More on the Wong sign story

Didn't get to this yesterday, but I'm amused by this KTRK story about Martha Wong and the altered campaign signs.

Drive through District 134 and you can't miss them. Signs are plastered around much of central Houston, including Bellaire and West University, but it's what you're not seeing that has some stirred up.

If you noticed the campaign signs, you may have also noticed a lot of red tape; not the usual government type, but the real deal -- red tape over the word "Republican" on Martha Wong's signs. The tape was put on by her own party. Why?

"We use one campaign sign when we're running in the primary, and we use another sign when we're running in the general," said Wong. "It's that simple."

[...]

Gary Polland, former Harris County Republican party chairman, says this strategy is typical in a general election, especially in a swing district, where votes may be tight.

"The voters who will decide this election are independents, not Republicans or Democrats, and that's why they don't put their parties on their signs," said Polland.

Political analyst Peter Roussel agrees. With the eroding of party loyalty, candidates don't want to limit potential votes.

"Nowadays, most political signs don't have a party affiliation on them anyway because the candidates are trying to appeal to the largest possible audience and independent voters," he said.

Wong's party also said those signs were old signs created for a primary election. The newer ones they had made up do not have a party affiliation on them. The election is November 7.

OK, that all sounds logical. Except for one thing: Martha Wong didn't have a primary opponent. She would have known that fact since January 2, when the primary filing deadline passed. Are you saying that she's been sitting on those outdated, only-for-a-primary signs since last year? If so, why deploy them at all for this general election? Surely with her $400K cash on hand, she could have afforded to buy a few new ones. She could have even been forward thinking and planned to save them for 2008, just in case. I mean, she's not going to ask for those signs back after November, right? So why use them if their purpose is for a primary?

I think we know what the answer to that is. She didn't give the matter any thought until she discovered a little too late that being identified as a Republican this year was not a good thing. And for whatever the reason, she decided that editing would be preferable to replacing. So much for that.

BOR has the video of the story if you haven't seen it.

UPDATE: This is what I get for hitting Publish before I check the Chron.

Wong campaign manager Josh Robinson said the taped signs are leftovers from Wong's first legislative race in 2002, when she was running in a newly created district drawn to elect a Republican. She defeated an incumbent Democrat.

Wong's 2006 signs read: "Re-elect Martha Wong. State Representative, Dist. 134. Principled. Passionate. Persistent."

"Our signs were depleted quicker than we expected," Robinson said, so the campaign distributed some old signs that were in storage.

I smell baloney here. For one thing, I've done a lot of driving around HD134 these past few weeks, and I see a heck of a lot more Cohen signs than I do Wong signs. (I actually see more Jim Henley signs than anything else, but that's a different story.) Second, it still doesn't explain why taping over the word "Republican" is a better idea than either leaving it be for the relatively small number of affected signs or just telling people to wait a few days till more signs have been received. I mean, c'mon, how can a well-funded campaign like Wong's run out of signs? They've been pretty free and easy about putting them in vacant lots. Why not let those sit signless for a few days while fulfilling the extravagant demand from real voters for signs in their yards?

Admit it, Josh. You goofed and you got caught. End of story.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on September 29, 2006 to Election 2006 | TrackBack