• Get ready to hear a lot about this race. It pits challenger Mark Pera against incumbent Dan Lipinski — one of the worst Bush Dogs, and one serving in a solidly Democratic district. A recap of the race:

  Democrats upset by how Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.) acquired his seat and what he’s done with it will give the second-termer another primary challenge in 2008.

  Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Mark Pera has filed papers with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and yesterday told The Hill that he will announce his candidacy for Lipinski’s seat after July 4.

  Lipinski won his seat in 2004 after his father, Rep. William Lipinski, decided not to run for reelection after having won the Democratic primary. In a move that has not sat well with some Democrats, the younger Lipinski, a political science professor in Tennessee who had not lived in the state for years, was nominated to replace his father with no opposition.

  He sailed through the general election in a solidly Democratic district that contains southwest Chicago and its suburbs.

  Daniel Lipinski’s detractors contend that he is out of sync with the district on social issues — he is socially conservative on issues such as abortion and stem cell research — and he has riled the liberal base with what it sees as his continued support for the Iraq war.

  Like all good Lieberdems, Lipinski yesterday held hands with a Republican — in this case endangered Rep. Mark Kirk — to join forces for … I don’t know. For something, I guess. The Pera campaign had someone file a report from the event:

  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.”

  And what grand solution would their happy-happy-holding-hands-together legislation accomplish?

  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.

  Got that? We’d simply hit the “reset” button, taking 10 months to get us back to the pre-surge status quo. And somehow, this “bipartisan” bill (which Bush will announce this week anyway) is supposed to be a solution to anything?

  Nope, it’s two endangered congressmen — one a Republican, the other a Lieberdem — clinging together for dear life in the face of an unpopular war that they in reality support. Their actions don’t change the facts on the ground (the surge was always unsustainable for the long haul). It does nothing to end a conflict in which a solution is far beyond our grasp.

  On the web:
  Mark Pera for Congress
  Dan Seals for Congress (Kirk’s Democratic opponent, and 2006 netroots candidate)

  

  
  Comments Off

RSS Feed