for a guy with a funny name running for the U.S. Senate.  So, as he said, there’s plenty of precedent for an unknown quantity making it big and delivering big results.

The qualifications he can list and his reasons for running aren’t from your standard list either.  He’s got more degrees than you can shake a stick at, but admits that he was a bit of a black sheep in the academic world as he always wanted to find practical applications to the things he studied.  He’s worked in the clean energy field and the health care field, among other areas that are at the forefront of today’s public policy debates.  And he’s a student of history, which I personally think is pretty important.  He can talk to you about the diary of Thomas Jefferson or the writings of Abraham Lincoln, and he holds thesehistorical figures in high regard and from the inspiration they provide he takes a high minded approach to politics that strives to make our political process into something more and better than what it is.  He said he never expected to run for Congress at 34, though he admits it’s something he’d wanted to do eventually, and he said he’d much rather spend time with his wife (who he describes as “a superhero”) and kids than campaigning, as much as he loves the later, but as he explained, the Founders were great becausethey rose to the occasion to confront difficult circumstances and now our generation had to be up to the task.  He said he’s frustrated with the “shrill nature” of our politicaldiscourse and that he wants his campaign to be different.  He wants it to be about issues and ideas, and he says he plans to be putting out some detailed issue positions soon (and frequently) which is more than could be said for the rest of the field.  What’s more, he says he has no plans on being a seat warmer and says plainly that we should be able to expect more from our Congressman than just pork (which he rightly pointed out is only considered pork when it is going to other districts, while acknowledging that some of those projects are worthwhile endeavors). 

From there we moved into a discussion on health care.  I started by asking him about the health care proposals he had put out and quickly came to realize that I had actually misunderstood them at first.  In fact, they’re actually much better than I had thought.  Ben is critical of aspects of the health care reform bill in Congress now, but the points he makes are pretty good.  As he said, if you have an insurance claim “you’re eventually going to end up on the phone with someone who’s job is to stall.  These people know the exact percent of people who will get mad or frustrated and just give up, and when that happens the company wins.”  The individual mandate, he rightfully points out, is a boon for insurance companies, because even with everyone in a captured market the point for the company is still to make a profit, and even if you ap the revenue they can raise from premiums they’re still going to find a way to make a profit by paying out less on claims.  He favors making health insurance companies more of a co-op style system, though he freely admit that won’t solve the whole problem.  I asked him if that was comparable to Senator Conrad’s proposal, but he said he wasn’t aware of all the specifics.

I asked him if he thought health care should be considered a right or a privilege.  He said that was a good question, and proceeded to answer in a way that I have never really seen another candidate do.  Most would just answer the question or try to answer without answering.  Ben’s style is different.  He not only gives you an answer, he tries to persuade you, and teach you something while he’s at it, and he manages to do so in a way that is incredibly interesting and involving.  As he walked me through a discussion over the question, I was wowed by his depth of understanding and his thoughtfulness as he explained the difference between what we’d consider a God given human right and a civil right guaranteed by the government, concluding by stating that access to basic health care is essentially a matter important to human dignity, something he says he’s strongly concerned about.  At this point, he even strayed off into a little talk about the struggle against malaria in Africa, detailing how fighting the epidemic could actually be done at a reasonable cost.  (That’s something I’m not used to hearing from an Arkansas candidate for much of anything.)

We were running short on time, so I regrettably didn’t get to talk about the public option as much as I wanted to (though he volunteered that if people are going to discuss a public option they should be sure they know what the term is referring to).  Still, we did wander off the beaten path into some interesting topics.  For instance, we discussed the budget deficit, and Ben took on what he called “the false dichotomy” that Democrats are “tax and spend.”  As he said, “Republicans are borrow and spend.  A government can only raise revenue two ways-either by taxing people or by borrowing money.  Our national credit card is our strong economy and our good name, but each time we swipe that credit card we hurt our economy and our reputation a bit.  These people may say ‘I didn’t raise your taxes’ but they raised our kids taxes.”

He also stated that a budget is a statement of our values, and that if we take an honest look in the mirror we might be shocked by what some of our values are.  “We certainly value the defense budget.”, he said, moving from the budget to talking about the war(s).  “It pains me that we’ve gotten into thesewars without an end game.”  I asked him if he supported the decision President Obama made on Afghanistan and he said that he did because he trusts his judgment and says plainly that he doesn’t have access to the information the President does.  His concern though is “what happens if we succeed?  Best case scenario-we beat the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  They don’t just go away.  Where do they go?  Nuclear armed Pakistan.  Then we have a real cobra on our hands.”

