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.