Friday, January 19, 2007

Smoke and Mirrors

Some of the most recent posts over at The Broken Heart have focused on allegations of deliberately misleading and/or plain bad behavior on the part of Jim Ginderske, one of Joe Moore's challengers. Craig has really wound himself up over very little, which leads me to wonder just how slow a news week has it been over at Gay Chicago?

Posted with all the breathy hyperbole of the many national tattlers at the grocery checkout counter, we are asked to believe that this challenger has lowered himself to the level of the incumbent, whose many misdeeds and transgressions have been documented in loving detail. Is Jim really all that? Probably not.

1. A claim is made by a commenter in the Reader that Jim has flipped houses. Westgard says possibly one, and another poster comments on just one. It's not illegal or immoral the last I checked. If he didn't break any law, rule or regulation, where's the beef? But it was good for some grousing.

2. A claim is made, with a video no less, that a Ginderske 2007 flyer sitting in a Red Eye was placed there by the campaign. We see only one flyer, and there are comments posted about the union bug missing. Francis Scudalleri categorically states that the flyer in the Red Eye was not put there by campaign staff or volunteers.

My reaction is that Jim is too smart to do something so dumb. It's a loser and he doesn't strike me as someone who would just go out and deliberately shoot himself in the foot. Maybe someone other than a Ginderske worker placed it in the Red Eye? We'll never know who did it unless the perp comes forward and confesses. Regarding the union bug: I have a Ginderske 2007 flyer, complete with info about the upcoming forums, and the union bug is present. So who knows why no bug on that particular flyer. Thus we are left with a lot of innuendo and not much else.

3. Jim is alleged to have broken a promise to not litter. We don't know who left the papers on the ground, but the responsibility is dropped onto the Ginderske campaign, and candidate, because his name is on the flyers. What if we are dealing with common litterbugs who read the flyers and then just dropped them? We don't know who actually did the littering. The only actual facts are the presence of the paper, and a questionable comment from an apparent supporter, but it's enough for some folks to question supporting him.

4 - A post at another site is deemed evidence that at least one Ginderske insider has conceded defeat.. I don't know Tom Mannis, and I don't know what relationship, if any, he may have with Ginderske's campaign. If he's a volunteer, then that's all he is. Unless Ginderske himself concedes, Mannis' opinion is just that, his opinion. It's up to the candidate to decide what, if anything, he wants to do with a volunteer who strays off the reservation. But it sure gave Craig something to talk about.

Which is really what all these posts turn out to be; opportunities for Craig to talk. It's all much ado about mostly nothing, while providing entertainment for the masses. Unfortunately, it appears a few folks took it way too seriously, and Ginderske may suffer for it if they don't step back and re-evaluate what the facts really are.

When Craig focuses on the facts, and leaves out the emotion and hyperbole, he really shines as an advocate for the ward. These posts are evidence that he is, at best, inconsistent in his approach and not necessarily a reliable source. Readers need to take the time to carefully assess what he is presenting before jumping on the wagon with him.

I haven't decided who I am going to vote for (against Moore is a given), but these posts don't give me cause to pause regarding Ginderske. He's still in the running as far as I am concerned.

9 comments:

RPneighbor said...

"When Craig focuses on the facts, and leaves out the emotion and hyperbole, he really shines as an advocate for the ward."

Really well said and I'm glad to see someone else has some perspective. I tried to bring up a voice of reason but it didn't go over well. I'm now in a "no comment" mode over at the MHH.

I still think Jim is really up for the job and a good person. I have nothing against Don, but felt I needed to make a choice and work for someone since I feel strongly we are ready for a change and we have good candidates running.

The North Coast said...

Personally, I support Don Gordon, but I believe Ginderske is also a viable candidate.

Craigie seems eaten up by envy of Gordon and Ginderske, because he himself had daydreams of running but knows perfectly well that no one could possibly take him seriously as a candidate, because Gernhardt is simply not a functional adult, what fact is obvious by the way he runs his blog.

Most people now know that Craig doesn't have real opinions, but is only interested in pursuing personal vendettas, and is trashing these guys because he feels they slighted him in some way.