His explanation as to why he is a Democrat was rather surprising.  “I’m radically prolife.” He said, smiling a bit and seemingly studying my reaction.  “But the reason I’m a Democrat is because that goes beyond abortion.  It extends to all human life, including, for instance, concern for the soldiers that we’re sending into harms way and for the civilians of the countries we’re fighting caught in the crossfire.”

We were running out of time so we had to narrow it down to one more question, though he promised that we’d talk again at some point.  So I decided to throw him my curve ball and asked “Where are you at with regards to LGBT issues?”  Usually, when I throw that out there, it trips Arkansas politicians up, but Ben responded with something I wasn’t prepared for.

“My brother is gay.” He said.  (I asked if it was okay if I took that down and he said it was.)  He then went on to talk about both his love for his brother and his Christian faith in a way that could get to anyone with a heart beating in their chest.  At one point, he said pointedly, “I don’t consider myself a Christian…I consider myself a follower of Jesus Christ.”  He also said that regardless of one’s religious belief on whether or not being gay is a sin we should all treat other people with dignity and grace.  He also said that he is absolutely against impinging on the rights of others and that we should never sanction discrimination, stating “If you look through history you can’t find one instance where you can say discrimination was justified.”

As I said, I had great interest in Ponder before I met him.  Now that I have, I’m simply blown away.  He is, to my perception, unlike any other candidate in the field.  His knowledge, eloquence, thoughtfulness, compassion, understanding, candidness, and courage all combine to make him uniquely appealing, and while he’s not a progressive per se (he himself said that labels have no meaning to him) and I don’t agree with him on everything, I think he has a broad enough appeal to satisfy a huge segment of both the primary and general election electorates.  I still have a hundred million other questions I want to ask Ben, and I hope I do get to sit down with him again soon.  But while this isn’t a Blue Arkansas endorsement and shouldn’t be considered such, I personally think I’ve found the candidate I want to be my Congressman.

I’ve found myself less than enthused with the 1st district candidates I’m afraid to say. Wooldridge is a no go. I know nothing of Bryles or Cook as of yet and, so far, have no reason to be too interested in either. Causey’s a good guy with plenty of potential, but some of the things he’s said and the sense that he might not be ready for prime time has me concerned. Up to this point, I’ve been in the anybody but Wooldridge category. Now though, this new guy, Ben Ponder, has peaked my interest…

The first thing that grabbed my attention when looking at this guy is his background. He’s a product of the public schools, he’s got a PhD in communication, he’s been a researcher and teacher, and he’s studied theology. More interesting though is what stands out about his work in the private sector:

While completing a 900-page dissertation, Ben also led a start-up renewable energy company with offices in the Chicago area and in Central Arkansas. The business’s goal was to provide affordable, home-grown renewable fuels to communities throughout Arkansas. When venture financing began to dry up at the start of the Great Recession, Ben and his teammates made the difficult decision to pull the plug on an innovative business that had been driven for two years by a stellar team of entrepreneurs and advisers.

Beyond his background, Ponder actually tells you in his announcement what his platform focuses on, and from the looks of things, it’s pretty good. He sounds like a good old fashion populist with a real progressive streak:

I am running for Congress because I want to give voice to this voiceless multitude of those who will come after us. They will be our judges in history. They will be the ones who name our generation. Do we aspire to share in the honor of the generation that is now passing—what has been called “the greatest generation”— or will we settle for the stature of “bubble surfers,” “payday loan sharks,” or “the generation when America began its decline.” We must not squander the bounty and splendor that our fathers and mothers left us as an inheritance. We must now make the hard choices and the bold stands for justice that history demands of us.

In the coming days, I plan to talk with you and with the citizens of Arkansas’ First District about the specific policies and plans that I will enact if you elect me as your Representative in Congress. Today, in the interest of time and temperature, I will keep my policy remarks concise.

Three areas of domestic policy that require our immediate attention are JOBS, HEALTHCARE, and EDUCATION.

The Senate yesterday passed a modest jobs bill that was an encouraging sign of teamwork between the two parties, even if the bill lacked the teeth to make a significant dent in our melancholy unemployment numbers. The passage of this bill in one chamber of Congress is a good step, but more action must be taken and taken quickly.

As a businessman and an academic, I understand both the practical and theoretical sides of economic policy. The stock market has slowly recovered over the last year, but job growth has not followed. Why is that? The answer is that job growth in the 21st century is not tied to publicly traded companies. Fortune 500 companies do not create jobs. They are mature capitalist enterprises and as such, they are fundamentally driven to eliminate jobs in the pursuit of “operational efficiencies” and “increased productivity.”

