Slashdot Mirror


Political Yard Sign Wars Wage as Election Nears

gollum123 writes "Yahoo has a story on how tension among bitterly divided voters is translating into a barrage of attacks on political targets that can't talk back - yard signs. Campaign signs depicting support for either President Bush (news - web sites) or Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites) are being burned, chopped down, spray-painted and commonly, stolen away in the dark of night. Though sign shenanigans are common in election years, some Republican leaders are calling this year's activity unprecedented. Democratic leaders say attacks are so rampant that supporters should take their yard signs inside at night to protect them. Has anyone on /. had such an experience."

17 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. I hear that! by fiftyLou · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...are being burned, chopped down, spray-painted and commonly, stolen away in the dark of night

    I can sympathize. This sounds like what happened to my pot crop this summer.... well, minus the spraypaint. I never thought to bring 'em inside though - those democrats are so pratical.

  2. Seen such?... by rusty0101 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes. However without a lawn of my own, (appartment dweller, not basement dweller) I don't worry too much about bringing in signs. Perhaps I should pick up some of those bushes that have been sprouting up in the neighborhood. Then again, perhaps it is just too much to kerry.

    -Rusty

    p.s. Sorry about the puns, they just seemed to appropriate.

    --
    You never know...
  3. It's fine with me. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny

    As long as they are advertising by yard signs, and not spam, it's pretty good. No having to face emails every morning with titles like: EN:LARGE::TAXX:CUTS:VOTEBUSH and IN:CREASE:NATIONAL:PRESTEEJ:VOTEK3RRY

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  4. Why support them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Frankly I do not understand how anyone who is even halfway informed can actually support either of these two"

    Because, unlike you, they are informed of the fact that one of the two men will surely win. There are at least some differences between them, and anyone informed on the issues will prefer one of them over the other.

  5. My car by mpost4 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have Bush stickers on my car, and my car has been vandalized when ever I take it out.

  6. Wife heard a good one on Al Franken's show... by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A homeowner looked out and saw a man lying face down on his driveway. Going out to check, he found that the man was unconscious, so he went back in and called 911. When the rescue crew moved the man, they found him clutching Kerry (and other Democratic) signs under his body. His car was parked nearby, and they found more stolen Democratic signs in it. He was removing them, not placing them.

    Apparently he'd been removing signs in this neighborhood, and was going to cross the driveway when he tripped over a chain the homeowner had there for some unknown, but presumably logical reason. Since he was clutching the signs, he couldn't quickly get his arms out front to break his fall, so he hit his head and knocked himself out.

    The police charged him with numerous petty crimes. His wife said, "He's never done anything like this, before."

    Given that this is the good old US of A, I'm surprised he hasn't sued the homeowner for having that chain there.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  7. Re:No by BaldGhoti · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know what? I'm really sick of ignorant people saying "both candidates suck, I shall weep".

    I'm a fairly moderate Democrat, and you know what? Kerry doesn't suck. Neither did Al Gore. Neither did John McCain. I happen to really dislike George W Bush, but if I was a fairly hardcore right-wing conservative, I'd imagine I'd be pretty pissed to hear you say that he sucks.

    Are they perfect, flawless, shining crystals of purity? No, they're mother-effing human beings who are probably trying to do what they feel is right, most of the time. (That is, when they aren't compromising to reach consensus. Yes, it happens. No, it's not bad.)

    I'm sick of reading bitchy posts and hearing bitchy comments about how "oh, all the candidates are bad", and "I'm not going to vote". If you really feel the candidates are that bad, go to the polls anyway. Write in a vote for "NONE OF THE ABOVE", or maybe even the third party candidate of your choice. Badnarik, Nader, whoever--votes for those guys are how the parties realize they need to appeal to those platforms.

    If we as young voters all pitch in and at least make an EFFORT to vote (even if they're throwaway votes for Nader or something), then our power as voters goes up. Then, maybe candidates will talk to the 18-28 demographic rather than blathering on about health care. (That sort of talk is all very well and good for Grandma but generally not too important to a 24-year-old.)

    So go take a civics class or something and stop your complaining.

    --
    [insert witty sig here]
  8. Re:I Never Saw... by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I asked this question of a campaign organizer for a local election. She said that weird as it sounds. studies have shown that these signs have a large impact.

    I'd guess it has something to do with the way people take their cues from others around them in weighing how safe a decision is. When the weakly committed voters go into the booth, they are less likely to falter if they feel others are with them. When the undecideds vote, that same sense of confidence is going to make it easier to jump to a candidate that has wide apparent support.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  9. False conflict masquerading as serious discussion. by I+am+Jack's+username · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish, chapter 36:
    "It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
    "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
    "No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
    "Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
    "I did", said Ford. "It is."
    "So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
    "It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
    "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
    "Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
    "But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
    "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in.

