Was that an endorsement?

Like many others, I received an email from Jim Ginderske that ultimately originated from Joe Moore's organization. Despite mumblings to the contrary, the site does carry the following disclaimer:

This website is paid for by "Citizens for Joe Moore" and is not funded by taxpayer dollars.

So I am not inclined, at this point, to assume that tax revenues are paying for the site, or the email. If anyone can demonstrably prove otherwise with facts, not innuendo, then do step forward and make your case.

What is interesting about the email is Jim's straightforward acknowledgement that he will vote for Joe Moore without saying he endorses Moore. I don't know about the rest of my readers, but where I come from that qualifies as being a *wink* endorsement *wink*. I don't know why Jim just doesn't come out and say it.

He continues with a point by point attack on Don Gordon's alleged insensitivity, lack of a plan, and failure to follow through. So I went back and re-read Don's site.

First of all, here is what Don has to say on housing, which I believe addresses the criticisms that he is out to destroy RP's diversity:

So it should come as no surprise to anyone who knows me that one of my strong guiding principles will be that “No one who wants to remain in Rogers Park should be forced to leave. We’re all together on this boat and if I am alderman, no one will get thrown overboard!” This Housing Paper touches me personally and when it comes time to implement housing solutions, I will not only have my head in the right place, I’ll have my heart there too.

He has position papers on Crime, Housing, Economic Development, Parks and Lakefront, and Transparent Government. It would be great if he had position papers on everything, but he doesn't. I believe these papers reflect those items that are most important (although Tranportation should have been included too) and for which he had immediate ideas. What is notable about ALL of the papers is his reliance on community involvement throughout the process. He is very explicit about this and the form it will take.

Don may lack the absolute, in the weeds specifics that Jim laid out at his site for several issues, but I don't believe that reflects a lack of a plan on Don's part. I do think it reflects a difference in approach. Both are in general agreement as to the issues, while they differ on how to best solve them.

My personal impression of Don is that he is a plainspoken person, not given to adopting the vernacular of the progressives. He doesn't strike me as interested in conferring victimhood on anyone and appears to prefer personal responsibility and accountability. In this regard, he is typical of his generation, which is far different from Jim and Joe's in its approach to life and problems.

Jim tells us that Don has overstated his accomplishments. I have heard Don speak and I have the distinct perception that not everything has gone as expected on at least one project, that he was not the only person with a dog in the fight, and he was not the ultimate decision maker. That being the case, he has every right to note what he did do, as did Jim with the clinic proposal he got behind, worked on and submitted.

Jim makes another, very interesting statement, in this flyer:

Joe Moore says my campaign was "a wake-up call."

Is that so? I think the reality is that the runoff was the wake-up call. Joe thought he had it in the bag and found out he didn't. He needs allies now.

Unlike Mr. Gordon, he has expressed great interest in several of my proposals. We earned this respect through hard work and integrity.

I don't question the hard work or the integrity of Jim's campaign. I do wonder now whether Jim simply jumped over to Joe's ship because Joe wooed him and then put him on the Zoning committee. Did he approach Don and get rebuffed, or did Don simply not contact him? I have no idea. However, Jim gives Joe the opportunity to claim as ally a former foe, and gets in return a platform to continue pushing his ideas. I believe that to be true based on Jim's stealth endorsement and his closing comment:

I pledge to you that I will continue to be your voice in his ear; by shouting if necessary, and that we will work together to bring the changes that I promised to deliver through my campaign.

Jim knows that there are long memories in the Internet. People will be watching the outcome of the election, and regardless of who wins we will be watching the performance of the alderman for the next 4 years. Jim has made a public commitment and I am sure he knows it will be dissected over time to determine if he is meeting it. If he intends to run again, his performance on the committee, his public commitment, and his relationship with the alderman will undoubtedly become an issue for discussion.

We will be living in interesting times.