The engine of job growth in America has always been and will always be the entrepreneur. Those who seize upon an idea or innovation, turn it into a useful product or service, and find a way to reach a growing market. These men and women find themselves needing help, needing workers. Small businesses create jobs; REAL jobs with REAL futures, not dead-end temporary jobs or statistic-manipulating job shifting.
Our energies and our money as a nation must be targeted toward small businesses. We must increase access to capital, to ideas, to technical skills, and to business management training. In order for our economy to truly flourish, we need to change our focus from the banks and auto companies that are “too big to fail” and begin to invest in promising, local businesses that are “too SMALL to fail.”

The second area of grave concern in our country right now is HEALTHCARE.

We all have a vague sense that our American healthcare system is not what it could be.

For some, the system is completely shattered. For others, the system simply requires a few minor tweaks. Regardless of where you land on the spectrum, we all believe that health care needs reform.

I am bothered, however, that the public debate and the actions of Congress with regard to “health CARE reform” are, in fact, a narrowly conceived attempt at what is really “health FINANCE reform.” Now, health finance reform is important, but it is only a piece of the puzzle. Our system will not improve until we reform the quality of care as well as the mechanism of payment.

In Congress, I will not vote for any healthcare bill, popular or unpopular, that doesn’t have two key provisions:

1) We must shift the business model of the health insurance industry. As a publicly traded corporation, these insurers are ultimately beholden to their shareholders, not to their policy holders. Forcing everyone to purchase health insurance is short-sighted: it will temporarily decrease premiums, yes, but as long as health insurers are driven by a mandate for escalating profits, then they will be forced to pay less and less on claims.

The perverse disincentive for health insurers to pay on legitimate claims must end.

Health insurers should be run as cooperatives, like we see with credit unions, rural electric companies, and farmer’s co-ops, where the policyholders are also the owners of the business.

2) Doctors should be paid to listen first and to cut second. The system as it stands today encourages doctors to perform expensive exploratory surgery rather than to simply listen to you describe your symptoms. If a doctor wants to keep the lights on in his or her practice, he or she must perform costly tests and invasive surgical procedures.

Physicians must rush through their regular clinic visits, because they have to see 40, 50, or 60 patients a day just to cover the costs of their practice. Until our health care system encourages and pays for doctors to listen to their patients, true health care reform is a mirage.

The third major area of domestic policy that requires our immediate attention is EDUCATION. This building, the Old College Hall, is landmark in the history of education in Arkansas, and it is a fitting reminder of the educational legacy of our community.

Our commitment to education is the key indicator of our hope for the next generation.

Education policy is now so consumed with standardized testing and metrics that teachers are forced in lock step to “teach to the test” rather than having the freedom to inspire their students with a love for learning.

My education policy is simple: teachers, teachers, teachers. Facilities and technology are wonderful, but Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had neither buildings nor computers, and they proved to be fine educators. We need to attract, retain, and reward educators who “know their stuff” and who can infect students with an abiding passion for learning.

Then, and only then, will our children and grandchildren be prepared to compete in the global marketplace.

A lot of good stuff there…really good stuff. Now, there are a few things I’m concerned about. The first is simply a critique of his style as a candidate and it’s that his language tends to be a bit flowery. However, that might work for him-I haven’t seen any video yet or seen him in person (would love to though) so I don’t know how good he really is on the stump. If he’s got the charisma to pull it off, it would be great to see a candidate in this pack that could get out there and really inspire people with high minded talk like this.

The other concern is that he might turn out to be in the same vein as Wooldridge on social issues. Now if he’s somewhat conservative on social issues, that’s fine. I understand he’s a devout Baptist (I grew up in the Southern Baptist church and still consider myself a Baptist. There is a moderate, even a progressive minded, band within that denomination that was pushed aside back in the 70s and 80s.) and I understand that this is a district with a conservative streak on social issues. Remember, when I was running the beta version of this site by myself, Blue Arkansas was backing Marion Berry, who’s got a significant conservative streak to say the least. But there’s a difference between being conservative and sitting on the board of a hate group and letting your campaign staff lie and try to cover it up. I don’t expect Ponder to come out for marriage equality or anything close-that’d be an unrealistic expectation for sure. I’d be fine with it if he announces he’s anti-choice. But I want to see that he is tolerant of others and willing to protect the civil rights and liberties of ALL his potential constituents. If he can reassure me on that front…I may have found my candidate.

One last thing. There is an interview Ponder gave to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Now, I’m not about to pay a penny to read that crappy right wing rag, but I’d love to know what was said. If someone else has access to that, pass it along to me if you would.