Campaign signs are the hallmark of election season, and they become the flashpoint for battles over the perception of turf and visibility. From our perspective, signs have little value in terms of electoral issues, but nevertheless they become a symbolic and public battle between the campaigns.
The issue of the stealing of signs became so volatile in the Supervisorial Race between Incumbent Supervisor Duane Chamberlain and challenger, Woodland Mayor Art Pimentel, that staffers came to blows following a candidates’ forum, in an encounter in which the police had to intervene but the DA’s office declined to file charges.
In Davis, the battle of the signs is always at least a symbolic rite of passage in election season. Again, over the years, we have seen little to believe it is decisive or even important, but it is visible.
The war heated up when a passerby saw what turned out to be Mike Syvanen, the husband of Sue Greenwald, pulling a Dan Wolk sign out and replacing it with a Sue Greenwald sign.
Dan Wolk’s campaign claims that this sign was on the property of Jim Kidd, a local property owner, who supports Mr. Wolk but not Ms. Greenwald.
Sue Greenwald countered that “there has been an enormous amount of vandalism of our signs. Mike has had to replace massive numbers of them. He said there were were a very few places where he noticed that a sign that he had put up for me had been thrown in the bushes or displaced, and he put my sign up where he had put it initially, and moved the other signs.”
Could Mr. Syvanen simply have made an honest mistake removing a sign that he shouldn’t have?
It seems plausible, except that in the same area were a number of signs that appear to have been blocked – all by Sue Greenwald signs.
Melissa Martinez told the Vanguard that she took a series of photos showing the blockage and that she personally witnessed Mr. Syvanen blocking the signs.
“As I drove west bound on Covell Sunday afternoon I saw an individual place SG signs east bound right in front of all the other candidate signs,” Ms. Martinez told the Vanguard. “I couldn’t believe it but enjoyed a good laugh.”
“When I returned after an hour or so on Covell, the individual was now headed west bound just before Oak Ave. We quickly flipped a U-turn and snapped a pic as he was ditching the Dan Wolk sign into the shrubs,” she said.
At first she thought it may have been a homeless person.
She said, “He didn’t seem at all concerned that his act was witnessed and photographed.”
Later she “found out and confirmed that this ‘volunteer’ is Sue’s husband Mike.”
“Lawn sign shenanigans are ridiculous and childish, and they are frustrating for all of the volunteers responsible for keeping the lawn signs up,” Sue Greenwald responded on a Facebook post.
Ms. Greenwald indicated that Mr. Syvanen’s actions were against her directions, specifically warning him not to get involved in campaign lawn sign turf wars and telling him to respect all lawn signs, not to blocks signs and to put them up only where they had permission.
As campaign antics go, this is small potatoes.
Even Bernie Goldsmith, who had posted a group of photos on Facebook, said, “I think this has gotten to the stage where it’s just funny. I don’t think sign blocking is doing any real damage to anyone’s campaign. Look at it this way: at least some people really care a lot about their candidate!”
Sue Greenwald would respond, “I am not against political humor.”
Still, as the campaign season comes down to the final week, perhaps all sides should respect each other’s signs and avoid escalating any sign war.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
There are lots of reasons not to vote for Sue Greenwald, however, this is not one of them.
I heave a big sigh. I know for a fact that many of Sue’s signs have been removed and Mike has worked so hard to keep up with it all. If what is written here is true, I guess Mike finally went over the edge with frustration, which of course would not excuse the victim taking on the same behavior of the original perpetrators. I also know Sue would not approve, she is very careful to play fair. And one more thing, my Dad always made sure we used the correct titles for people, it’s Dr. Syvanen.
[i]Sue Greenwald said . . .
“05/28/12 – 01:55 PM
…
@Matt Williams:You will do your candidate a service if you stick to positive campaigning.”[/i]
There is a lot of irony in Sue’s post from yesterday. Perhaps she would have been better off turning to her husband and saying, “You will do your candidate a service if you stick to positive campaigning.”
Let’s be honest here. If this had been someone from the Sousa campaign caught on film removing or blocking Greenwald signs then all the supporters of everyone’s favorite victim would be screaming about ‘sign-gate’ and not laughing it off as some form of political humor.
I am not laughing, just as I was not when Sue’s signs were disappearing. I guess my Dad is just on my mind right now (maybe because yesterday was memorial Day) because another one of his lessons was “2 wrongs don’t make a right”.