    Power to you if you think voting for the lesser evil is actually reversing the downward spiral tho.

  10. RAH had it right by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Robert Heinlein had it right - you can tell a society is on the skids when basic politeness is viewed as weakness, and rudeness is viewed as strength. /me looks around pointedly at the /trolls

    It never ceases to dismay me how people can scream about how *their* right of "free speach!" is being infringed, and then turn right around and infringe upon the free speech of others.

    Supporting the speech of those with whom you agree is NOT supporting free speech. Supporting the right of speech of those with whom you vehemetly disagree IS supporting free speech.

    You may feel that Candidate Epsilon-1 is perfection incarnate, and that Candidate Epsilon-2 is distilled evil - if you go around taking down signs for Epsilon-2 you are NOT supporting democracy.

  11. Few Bush signs in Portland. Read the books. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative


    In Portland, Oregon, a friend mentioned that, before the last election, there were no signs in the yards in the wealthy area where he lives. Now there are seven Kerry/Edwards signs in the yards around his. There are no Bush signs.

    I began looking for Bush signs as I drive around my area. I've seen none. There is at least one Kerry sign on each block, usually more.

    I've heard that there are plenty of Bush signs in the rural areas of the state.

    Many people in the U.S. know very, very little about the activities in their government. There are many very angry people. The ignorant and the angry are easily manipulated. To them, for example, bombing for democracy makes sense.

    During the Clinton years, I read the books that were published about him. They said he was having sex with slutty women. They tried to find something wrong with his small losing investment called Whitewater. They said he may have, at some time during his being governor of Arkansas, associated with people who later turned out to be involved in questionable activities. I found the books interesting, but a little lame.

    Now I've read the books about Bush. It's amazing. The information about Bush is about severe corruption of government.

    The negative information about George W. Bush seems endless. Just when I think I know 10% of the corruption, I find more detail that shows I know less than 1% of it. For example, George W. Bush's brother was shown in a lawsuit deposition on 20/20 casually talking about his prostitutes and his use of government influence to make money. This is Neil Bush talking about himself.

    George H.W. Bush was involved in the weapons business with a brother of Osama bin Laden. See House of Bush, House of Saud: The secret relationship between the world's two most powerful dynasties by Craig Unger, 2004, Scribner, New York, New York, USA. Reviews: Powell's Barnes & Noble Amazon

    Most media exists to make money. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one policy over another. It's necessary to read books.

    George Soros says, "President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values." If Dole had been elected instead of Clinton, the U.S. would have had sensible leadership. This election is different. It is not a matter of which candidate you like. If you vote for Bush, you are poorly informed. This is not a claim that Kerry and Edwards are perfect. They represent, at minimum, a needed change.

    --
    Government data compares Democrat and Republican economics.

    1. Re:Few Bush signs in Portland. Read the books. by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A great number of people, including myself, believe that George W. Bush (whether you like him or not--I don't) is doing a good job with regard to the war on terror, and consider it the main issue of the day.

      That's a pretty good example of uninformed. What Bush's policies do not seem to get is that there are not a finite number of terrorists. Bombing a weapons cache in Iraq kills insurgents, but if you kill women, children, and innocents in the process, you can create as many insurgents as you kill. Furthermore, you'll turn the population against you. Mao said, the guerilla is a fish and the people are the sea: a successful guerilla war depends on popular support for the rebels; and that's what the tactics we are using so far are creating. Besides turning Iraq against us, the war has made the United States extremely unpopular throughout the Middle East. That's going to (a) encourage more people to join al Qaeda and related groups, (b) increase sympathy for these causes, creating the supportive population they need, and (c) make the United States so politically radioactive that no Islamic country can possibly cooperate with us against terror. Not to mention that we need to cooperate with other nations in Europe and elsewhere to prosecute the war on these terrorist organizations, however we've alienated our allies.

      How else has he screwed up? Okay, first, 9/11. The outgoing Clinton administration practically screamed at the Bush administration to pay attention to al Qaeda. What did the Bush administration do? They pursued the fantasy of National Missile Defense, a.k.a. Star Wars. Bush did nothing on terror when it would have counted: before 9/11. The Afghanistan invasion is (pretty much everyone will agree) a good move, but we've screwed things up quite a bit since and the warlords control most of the country, and bin Laden is still out there (remember him? Guy who blew up the World Trade Center?). Well, then Iraq. Brilliant invasion. Problem is, it was totally unjustified. So the U.S. has pretty much zero credibility these days. The other problem- no strategy to win the postwar environment. The first major screwup was not putting in enough troops- we needed about 300,000 and they put in 100,000. The second was not stopping the looting (except of the oil ministry). That made the Iraqis extremely distrustful of our motives (and it should). Another major mistake was disbanding the military. Yeah, it was corrupt and criminal, but there were thousands of people trained to use weapons who we could have had shooting insurgents, instead of becoming insurgents. Other screwups? Well, shutting down Sadr's newspaper was dumb. Having him print nasty stuff about us was bad, but preferable to having his army shoot at us with rocket propelled grenades. And of course, Fallujah. The US was provoked into a response, against the advice of the officers on the ground. Once the assault got underway, the Bush administration got cold feet and flip-flopped because of the civilian casualties: again, against the advice of the officers who were there. So that just made the situation worse. Damn, there are so many it's hard to remember them all. Oh yeah, torturing people in Abu Ghraib. That's like an al Qaeda recruiter's wet dream. You couldn't invent propaganda that effective.

