Licensed in Illinois since 1994, according to ARDC, Gonzalez is currently a partner in the firm of Stone & Johnson, Chtd.. She was a finalist for associate judge in 2021.
Her campaign bio notes that Gonzalez was President of the Women's Bar Association of Illinois in 2005-06. She has served on the board of the Madison Street Theater and in leadership or volunteer positions in several civic or school organizations in Oak Park.
But does Don Harmon "support" her? Then again, Bhandari and Schneider didn't have his endorsement and now they are JUDGE Bhandari and JUDGE Schneider. Good luck, Dawn. Just keep your dog on his leash. He is troublesome baggage who kept you from winning AJ two years ago.
ReplyDeleteWhy hasn't this comment been flushed, Jack? You are awfully selective about what gets flushed.
ReplyDeleteDawn is first rate!
ReplyDeleteAnon 5/18 @ 10:42 a.m. -- I assume you refer to the warning from the very disgruntled Anon 5/17 @ 10:17 a.m.
ReplyDeleteSome of it may be written in a code I can't decipher. But it certainly appears to offer harsh opinions about the quality of Sen. Harmon's support in judicial races. But these seem to be expressions of opinion only. These opinions may be entirely misplaced; in allowing the comment through I certainly offer no endorsement of this unhappy person's opinions. Perhaps this person has good reason to feel aggrieved; perhaps not.
The comment, however bitter, does provide a general caution against over-reliance on any politician's support and a reminder that, however popular or influential a politician may appear to be, there will always be persons who are not kindly disposed towards said politician -- and who may be inclined to, and perhaps also in a position to, do damage to a candidate's chances simply because said candidate basks in the sunshine of that politician's support.
And, in direct response to your assertion, yes, Anon, I do try to be selective about what I let through. You may not agree with my selections. There are times that I wonder why I let this comment in, or that one. But I'm not opposed to comments that prompt conversation; I hope that's still possible, even in this sorry day and age.
Jack- did you really think Anon 5/18 motivated by the comments about Harmon? Read it again. Isn’t it more likely that Anon 5/18 was reacting to the tastelessly mean spirited reference to the AJ race a few years back? Someone referred to another human being as a dog on a leash, and you focused on the reference to Harmon’s prowess with reference to electing judges. Dang.
ReplyDeleteAnon 5/19 @ 4:06 p.m. --
ReplyDeleteDid I really think Anon 5/18 motivated by the comments about Harmon?
Yes, of course I did. Sen. Harmon is the only person named in the comment that offended Anon 5/18. Under any rules of English construction that I know of, since there is nothing in the text of Anon 5/17's comment to suggest that the subject had been changed, the comment appears to be about Sen. Harmon alone. And, yes, I read it several times, both before putting the comment through, while formulating a response to 5/18, and again this morning.
Isn’t it more likely that Anon 5/18 was reacting to the tastelessly mean spirited reference to the AJ race a few years back?
Gosh, I wish I was half so clever as you Anons. I don't know what the heck you are talking about. The "dog on a leash" reference is not a literal accusation that someone is a dog, or must literally wear a leash, at least not in context. It may not be a particularly clear analogy, granted. But you find some deep, dark meaning within. Or claim to.
But I wonder if maybe you're not so clever after all. Instead, you, Anon, may have some inside "knowledge" (and I use that word loosely) that I lack. I freely acknowledged that there might be some "code" embedded in the comment, which is why I hesitated in passing it through in the first place, some "insider" gossipy reference that the rest of us, in the real world, can't catch, but might be hurtful to those "in the know."
And you, Anon, for reasons of your own, want to make darn sure that -- whatever your insider gossipy reference may be -- it is rubbed in the face of its intended target. Whoever that may be. And, by continuing to press the point, under the transparent guise of 'concern,' you evidently wish to ensure that the hurtful smear, whatever it may be, is disseminated as widely as possible.
Dealing with this nonsense is the worst part of this beat. And I seem to get burned every time I let a comment through. No matter what.
It's always preferable to be someone's favorite niece or nephew.
ReplyDeleteAfter that, there's no one I'd rather have in my corner than Sen Harmon.