Rumor has it that the reason he turned on Gordon like a rattlesnake, and then Ginderske, is because he could not win the job of campaign manager at Gordon's or Ginderske's campaign. No damn wonder. Would you want this irresponsible loudmouth representing you?

Too bad,because his blog has accomplished much for the good, by highlighting things we need to know about and otherwise wouldn't have noticed.

tomblogger2 said...

As always, your comments are calm and thoughtful. Please let me state for the record that I am simply a volunteer for Ginderske 2007, not a policy maker or committee member. Craig would have us believe that just by virtue of supporting a candidate - something he seems afraid to do himself - one is automatically an "insider." Further, not only did I not "concede defeat," even if I did it would be (a) unauthorized and (b) meaningless because I am not on the Ginderske committee. Rather than take Craig's word for it, read my own comments at http://rogersparkbench.blogspot.com. Thanks for the opportunity to comment!

sudokuist said...

I have to respond to item #2. You flyer may have a union bug, but i received that flyer at the Dev-Corp north meeting at No Exit, and it was being handed out by Jim and Joeseph. And guess what, no union bug. Come to think of it, all the flyers posted on city property for the gale school health event DID NOT have the union bug either.....

Kheris said...

Jim will have to explain why to bug or not to bug. I do know that when I visited his campaign's HQ there was an issue about the colors on the signs not being inconsistent. The printer failed to match a color. If a printing shop can foul up a color match, it's possible they fouled up the bug too. Again, something Jim will have to explain.

sudokuist said...

Wow, anyone look at the hell hole today? Looks like a third party talked to the owner and he states it was jimgrp that printed the flyers. Craig saw something, reported what he saw, you attacked him, and now what are you going to do? Shame, shame, shame......

Craig Gernhardt said...

Am I reading a blog version of the the gossip show called the View?

Tom Mannis being Rosie O'Donnell of course.

With all this water cooler gossip, you really should check the facts at the 'Broken Heart' before making all the accusations. (Updated today.)

Kheris, what color issue was such problem for Ginderske when you were in his HQ when you were there?

The non-union bug, flyer that was illegally placed in the Chicago Tribune's Red Eye box was printed in black and white.

Is Ginderske in the running now? If you think he is, you might as well vote for Alderman Moore. Ginderske's campaign tactics are worse than Moore's.

Go back to your water cooler gossip girls.

ps. If you two are so attracted to Gay Chicago Magazine like Tom Mannis is, stop by my office for a copy sometime. You'll find out we don't cover news. We cover entertainment. The news is on the Hell Hole.

Kheris said...

Sudokuist - keep reading.

Craig - keep reading and:

With all this water cooler gossip, you really should check the facts at the 'Broken Heart' before making all the accusations. (Updated today.)

This post went up Friday, or did that little factoid escape your eagle eye? It reflects the "facts" you had up at the time.

what color issue was such problem for Ginderske when you were in his HQ when you were there?

Green striping on the signs. There were clearly two different shades, visible even to me without my glasses. Jim was not happy about it and I have no idea how it turned out.

Is Ginderske in the running now? If you think he is, you might as well vote for Alderman Moore. Ginderske's campaign tactics are worse than Moore's.

I think that Jim is still in the running, and so far this jury is still out as to whether or not his tactics are worse than Moore's. If you want to make a case Craig, you will have to do better than you have so far.

If you two are so attracted to Gay Chicago Magazine like Tom Mannis is, stop by my office for a copy sometime. You'll find out we don't cover news. We cover entertainment. The news is on the Hell Hole.

Which "you two" are you talking about? If the quality of your coverage of the news on the Hell Hole is any indication of Gay Chicago's quality I think I'll pass. The Hell Hole provides plenty of entertainment now, with just enough real news to make it worth skimming.

The North Coast said...

Notice that Craig does not bother to comment on your Peak Oil posts. Craig would never bother his head with such issues. If he did, he wouldn't be screaming for more parking space.

Craig considers such subjects to be trivialities that should not distract him from Important Earth Shattering News, such as a dumb party attended by one candidate's young daughters, or somebody not having a 'union bug' on their campaign lit- last I heard, it was not illegal to use non-union labor to print yourself, and there are many people who don't consider it the least bit unethical.

It's amusing that Craig thinks of your blog as being 'gossip' and his as 'news'.

Gimme a break.