      It's simple: the world is more dangerous under Bush. Arguably, he's a heck of a lot more dangerous than Osama bin Laden.

    2. Re:Few Bush signs in Portland. Read the books. by jrifkin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A great number of people, including myself, believe that George W. Bush (whether you like him or not--I don't) is doing a good job with regard to the war on terror, and consider it the main issue of the day

      I don't understand why people think GW is doing a good job on terror. While we can agree he is doing *a* job on terrorism, I find it at best noisy and attention getting (don't forget, he was a college cheer leader), at worst brutal, uninformed and ineffective. If you've read the accounts of Richard Clarke, Woodward, Ron Susskind, etc and still think GW is doing fine, then I'm totally confused.

      Kerry at least appears reasonable, hardworking and open minded, in a word normal, unlike the Bush who lacks experience (10 years ago he was an unsuccessful busisness man with no administrative experience), doesn't read and seems unwilling to learn or take advice outside his small insular circle. Even if Kerry's policy stands aren't exactly to your taste, his views are moderate and he seems much more willing to listen and compromise.

      I you want to read a good account of Bush's presidency, try this article Without a Doubt by Ron Suskind in the New York Times.

  12. My experiences slightly different by Second_Infinity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    During the 2000 election, I had something a bit different occur.

    My parents house (was living with them at the time) is on a farm, with a pretty heavily traveled road through it. We had the problem of the other side putting signs up on our property. We would take them down, to find more in their place a couple of days later. I lost count of how many signs we removed, as they kept on replacing them.

    It was not public land, they had no right to put them there, and we had every right to remove them.

    They were Gore/Lieberman signs.

  13. Both Signs get Destroyed by cfoster611 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In front of my house, my roommates and I have both Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards signs on our lawn, as well as signs from local and state campaigns. (A house divided, so to speak)

    All of them get trashed. the Bush/Cheney more often (4 signs down so far). But we live in a college town so such things are expected on Friday nights. Luckily, the Republicans here don't charge for signs, while the Democratic's charged $3 for the Kerry/Edwards signs, which get stolen/trampled/set on fire much less often.

    I figure if I call up the local RNC/DNC offices and tell them of my tails of woe, they'll hook me up with some really huge, gaudy signs. With huge defense lasers and remote-controlled carpet bombing capabilities. That'll stop'm.

    --
    --- Kicking the Cheat since late 2002
  14. Bush signs trashed in WA by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I saw some Bush signs pretty severely trashed this summer in rural Washington state. It put a smile on my face and a warm feeling in my heart.

    I think there are a couple of reasons this is happening. One is that people feel denied their right to dissent. This is what happens when you create "free speech zones" miles out of the way, suppress dissenting opinions and information as unpatriotic, and kick people out of Presidential events for wearing T-shirts you don't agree with. Another is that George W. Bush has polarized the nation to a degree that has rarely been seen before. He claims to do God's work, but it seems to me that all he's managed to do is spread hate: the Democrats hate the Republicans, the Republicans hate the Democrats, the Sunnis, Shiites, and Al Qaeda members in Iraq hate the American occupiers, America hates France, the whole world hates America... listen, I'm not religious in the least, but if I understand things right, Jesus and God are supposed to be about love. All this fear and hatred that Bush incites- if he's getting his directions from somebody, it ain't the guy upstairs, that's for sure. There's a line in the Bible that sums this up pretty well: "and ye shall know them by the fruit they bear". Seems to me Bush has given us a bitter harvest.

  15. Don't assume it's always the "other guys"... by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's worth reading about Karl Rove's tactics.

    My favorite:

    A typical instance occurred in the hard-fought 1996 race for a seat on the Alabama Supreme Court between Rove's client, Harold See, then a University of Alabama law professor, and the Democratic incumbent, Kenneth Ingram. According to someone who worked for him, Rove, dissatisfied with the campaign's progress, had flyers printed up--absent any trace of who was behind them--viciously attacking See and his family.

    Yup, anonymously attack his own client, so that people assume the opponents are doing it, making them look bad. This actually happens.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!