Illinois Congressional Races

The Problem of Primaries

ArchPundit September 11, 2007 4 Comments

My general rule is that primaries are good things and that people should get in them so the Party can decide who is the best choice. Yet, there are times they can be counterproductive.

In IL-10, I wasn’t terribly thrilled with Jay Footlik getting in the race, but after meeting him and the such, I’m comfortable with him though I’m supporting Dan Seals. It would be a bit hypocritical of me to call for no competition. If Jay were to win I could support him in good conscience and I’m okay with that. If Dan is as strong as I think he is, it shouldn’t be a problem. If it is a problem, that would tell us about Dan’s ultimate ability. I don’t have questions in regards to Dan because I’ve seen him in action last cycle, but I don’t see any harm in having the primary. It’s similar to IL-6 where I thought more competition was fine. Footlik is also running his campaign as being against Kirk and not Dan so it heightens the point that Mark Kirk is no moderate and is a rubber stamp for George Bush’s war.
The problem comes in races like IL-3 where it looks like we have a four or five way race in the primary and the problem is that for one of them to come out victorious, they are going up against an incumbent who has a base established by his father. The field has to be whittled down. Assuming one or two of them won’t be a serious candidate means that the real problem comes with two candidates who are getting most of the attention: Mark Pera and Palos Hills Mayor Jerry Bennett.

Pera has put together a good campaign team, has really been a hit with progressives and has an incredibly calm and likeable personality. He seems to be doing his call time and canvasses. Bennett isn’t quite as progressive, but is acceptable and much better than Lipinski. The problem is that the two of them together doom a chance to take out Lipinski and so someone needs to make a choice.

The thing with Lipiniski is that he’s vulnerable on the issue of being handed the seat through nepotism and the shadiness behind that. And that is where Bennett is weaker. From Lipinski’s campaign site:

Gerald Bennett, the Mayor of Palos Hills and a health care executive, said Congressman Lipinski’s proposals were an “excellent approach to helping American families become better health care consumers.”

“The Congressman should be lauded for working with colleagues in both parties to craft initiatives that will not only improve health care availability and delivery, but also have a great chance of being enacted,” Mayor Bennett said.

===

Third District governmental leaders endorsing Congressman Lipinski’s re-election include:

Jim Balcer – Alderman, 11 th Ward
Gerald Bennett – Mayor, City of Palos Hills

And right there is the problem. Bennett’s quote and endorsement from 2006 neutralizes that issue for Bennett, who by all accounts is able. The campaign needs to be one of insider cronyism versus independent challenger and Bennett isn’t able to do that. And it’s why, I hope he doesn’t decide to announce. I don’t blame him for being ambitious, but at this point, he’ll have the weaker message and the Party needs this win. I also happen to like that Pera is more progressive and clear on many key issues, but I’m ultimately a pragmatist and that impulse happens to be the same as my progressive impulse.

Kadner: Bring ‘em Home

ArchPundit September 11, 2007 1 Comment

He addresses the Lipinski-Kirk plan to let George Bush run out the clock

Yet Lipinski and Kirk, who acknowledge the Bush Administration made mistakes that undermined public support for the war, want people to believe their government now will tell the truth and make no more mistakes.

Having listened for more than an hour to Lipinski, Kirk and the two ambassadors detail the multiple and massive failings of the U.S. war in Iraq, I find it difficult to place continued faith in our ability to do the right thing.

Kirk said what most interests him is doing the right thing by our troops who continue to serve in Iraq.

I would agree.

And I think the right thing to do is to bring them home now.

As Lipinski might say, that is the least bad solution.

One of the frustrations I have is that people are saying just now that it’s such a different country.  This seems obvious, but at the same time if that’s what is making them realize the folly of staying, so be it.

How to Win Friends and Influence People

ArchPundit September 11, 2007 2 Comments

 Fine moments in campaign strategery

Laesch shrugged off Giannoulias’ endorsement, calling him “just a wealthy guy who bought himself an office.”

“I don’t think it’s a big endorsement of any kind,” he said.

There are two statewide officials not fighting with every other statewide official and one of them is Giannoulias.  Right now he is the best face of the Democratic Party in Illinois of people not running for President and dissing him like this isn’t helpful to anyone.  Especially John.

More than that, it’s a complete waste of a quote.  It has no message and conveys nothing about John’s campaign.

H/T Bridget 

The Plan By Concerned Kirk and Lipinski

ArchPundit September 11, 2007 No Comments

Is to do what the military has to do anyway:

Lipinski and Kirk told the private gathering of members of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that they are speaking out together to forge a new path forward in Iraq.

“The best possible outcome for Democrats is to invite in Republicans such as Kirk to join us. I’m aware every Democrat will not support the Iraq Study Group and this bipartisan solution,” Lipinski said. “For the last four months, we’ve maintained the status quo because legislation brought forward could not be passed without a veto from the President.”

Both Lipinski and Kirk have said that the Iraq Study Group’s report, which was released in December, provides the best opportunity for a policy change. The report includes 79 recommendations.

The Lipinski-Kirk plan calls for a phased withdrawal similar to the one that U.S. Gen. David Petraeus outlined on Monday. Under the plan, one troop brigade would return to the U.S. in December and three more would be removed in the spring, without replacement. It would provide for troop levels in July 2008 of about 130,000, which is equal to “pre-surge” troop levels.

We are running out of troops and the surge level of troops can only be maintained through the spring when we have to reduce the forces in Iraq or readiness would suffer even more than it is now.

So these two brain-trusts want to force the President to do something he’s already going to have to do and that’s their idea of a compromise to go forward.

