In the Fourth District . . .

LITTLE ROCK — NOW IS the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party. So goes the old typing exercise-and perennial cry at election time. But for those who think of themselves as conservatives, or just citizens of some judgment, which party would that be in the Fourth District of Arkansas this year?

Is it the party represented by the Republican candidate for Congress-energetic and even electric Beth Anne Rankin? Or the familiar Democratic incumbent, indeed almost fixture by now, good ol’, not-so-easily-classifiable ol’ Mike Ross?

Ms. Rankin isn’t shy about rattling off her views, as we discovered during one of our usual interviews with candidates we need to know better. She goes down her list of talking points, firing off the right (wing) answers on every question reflexively, as if she were passing a test for conservative orthodoxy in the year 2010. The way your knee jerks when the doc taps it at just the right spot with that little rubber thingamajig to see if your reflexes are working. Ms.Rankin’s political responses struck us as automatic, too, as if she were ticking off a list of responses she knew by heart, and had repeated at many an election rally.

Sure enough, she’s sound on the feds’ out-of-control budget (“Enough! The pattern of reckless spending by the federal government is putting our great nation on an unacceptable road to bankruptcy.”), and on national security (“We will not apologize for being strong. We will not apologize for being prepared. And we will not apologize for treating a terrorist like a terrorist.”), and on small business and the jobs it creates. (“As a small-business owner, I have witnessed the federal government adding regulation after regulation, tax after tax, and overbearing paperwork burdens that seem to never end.”) She’s also sound on the right to life and the Second Amendment and so forcefully on.

Oh, yes, Beth Anne Rankin is also against the right things, like cap-and-trade and saving the secret ballot in elections to determine whether workers want a union and, of course, ObamaCare and the whole agenda of statism that seems to have replaced the Democratic Party’s heart and soul.

If this had been a fill-in-the-blank, yes-or-no test, Beth Anne Rankin would have just about set the curve. But it wasn’t. Against all odds, these interviews are supposed to probe some of the candidate’s depths. Unfortunately, we didn’t find any. Whenever the questions got past the superficial, or anywhere near a political philosophy deeper than the usual catch phrases, the candidate drew a blank. There were times when she seemed to have no idea what we were talking about. (And, indeed, we can be obscure at all too many times.) Her usual response at that point was just to turn up the volume, as if she were addressing a Tea Party rally.

When the conversation turned to education (we can’t think of a more important subject these or any days) and No Child Left Behind came up, she said she’d have to talk to her teacher friends about that.

She described herself as “a student of history,” which gave us a moment’s hope, but when asked her favorite historian, the lady seemed at a loss . . . before citing-the Founding Fathers! Always a safe and popular answer, but not exactly responsive. Like so many of her reactions to any questions that couldn’t be covered with Power Point phrases. There was something disturbing about the whole interview-as if we’d foundourselves addressing the mirror-image of some robotic Friend of Bill, every response pre-cast, like concrete.

No doubt about it, the lady had all the answers, but not to any questions deeper than you can find in one of those election-year hand-outs flooding your mailbox this time of year. We’ve seldom agreed with a candidate to such an extent or been made so uneasy by one. Her political style struck us as broad as the Mississippi but shallow as the Pedernales down Texas way-in August, when it turns into a dry creek. And style can be all in these matters. What’s a conservative to do? You casts your vote and you takes your chances.

Then there is Mike Ross, consistently described by the pundits as a bluedog Democrat, whatever that means, instead of the standard party-liner. And who’s shown his independence by opposing ObamaCare and cap-and-trade, that jobs-buster. But his opponent is eager to point out that the congressman also voted to let ObamaScare out of its cage/committee, and start to undermine everybody’s confidence in being able to keep his present healthinsurance.

Mike Ross also declined to keep Congress in session until it faced some of the country’s urgent needs, like a federal budget. Or extending the Bush Era tax cuts. How he’ll vote in the lameduck session that’s due to follow these mid-term elections doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

Then again, as the owner of a pharmacy he’s now sold, Congressman Ross was made the object of a smear campaign by the same outfit that took after Tim Griffin, the Republican candidate for Congress in the Second District, which speaks well of the congressman. (In what is surely Arkansas’ dirtiest campaign this fall, Mr. Griffin’s opponent parroted those charges without taking responsibility for them herself, leaving no doubt about how people who believe in a fair fight should vote in that race.) SPEAKING OF more philosophical questions, here’s one for conservatives in the Fourth Congressional District of Arkansas: Does conservatism consist of some 10-point party program, some neat Contract With America, or is it more a generaldisposition that favors the tried and proven over the new and unknown?

Here’s another question or three to ponder: Is there any difference between a conservative and a right-winger, and should there be? And should conservatives invest their votes in just one party, the one that echoes today’s popular shibboleths, or encourage and reward conservative stances in the other party, too? But suppose those blue-dog Democrats, who talk a good conservative game during the campaign, turn out to be more party loyalists than thoughtful leaders after they’re safely re-elected, à la Blanche Lincoln?

What would be the best way to encourage conservative stances in that other party? How about voting for the opposition, for the candidate in the Fourth District who would not leave the organization of the next session of the U.S. House of Representatives to Nancy (Crack the Whip) Pelosi and misguided company?

With those questions, Gentle Reader and conscientious voter, we end here without endorsing either congressional candidate in the Fourth District but wishing both well, and leaving the voters to their own best, most experienced and considered judgment. Which, we think, is the proper conservative stance.