Politicians Are Now Destroying Their Opponents Signs

For quite a while now, I’ve always marveled at how opposing political candidates could tear each other up in speeches and on the news every night, but when it came to their campaign signs, those were sacred. 

This isn’t hyperbole for a great introduction, I used to own a Sign Store in New York and I am always astute to signage, from construction to aesthetics, and I truly wondered how so much consideration was taken.  Nary a knocked down sign, barely ever a marker mustache or black eye, even careful consideration to not block the view of an opponent’s advertisement. 

It was true chivalry.

This used to be the case.  Back in a time where holding the door for a woman was gentlemanly, not sexist.  A time where content of character was more important than the color of someone’s skin.  A time when Canada and Australia were beacons of liberal democracy.

The ceasefire has been broken.  In the span of 24 hours, seven new “Tom Roberts for Sheriff” signs went up across the entire valley and in each of those seven locations “Stan Hyt for Sheriff” signs were vandalized or upended.  When I took a closer look I realized I couldn’t do this by myself.  You would need a truck or a half dozen men to damage the signs as they did.

These signs generally run candidates about $800 (signs, trailers, delivery, maintenance).  Campaigns hire contractors to deliver and maintain the signs. 

No one is saying Tom Roberts was driving around and damaging Stan Hyt signs, nor has anyone accused the Assemblyman of “ordering the hit,” but if I were investigating the crime spree, I would start with the contractors who delivered the “Tom Roberts” A-frames.

So will the police fix the proverbial broken window immediately or will this be another campaign tactic, devolving into another example of “win at all costs” diplomacy.  Let’s hope chivalry is not dead, or is this where we are now in society?