Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: Our own Olympic Games
Posted in:
* There’s been much talk online that at least one of Congressman Dan Lipinski’s Democratic primary opponents is a “ghost candidate.”
For instance, here’s the Daily Kos take…
Palos Hills mayor Gerald Bennett — a close Lipinski ally — is supposedly entering the race officially today. The goal isn’t for Bennett to be competitive. The goal is to split the sizeable anti-Lipinski vote since he and his daddy don’t trust the voters to keep him around in a head-to-head contest.
* Roll Call also took a look at the race…
Nearby, on the southwest side of Chicago, nothing is stirring at the campaign office of another Democratic contender in the 3rd district, lawyer Jim Capparelli. A map of the district is posted on the wall and a table is lined with clipboards and phones, but while it is just four months to primary day, there is no activity inside.
* The Sun-Times’ Mark Brown takes a closer look today at two of the three Democrats who have filed in the race. First, he offers up a bit of history…
Two years ago, U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski challenger John Sullivan, a prosecutor, said a second challenger, John Kelly, was lured into the Democratic primary to split opposition to Lipinski in this district that stretches from Chicago’s Southwest Side to the southwest suburbs. Accused ghost Kelly bested Sullivan, 26 percent to 20 percent.
* And now on to the current contest…
But Capparelli, Bennett and Lipinski all angrily deny the two are ghosts running to help Lipinski. […]
Bennett says that with his name recognition and contacts, his candidacy “will be the first serious challenge the Lipinskis have had in 23 years.” […]
Capparelli — no relation to Democratic Committeeman Ralph Capparelli from the Northwest Side — claims support of Local 399 of the Operating Engineers and Teamsters Local 786. Many of his positions — on the war and abortion, for example — appear to mirror Lipinski’s.
The most interesting thing about Brown’s column is that last little revelation. Lipinski is on the House Transportation Committee, so he has a measure of control over what gets spent where. Other transportation unions seem to have a high opinion of him, and it’s doubtful that any union that depends on Congress for jobs would go out of its way to anger Little Lip.
That Teamsters local does road work (they represent concrete truck drivers, among other things), although the Operating Engineers local represents mostly building maintenance workers.
The 786 backing of Capparelli isn’t solid proof that Capparelli is a Lipper shill, but it certainly is an interesting development.
* More congressional stuff, compiled by Paul…
* WurfWhile: New 6th Congressional blog, rubberstamproskam.com
* Congressman Shimkus to seek reelection
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 9:52 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: Our own Olympic Games
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
No Ghost canidate would actually admit that is what they are, but I think tactics wise there is nothing wrong with the practice. Look at Kelly, who recieved more votes then Sullivan. What that really says is that Sullivan ran a poor election campaign. he was relying on anti-lip sentiment to generate votes in place of actual support and a definable platform. If a canidate can not generate votes for themselves that is their failing. A strong canidate that attracts voters can nullify a ghost canidate. A weak contender that has no real platform or attraction for voter, but is simply hoping to ride a waive of anti-lip voters is a loser campaing to begin with. In the end, its a good startegy to weed out the weak canidates.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 10:02 am
It doesn’t matter who Lipper puts up to shield “Little Lipper”. Remember, in the 3rd District, it’s not a congressman “of the people, by the people, for the people”. It’s a congress creep “of the Daddy, by the Daddy, for the Daddy”.
Until the good and decent people of the 3rd District come to their senses, you’ll continue to get the games that the Lipinski’s are very good at, and that’s political trickery to benefit their own. For shame, for shame!
Comment by Joe in the Know Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 10:50 am
I don’t know much about Caparelli, but why would the Lipinski camp put up someone who has the same point of view on Iraq and abortion as Lipinski? That would simply take some votes away from Lipinski. And Rich is right on in his analysis of Caparelli’s labor support. That shocked me that the Operating Engineers and Teamsters are not in Dan “Transportation” Lipinski’s camp.
The Daily Kos writers need to come out to Chicago rather than speculate from a far-away liberal hilltop. Gerald Bennett is one of the most respected Mayors in the region, most assuredly has a higher name recognition in the district than Pera, and his power extends well beyond his own town limits, as he is President of the Southwest Conference of Mayors and Chairman of the region-wide government planning body, CMAP. His bio is very impressive - not someone who would tarnish his reputation as a ghost candidate.