Who wants to break it to them that the bill does nothing?

Head over to Firedoglake for Mark Pera

ArchPundit September 8, 2007 2 Comments

He’s on at 1 PM CDT so pay a visit.

I’m out for the weekend, have fun.

Enabling this Administration & Kirk

ArchPundit September 8, 2007 No Comments

Dan Lipinski joins together twice in one month with Mark Kirk on different elements and giving Mark Kirk that Broderesque view of the man without partisanship.  Yet, Kirk is a target of the DCCC and Lipinski seems to be happy undercutting the effort to replace him.

How that’s loyalty working out for you?

Concerned Kirk, Still Concerned About Iraq, but Only For Show With an Assist from Lipinski

ArchPundit September 8, 2007 1 Comment

Kirk and Lipinski have decided to join together in supporting a bill that calls for the Iraq Study Recommendations, but doesn’t actually require anything of the President such as, you know, reducing troops or actually following through on the recommendations so all he has to do is report to Congress every 90 days.

WASHINGTON – A pair of moderate Illinois congressmen, Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Dan Lipinski, will join forces Monday to discuss the “path forward” in Iraq with a focus on the long-shelved recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

Kirk was one of 14 Republican congressmen who told President Bush in May that they worried the war was going poorly and could hurt the GOP in next year’s elections. So far he has opposed Democrats’ attempts to link war funding to timelines for troop withdrawal.

This week, Kirk quietly signed on to a bipartisan bill that would give the Study Group’s recommendations the force of law, including political benchmarks for the Iraqi government and a goal, but no requirement, of U.S. troop withdrawals beginning next year. Lipinski is one of the bill’s four original sponsors.

That depends on what you mean by the force of law.  The only true requirement of the law is that the President reports to Congress every 90 days.  We’ve seen what the President did with the current benchmarks and how GAO measured them–with GAO being the most respected agency in the United States government–the hollowness of this measure becomes clear.
This bill is nothing, but an effort to act concerned, but do nothing to end this war.

Lipinski voted for a withdrawal timeline earlier this year but didn’t like it because he knew Bush would veto the bill. He said he and Kirk — along with 25 other Democratic and 35 Republican co-sponsors — have agreed that “the Iraq Study Group bill is the way to go” to begin to change the course of the war.

“Over the last six months the president has been able to maintain the status quo [in Iraq] largely because Democrats haven’t been able to get Republicans on board” to change the U.S. role in Iraq, Lipinski said. “This is all part of coming together.”

So now Mark Kirk has a twin who wants to be concerned about the war, but not make the decisions to end the war.  And Lipinski only voted to end funding because he knew the President would veto it.  Dandy. Two profiles in courage.

“He needs to have the courage to stand up to the [Bush] administration and bring our soldiers home,” said Dan Seals, who narrowly lost to Kirk last fall. Added Jay Footlik, a former Clinton administration official also gunning for the Democratic nomination, “The fact is Kirk has completely ignored the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations by consistently voting to rubber-stamp George W. Bush and the Republicans’ failed policies in Iraq.”

You might think they support the war given they won’t do anything to end it.

Where in the World is Jerry Weller?

ArchPundit September 7, 2007 No Comments

Another interesting tidbit from the Chicago Tribune:

When asked about the discrepancies, Weller’s office first insisted that questions be given to the congressman in writing. After a week passed with no response to the written questions, The Tribune requested to talk to Weller in person. On Thursday afternoon, Weller’s spokesman said he would not answer questions and had no comment.

The congressman missed all recorded House votes in Washington this week. His spokesman said he was out of the city, caring for his 1-year-old daughter.

I’m generally sympathetic to the effort it takes to care for a 1-year-old daughter, but doesn’t he have a cell phone? I’m sure the Trib is happy to talk to him over a little crying and giggling.

IL-18 We have a Candidate

ArchPundit September 7, 2007 3 Comments

Dick Versace is running for Congress:

Dick Versace, the former Gordon Tech, Bradley and Indiana Pacers basketball coach, has announced that he is running as a Democrat for the vacant seat in the 18th Congressional District in central Illinois, where Republican Ray LaHood is retiring next year. Versace, 67, lives in a rural area outside of Canton.

My only concern is if the sports press took his potential announcement the wrong way, but it looks like the Dems have a candidate to run against Aaron Schock.

Lauzen to Oberweis: Scoreboard

ArchPundit September 7, 2007 No Comments

Hysterical infighting:

Lauzen said he intends to differentiate himself from Oberweis by focusing on his electoral victories, his independence and his experience. Oberweis’s strategists see their candidate as the GOP front-runner and intend to set up his contrast with the
Democrats versus running against Lauzen.

“I’ve been doing for 15 years what Jim promises to do in campaigns,” Lauzen said. “The other thing is that I win campaigns; Jim loses them. … He’s spent $7.5 million to lose three campaigns.”

Oberweis is resisting any comparisons to Lauzen and is focusing on saving the district from Democratic takeover.

“I’m not running against Chris Lauzen; I’m running against the Democrats,” Oberweis said. “I think there’s a reasonable chance, a year from now, they’re going to look around and say, ‘Boy, wouldn’t we love to embarrass the former speaker by electing a Democrat?’”

Hysterical end line:

“I have made plenty of mistakes as an entrepreneur, and I’m sure that as a candidate I’ve made plenty of mistakes as well,” Oberweis said. “But the good news is, good entrepreneurs tend to learn from their mistakes. And I believe I’ve learned a lot.”

Yes, he finds ways to screw up in entirely new and fascinating ways.