But Why Mark Pera?

A big part of the time talking about IL-3 is spent bashing Dan Lipinski. And for good reason, but there’s another aspect that I’ve neglected and that is why I support Mark Pera.

I was somewhat skeptical of Pera run after the Sullivan race last time. John was a great, great guy, but just wasn’t able to put a campaign together. So when I was trying to organize the regional caucus for Yearly Kos I ended up e-mailing a ton of people and one was Pera and his early campaign advisors. He sounded like a nice guy and that’s not always a good sign. Also, there were rumors of a more establishment candidate who would have good access to fundraising and I’m not above choosing electability.
However, I got the chance to sit down and talk with him for a bit at Yearly Kos and I was very impressed. Mark was sitting down outside the main hall doing some reading before Pat Botterman took him around to chat with some folks. The first thing I noticed was how easy going he was. I sat down to chat with him and he was one of the most approachable candidates I’ve met. We comfortably talked about our families and jobs before even getting into the politics.

This kind of easiness is important when campaigning and being able to listen well is often the best characteristic of a good candidate. Too many Democrats launch into rants about policy or such without establishing that personal connection.

When we turned to politics, he pulled off what I consider an essential element of a good candidate–he was passionate, but not the angry guy shaking his fist. He talked about the stakeholders he had met with and the general frustration they had with Lipinski including pro-choice advocates, embryonic stem cell research advocates, immigration rights activists, anti-war activists, and civil liberty advocates.

Finally, he told me he took a leave from work to campaign full time. Challengers cannot run effective campaigns part time. There is simply too much work to do in raising name recognition and fundraising to make that work.

Checking into Mark’s background was interesting as well. He was a private attorney until 1996 when he ran for the State House losing by a few points to a Republican. Instead of going back to private practice he went to work for the State’s Attorney’s office which is like a reverse career pattern for most lawyers. If a lawyer is going to work in an SA office, they do it early and then either make that their career or move on to make more money in private practice. He didn’t and likely took a decent pay cut compared to his previous work.

And he worked on interesting cases working on public utilities and the environment. He took part in the closing of the incredibly dirty Premcor refinery and pointed out the folly of the reverse auction con in Illinois for electric utilities. The choice to work for the State’s Attorney office on such issues is an incredible testament to his commitment to the public.

There’s another aspect of his background that impressed me as well. He came from the are and worked his way up. He worked in the steel mills in East Chicago and Gary before college and largely worked his way through school. It’s quite a contrast to a guy who was handed his seat in Congress by his Dad.

It’s easy to want to beat Lipinski, but that doesn’t always mean you getting a great candidate–in this case we are.

Mark is progressive, committed to the race, and has incredibly life experiences that would make him a fantastic candidate to represent IL-3.

There’s a lot of talk that Lipinski is a placeholder for a few years until a young potential party guy is ready for the seat–this is the time to elect a guy who can work within the system, but who is also independent. Let’s take that opportunity and convert it.