Mark Pera was once in Lipinski’s camp as well, back in 1996, when he ran for the general assembly. Bill Lipinski also helped Pera get a job in Cook County after Pera narrowly lost that race. So maybe Pera is the Lipinski plant?
I don’t think so, but why wouldn’t the argument work in that direction as well?
If anyone believes the Pera and Daily Kos blather that Gerald Bennett is a Lipinski plant or ghost candidate, then they need a dose of reality and should stop drinking the ultra left-wing kool-aid.
Comment by Radical Moderate Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 10:50 am
The bloggers are way to hopped up about this race. Too bad that the only people taking about it don’t live there. They will be shocked and appaled when Pera disappoints them with his 25%. Bennett is a real candidate for sure, and a good candidate, but I still think Lipper has the deck stacked in his favor.
Comment by Napoleon has left the building Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 10:59 am
If the Pelosi Democrats don’t like Lipinski because of this politics, that tells you how far off the map they have gone. There is a lot of reasons to dislike Lipinski, but his political views are not any of the reasons.
How he got his office is an embarrassment to Democracy, especially so for an individual who claimed to be a political science professor. If he returns to campus, I suppose he could point to himself as a poster child for what is wrong with our election system, couldn’t he?
However, politically he is exactly where he needs to be to win re-election in his District. He is a Bush Democrat to only those who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrone, or have a fatal case of Kum-bay-yah Woodstock Disease.
As to ghost charges, they don’t add up, do they? It doesn’t do Lipinski any good to have an alter ego pulling votes from him. What the Anti-Lipinski forces fail to understand is that there are plenty of intelligent voters who do not like Lipinksi for what he represents, but support his views. It is entirely logical to vote for a candidate with his policy positions but is untainted by nepotism and fraud. The Pelosi Democrats in the race are a minority, but hope to become a majority if enough Anti-Lipinski voters support their uber-leftist candidate.
Like the Lemont/Lieberman race in 2006, there may be enough nuts to tilt the race towards the radical Pelosi Democrat in the primary, but not enough nuts to get their candidate elected in the General. So, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face, aren’t they?
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 11:03 am
===If the Pelosi Democrats don’t like Lipinski ===
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the Speaker has endorsed Little Lip for reelection.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 11:04 am
===As to ghost charges, they don’t add up, do they? It doesn’t do Lipinski any good to have an alter ego pulling votes from him.===
That assumes the candidate in question will even make his views known to voters.
The general rule of thumb for primaries is “The more opponents the merrier for incumbents.”
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 11:06 am
Check out that Bennett family picture. Smokin!
http://www.jerrybennettforcongress.com/bio.htm
Sadly, the “Issues page” isn’t quite as hot…
http://www.jerrybennettforcongress.com/issues.htm
This information will be posted soon. Please check back within the next few days.
Comment by Kuz Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 11:07 am
Radical:
You must be joking if you think that Capparelli isn’t a shill for Little Lip. Who cares if a rogue union supports Lipper? Bennett is a shill’s shill! He heaps praise on Lipinski, offers a quote to Lipinski on Lip’s website. Give me a break!
And, Pera wasn’t in Lipinski’s camp. Mike Madigan recruited Pera to run, not Bill Lipinski. Is Bill the only one that has in-roads to the State’s Attorney’s office?
And, lastly, I like the Dad, but detest what he did to get his kid elected. Because I thought the dad was a good congressman, does that make me a member of the Lipinski camp?
Comment by Joe in the Know Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 11:20 am
Bennett’s large support base? His ‘city’ has a puny annual budget of about $6 million and a population of 15,000. On top of that, for all his ‘experience’ Bennett barely eked out a re-election win in 2005 with just 2,331 votes, only 200 more votes than challenger Anne Zickus.
Sounds like his ‘city’ isn’t too thrilled with his leadership.
Just so you are aware, Pera received nearly 10,000 votes in the April 2005 election when he was re-elected to the District 204 School Board.
Comment by P. Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 11:22 am
Nuts!
I was using the term Pelosi Democrats instead of something shrill. Of course she would back him - he can be re-elected easily!
