Tom W has published a tale about Don Gordon's erstwhile tenant and supporter, Andy McGhee. He supplements it with the tale of Gordon and McGhee chasing black teenagers with a baseaball bat. Given all the players involved in the McGhee tale I will assume that if the facts are not as he described them we'll hear soon enough. Regarding the baseball bat -- this is when I hate being a noob and not knowing all the details and context, so I am taking a pass on that one.
Tom's perspective is this:
The issue here is what the candidate did - neither one is responsible for the bad acts of their supporters. In one case of a supporter doing a bad thing, the candidate ejected the violent criminal supporter. In the other case, the candidate kept the violent criminal supporter close.
My reaction:
1 -- I agree that we shouldn't be characterizing the candidates based on bad acts by supporters, criminal or otherwise.
2 -- Tom's a lawyer and he is characterizing Andy McGhee and Moore's canvasser as violent criminals without telling us what crimes they were convicted of. I am not questioning that what either did was wrong, violent, and likely criminal, but is it appropriate to characterize them as violent criminals? Presumably if the canvasser's behavior violated the criminal code then he will be arrested, charged, and processed through the judicial system. So, it would seem, should Mr. McGhee. Neither has so far as I know.
3 -- Back to the McGhee tale; what about the rest of the players at the table? Tom doesn't tell us, but he certainly does not mention what any of the rest did about Mr. McGhee's behavior at the time it occurred. I have to wonder if they all just gaped in slack-jawed, wide-eyed astonishment. Why? Was it totally up to Don to deal with the problem? Why was McGhee allowed to carry on unchecked by anyone? Does Tom have any idea what Don might have said privately to Mr. McGhee afterwards? I don't know and I don't think Tom does either.
In Tom's view, Don is exhibiting poor judgement by not booting McGhee off his campaign and, at the very least, distancing himself from the man. For the sake of the argument, I'll agree with that, but I don't think it is any poorer than JoMo's overall poor judgement in his choice of funding sources or in dealing with ward issues.
At bottom, this is the start of an effort to portray Don as a racist. Tom specifically mentions an allegedly racist mailer he intends to post. In my opinion the McGhee story is the opening salvo.
12 comments:
Kheris- I have the real story from Don and I would be glad to email it to you.(email me at mm922@yahoo.com)I will not publish it beause I won't stoop to respond to Tom's complete bullshit and lies.
He CHOOSES to interpret events in an extremely negative light in my opinion. He also seems to have a real problem with anyone getting angry- but especially white people.
He thinks if black teens harrass anyone, it should be laughed off, but he can't cut a middle aged white guy a break for losing his temper? It's a joke.
Ahhh, just as I had guessed, it has to be one Tom W helping to stir up the racial pot in this run-off campaign. The real story is quite different from the socialist propaganda but their version serves playing the race card so much better. It seems it's the only thing they know how to do other than lie!
Before the 2/27 election, Tom called Moore a liar - which is a well known fact. Now Tom is promoting this liar since his JG didn't win. He may as well hide behind one of those Bush masks and hand out Moore Lies (that is if he isn't already).
Hiding behind a mask is an indication of the way this ward is run, has been run and will continue to be run if people fall for the lies one more time.
Khreis said...> 'Back to the McGhee tale; what about the rest of the players at the table? Tom doesn't tell us, but he certainly does not mention what any of the rest did about Mr. McGhee's behavior at the time it occurred. I have to wonder if they all just gaped in slack-jawed, wide-eyed astonishment. Why? Was it totally up to Don to deal with the problem? Why was McGhee allowed to carry on unchecked by anyone?
I was tempted to make a blog about this but I like your blog, so I'll post it here. Oh, and no one called 911.
What started the whole thing? As two teens were walking down the sidewlk, they hit the Heartland's signage by the outdoor eating area. Andy was seating right under the sign. Andy yelled something at the kids, I don't remember, then he tossed a glass of water in their direction.
Andy was a big jerk and I let him have it verbally after he threw the glass at the kids. Tom left that out.
I went into the street and picked up the broken glass, (that missed the kids by a mile, Andy's a poor glass thrower) Tom left that out.
Then I cussed Andy out some more for acting
like a jerk. Tom left that out.
Then I left all of them at the table in disgust.
Wonder why Tom didn't do anything but watch the whole thing go down? I tell you, Tom's a coward.
Oh, and the baseball bat thingy. Guess what? I was there for that one too. (No, I'm not Forrest Gump of Rogers Park.) First off, it wasn't a baseball bat, so Tom's story is dead in the water on that false information. That's for another day.
Jocelyn, I'll be in touch when I get back into town. I think the real story needs to come out, if for no other reason than to deal with mis-interpretations. But I think the guys who witnessed it need to speak to it. And if, as I suspect, we get multiple interpretations than Tom might want to consider dialing back his agitation a tad.
Given all the players involved in the McGhee tale I will assume that if the facts are not as he described them we'll hear soon enough.
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner and timing is everything! I hate when this happens. I posted without realizing Craig's post was in moderation limbo. Then I foul up this post. Swell.
Well, Craig's side of the story does put a twist on the tale and the ball is now in Tom's court, if he chooses to put it back into play.
My correct email is jmm922@yahoo.com and I will gladly email you Don's description of the so-called "bat incident."
It's fascinating to me that neither Craig nor Don will address these incidents on the record. I don't see that the ball is in my court at all. I put my story, in full, at the top of my blog. As I see it, I'm standing down at my end of the court, waiting for Don and/or Craig to start moving toward their goal. I'm waiting...
A few more notes on Craig's behavior at the table that day. Yes, Craig handled the situation quite well, probably better than I did, but who cares? Don Gordon is running for alderman, not Craig, or me, or Dan Sullivan, or Jim (anymore), or even Andy McGhee.
The relevant issue is Don's behavior, because Don is running for alderman. Craig's version of events says absolutely nothing that even slightly changes what I said about Don's behavior. Going back to your basketball metaphor, Craig's additional facts are the equivalent of him throwing the ball up in the stands. What exactly in Craig's comment makes you think Craig responded in any way to my point? I think he sidetracked you, and a little too easily - like maybe you weren't really looking.
Also, Jocelyn apparently has a version of the baseball bat story. What about the water glass story? Did you notice that Jocelyn is offering to explain a totally separate event? It's looking pretty clear that Don Gordon doesn't have an explanation for why Andy should have a place in Don's campaign, at least not one that includes the water glass story.
What's my response to Craig and Jocelyn changing the subject as a way of covering for Don? I guess none of them, Craig, Jocelyn, or Don, wants to address this issue, but I'd say their silence speaks volumes about Don's willingness to tolerate racist violence committed by middle-class white men against black children.
Personally, I'm against it. Not everyone is.
I can't help but feeling that Westgard's outrage over this incident is a matter of mere political convenience. He seems to be bringing it up now, although it happened months ago, to put Don Gordon in a bad light. Had he said something before the February election the obvious question would have been "What did Aldermanic candidate James Ginderske do?" Reading between the lines written by Craig and Thomas I gather he did nothing. This isn't going to change my mind in regards to Don Gordon having the potential to be a much better Alderman than Joe Moore has been.
Post a Comment