Dear Editor,
Everywhere there are signs!!! Campaign signs that is. While I must admit, I’m getting a bit tired of seeing all these signs; I understand the signs are in part what makes this great country free. Thankfully they’re only decorating our countryside for a few months. And the signs may take on the personality of the candidate. You can tell a lot about a candidate by their sign. The colors, script, font size, and the way and location they are installed. After all, the last line in all four verses of the Star Spangled Banner is “O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?”
Speaking of “free” and “brave”, I’ve recently came across some very disturbing information about several candidates fighting for the same position in Barton County. It’s is wonderful that any candidate has the “freedom” to place their campaign sign anywhere they have permission to, even retail businesses. It is equally wonderful that retail businesses are “brave” enough to allow candidates to place signs on their property during the election period. After all, a campaign sign placed on any property doesn’t guarantee the property owner supports that particular candidate! I mean look around, lots of yards have multiple candidates signs displayed. What it does indicate, at least in my opinion, is the property owner has enough guts to allow any / all candidates the opportunity to make known their intention to serve the people. Back to the disturbing information. I’ll choose not to include the names as the names are not the issue here, the tactics are and I want to remain neutral. Candidate#l asked and received permission to display his campaign sign on the property of a local retail business, which is a national chain. Within a couple of days, another candidate contacted the local business and complained about candidate #l’s sign being displayed and asked the retail business to remove the sign. The retail business told the “other” candidate the sign was legally placed, permission was given to be displayed there and displaying the sign doesn’t necessarily mean they support that particular candidate. The “other” candidate was not happy with the results from the retail business locally, and contacted the corporate office and demanded they act on the issue and remove the sign. After they investigated the situation, they decided the sign was fine where it was and allowed the sign to remain. Well, the “other” candidate was not happy with this decision either. He and his supporters contacted the local business and threatened to take their business elsewhere unless the sign was
removed. The local business called candidate#l and told him to remove the sign, which he did without an argument! I
guess the most troublesome issue to this sad state of affairs is some candidates feel the need to invade others freedom? It makes you wonder what tactics the “other” candidate will use if he is elected? I urge everyone to get to know the
candidates!
I don’t know enough about any of the candidates at this time, but plan to do some research before the primary election in August. What I do know is which candidate I will not vote for. It is really sad that the “other” candidate doesn’t have enough confidence in his ability and skills to have to resort to such childish games. It annoys me that he has to brag about his accomplishments of having signs removed. It is my understanding that this candidate has made calls to other businesses and homes trying to accomplish the same thing. I think there should be an ethic council to govern this type of behavior? Who knows, maybe the newspaper will look into this and report some NEWS?
I also know which retail store I will not do business with!
Carrol Boeken
Hoisington