OK - instead of Pelosi Democrats, please insert the term uber-leftists.
“The general rule of thumb for primaries is “The more opponents the merrier for incumbents.” ” Yes, but what do you do if you can’t stand Lipinski and aren’t a far-left liberal? Do I have to vote for the nutjob because he isn’t Lipinski? Of course not. I would prefer the candidate with normal political positions who isn’t Lipinski.
As to Bennett: Bennett is a mayor. His 200 vote win over his challenger is 199 more than what Lipinski got when he ended up as US Congressman, isn’t it? Just because Pera got more votes in a school board race doesn’t make him a better candidate, especially with those political views of his.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 12:35 pm
===Like the Lemont/Lieberman race in 2006, there may be enough nuts to tilt the race towards the radical Pelosi Democrat in the primary, but not enough nuts to get their candidate elected in the General. So, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face, aren’t they?
What’s radical about Pera? Wanting to end a war opposed by 60% of the population? Wanting to protect the 4th Amendment? Wanting to protect Habeas Corpus enshrined in the Magna Carta?
Spouting that someone is radical is, I’m sure, fun, but there isn’t anything radical about Mark Pera. He’s a nice guy, he’s a prosecutor, and he’s a school board member. He just happens to agree with the majority of the American public and even more of the people in his District that is more liberal than a typical District.
Your rant about Connecticut is especially strange since we have sore loser laws here and Spanky is not a real danger in the general.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 12:54 pm
The thing about plants is they are usually dense enough not to figure out they are plants. The exceptions are the Ryan Chlada’s of the world who are pretty dense and know they are plants. Caparrelli probably had some folks come to him and whisper about how vulnerable Lipinski is and how a guy like him could get the Italian vote and blah, blah, blah and he believed it.
Bennett is running–he did serious vetting of campaign folks and appears serious. I’m not sure it’s a good idea, but it’s a primary so everyone can get in.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 12:57 pm
===Mark Pera was once in Lipinski’s camp as well, back in 1996, when he ran for the general assembly. Bill Lipinski also helped Pera get a job in Cook County after Pera narrowly lost that race. So maybe Pera is the Lipinski plant?
Not so much: Sun Times October 21, 1996,
Lyons, 55, a mother of four daughters who became a leader in school and civic activities in Western Springs, was urged to run by people who wanted more women in public office. “People kept telling me that we needed more women in government,” she said.
In Springfield, Lyons has been active in women’s health issues. She sponsored legislation that requires insurance and HMO coverage for at least 48 hours of inpatient care for mothers following a standard delivery of a newborn and 96 hours following a Caesarean section. When another legislative candidate proposed a similar idea at a recent forum, Lyons noted that Gov. Edgar recently had signed her legislation into law.
She co-sponsored tax caps for Cook County, legislation for Chicago school reform, and welfare reform.
Lyons also has taken a leadership role on environmental issues. When a group of constituents asked her to help block the construction of incinerators in the western suburbs, she responded. “I felt as though it was my obligation to help this community to halt this threat,” she said.
She was among the sponsors of legislation that repealed the Retail Rate Law that gave incinerator operators a no-interest, 20-year subsidy. Rep. William O. Lipinski (D-Ill.), who credited Lyons with helping block the proposed incinerators, has displayed her photograph in his campaign literature.
Lyons also worked with Lipinski to oppose the expansion of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District’s sewage reservoir in the McCook quarry.
Despite her accomplishments, Lyons is locked in a very tight race for re-election with Democrat Mark Pera, a lawyer and former member of the Western Springs Utilities Commission. Both candidates favor changing the way public education is funded and oppose a new regional airport at Peotone.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 1:01 pm
if its legal, why wouldn’t a smart candidate recruit ‘ghost’ candidates? I know, just because its legal doen’t make it ethical, but if I were the Lipper, I’d do the same thing. It ain’t beanbag
Comment by paddyrollingstone Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 5:37 pm
Bennett only won reelection due to the backing of the Palos Democratic Organization who were working for their own slate of Township candidates as well. He has no chance and I doubt he has enough money or knowledge to make a case.
He tried to back several aldermanic candidates that were beaten by Democratic Township candidates. If he is such a powerful Mayor how could these people lose.
Comment by the ole precinct captain Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 6:43 pm