Following is an expansion of comments I’ve made to posts at this blog, Prairie State Blue, and Chicagoist.
Earlier in the week, I wrote about the story of the Bill Lipinski charity that isn’t a charity but is really a political operation instead (even though it sends out fundraising letters pleading for contributions to help 7th and 8th graders enjoy athletic and scholastic activities).
Bill Lipinski retired from the 3rd Congressional seat a few years back and (as Russ Stewart puts it) “annointed” his son, Dan, to fill the vacancy. Dan Lipinski has since hired some members of his father’s previous staff and has also received political dollars from his father’s so-called “charity”. To many (myself included), these antics appear the very definition of Machine politics at its most cynical.
However, last night, a commenter named “jimmy” began posting some remarks on that un-charity posting that don’t pass the sniff test. Jimmy sets himself up as an ultra-purist partisan — accepting nothing less than The. Perfect. Candidate. His comments implied that Mark Pera (Dan Lipiniski’s current primary opponent) was somehow also part of the Chicago “Machine” because Mr. Pera had, as a candidate for State House in 1996, benefited from donations through funds controlled by Michael J. Madigan and even Bill Lipinski.
Put in context, this goofy attempt to muddy the waters — implying Pera is somehow ‘just like Dan Lipinski, part of the Machine’ — is ludicrous.
Of course House Dem Leader and Party Chair Madigan was going to put money toward what, at the time, was a top tier race. In 1996, he did that for a lot of races (not just Pera’s) as he tried to knock off a bunch of GOP incumbents. Moreover, there were a number of other donors for Pera’s ‘96 race — ranging from the Washington, DC-based DSCC to the Illinois Federation of Teachers to a variety of suburban Democratic organizations and clubs — none of which were “controlled” by Madigan.
Yet, “jimmy” writes, “He [Pera] received over $100,000 in support from Chicago Machine-controlled campaign funds (Madigan and Lipinski).” This is nothing more than a conflation of disparate facts.
In 1996, Mr. Pera accumulated more than $100,000 in contributions and in-kind donations. He received a significant portion of that from various funds under Chairman Madigan’s control (mostly the “House Democratic Majority Fund”) as did several other Dem candidates in ‘96. Pera even received a comparatively small amount from Bill Lipinski’s campaign fund.
But the $100,000+ came from a variety of sources, not just Madigan and Madigan’s rationale for donating the sums is crystal clear. Furthermore, the funding was certainly not equally from Madigan and Lipinski (not even close) as “jimmy” falsely insinuates.
Now, having a lone wolf hop onto a blog and try to plant some meme — no matter how goofy — isn’t a big deal. But, remarkably similar comments from someone named “jimmym” and “thewatcher” appeared nearly simultaneously at Chicagoist and Prairie State Blue, respectively.
When something like that happens it’s pretty clear that someone (or some group) is floating a test balloon to see if a given line of criticism will stick. Why jimmy/jimmym/thewatcher chose to focus on a race from 11 years ago that is easily explained is as unclear as it is weak. He’s got no game, in other words.
And if it’s found out that jimmy/jimmym/thewatcher are all one in the same (and based on the similarity between the comments that’s likely), it’s just a sign that the sockpuppets have come to life in Illinois’ 3rd district race. Given the attention Mr. Pera is attracting (endorsements and positive commentary from such Chicago Machine cogs [not] as Democracy for America, BlueMajority, Markos Moulitsas, etc.) it would be understandable that Dan Lipinski and his backers in the actual Chicago Machine have concerns their grip on power is slipping.
About 20 quick weeks to go before we find out which side will prevail. But, between yesterday’s goofy emails [...] promoting Dan Proft and what’s clearly been a bit of a coordinated effort (even if by just one person) to attack Mark Pera, silly season is definitely upon us for the bumped-up Prairie State primary. At least the Christmas chotchkes still came out before the local political junk did, but just barely.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 14, 2007 at 10:31 am
Just Wondering
What happened to the excellent piece you had posted about that snake Dan Proft and the emails you received from someone in his office? I thought that was excellent. I hope you didn’t succumb to some petty threats. Proft’s great at getting caught doing scummy things and then trying to bully those who call him on it.
But stick to your guns. Sounds like you had him dead to rights.
October 14, 2007 at 1:14 pm
robnesvacil
No threats involved, petty or otherwise. I removed the post of my own accord.
It was pointed out to me — not in so many words — that I was starting down the same path that has led the conserv-o-partisans to essentially stalk the family of 12-year-old Graeme Frost … and that’s not a path I wish to be on.
Hindsight’s 20/20 and even though all the information I provided in my post is available publicly on the Internet (and the message sent to the Illinois Reason blog was sent to the blog’s ‘letter to the editor’-type contact email) it would have been more ethical had I kept a bit more of the info private. Live and learn.
The facts of the silly episode remain:
- Someone who works in the same office space as Mr. Proft wrote a ‘letter to the editor’ to Illinois Reason (sent to illinoisreason@gmail.com as noted in the About page).
- The IP address on that email message was the same as Mr. Proft’s — though the person who sent it claims to not be employed by him or his company.
- This message encouraged IR to reiterate Mr. Proft’s political commentary on the IR blog and promoted that commentary in general.
- That person’s email address is also publicly available throughout the blogosphere, and is also directly intertwined with Mr. Proft’s political commentary at various blogs as a Google search proved (ie, the email address was listed as the provider of his commentary).
The only question, and one that may never be answered, is whether this person was promoting Mr. Proft’s commentary without his knowledge; Mr. Proft was using this person’s email address for these purposes without their knowledge; or the two actually were in cahoots with each other in an asinine attempt to promote Mr. Proft’s commentary through classic sockpuppetry.
Because that is an open question, I removed the post since at least one of those alternatives involves someone’s email address (and thus privacy) being used without their knowledge.
PS: I wouldn’t call Mr. Proft a “snake”. He’s more like a two-bit Ann Coulter wannabe whose political commentary is boringly regurgitated tripe which seems to be mindlessly culled from other con/partisan talking points.
October 15, 2007 at 10:01 am
Just wondering
“PS: I wouldn’t call Mr. Proft a “snake”. He’s more like a two-bit Ann Coulter wannabe whose political commentary is boringly regurgitated tripe which seems to be mindlessly culled from other con/partisan talking points.”
Duly noted, and I’ll agree with that.
October 15, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Last Friday… « Illinois Reason
[...] consultant and pundit Dan Proft last Friday which I later pulled… I explained why in a comment elsewhere, but here’s that explanation again on its own if y’all wanna chat about it. I was asked [...]