“Ms. Greenwald indicated that Mr. Syvanen’s actions were against her directions, specifically warning him not to get involved in campaign lawn sign turf wars and telling him to respect all lawn signs, not to blocks signs and to put them up only where they had permission.”
It’s illuminating that Sue threw her own husband under the bus on this one.
Stealing another candidate’s lawn sign is unprofessional. It is simple enough to place one’s lawn sign next to another candidate’s lawn sign – rather than in front of it to block it from public view (interference w free speech), or to actually pull another candidate’s sign out of the ground and dispose of it (suppression of free speech). If you wouldn’t want that done to your own lawn sign, then don’t do it to other candidate’s lawn signs… the Golden Rule of Ethical Electioneering…
Perhaps an example of “leadership” qualities…
I have to leave now, but later today I will ask Mike to take a look at these other signs to see if he thinks he placed my sign in front of them. He acknowledged doing this in “about two spots” where my sign had been torn down. I’ll ask if he did these others. Again, I constantly urged him not to get involved in lawnsign turf wars, to block anyone else’s sign even it had replaced my sign, or to touch anyone else’s sign even if my sign had been moved or vandalized, because I could see that he was getting frustrated having to go out every day and replace so many signs.
Will we see the full version of the ‘investigation’ re: the signs, or a redacted one?
Sue, this lack of control over your campaign staff is troubling. Frustration is not a justification for bad behavior.
[quote]I have to leave now, but later today I will ask Mike to take a look at these other signs to see if he thinks he placed my sign in front of them.[/quote]
There is one on 5th Street between A and G Street or a bit beyond, where a Sue Greenwald sign is placed strategically to cover up another candidate’s lawn sign. I want to say it is around G Street on the south side…
There are lots of reasons not to vote for Sue Greenwald, however, this is not one of them.
I don’t agree with that. If Mrs. Greenwald is having her husband steal others signs – that is suppression of others’ expression and yes that is a reason not to vote for her.
While this isn’t the first and won’t be the last instance of election signage misconduct, it is an indication of how a campaign is being run by a candidate. All candidates will say that they didn’t authorize the removal or blocking of another candidate’s sign, and in most cases, that is probably true. However, it is incumbent upon the candidate to make sure that their staff are told and understand that such behavior is unacceptable. Some candidates or campaign managers will tacitly condone such activities by not saying anything to their staff. In a small campaign such as for Davis City Council, the volunteers would generally all have contact and know the candidate personally, and would heed any such warning. I don’t know of a good excuse for the actions of Sue’s husband. As was stated by someone else, if another candidate had done this to Sue’s signs, she’d be screaming bloody murder and blaming the other candidate as being responsible for their staff. I also find it funny that Sue’s husband has admitted to only two such instances of misbehvaior on his part. I wonder if these are where he was caught on camera or he knows that someone saw him.
It would be interesting to know if Sue’s husband actually saw who pulled-out her campaign signs. While it is sometimes done by opposing campaigns, it is also often done by kids and/or people unaffiliated with the campaign who simply don’t like the candidate. Unless someone saw another campaign actually removing your signs, I think it is unfair to assume that someone affiliated with a campaign has done it. In many cases, someone unaffiliated with any campaign removes the first sign, and then the “sign war” begins. Sign blocking is almost always done by someone working on a campaign, as it is far easier to simply remove someone else’s sign and say that no sign was there when you put your own up. If you block someone else’s sign, there’s a bit of evidence left behind as to what you have done. The one caveat is that given the amount of mischief in this campaign to start with, one might wonder if someone placed Sue’s signs in front of another candidate’s signs to make Sue look bad. Much as having Steve’s name at the bottom of that hit piece against Sue. However, in this case, Sue’s husband has already fessed-up to doing this on at least a couple of occasions, so I would tend to believe that he did them all.
Finally, signage removal or blocking on public property is one thing. It is a whole nother thing to be doing this on private property. I know lots of people tend to play fast and loose at election time on public property. I don’t know whether it is even allowed in Davis, but people tend to give it a pass if everyone else is doing it. If Sue’s husband removed a sign on private property for which Sue’s campaign did not have permission to place a sign, that is truly bad behavior. I suspect that Sue’s husband may have been putting signs up on private property and the owners who do not suppor Sue have removed them themselves. When the candidate the private property owner supported asked if they could place a sign, they did. Sue’s husband then sees that his illegally placed sign that was placed without permission has been removed and then trespasses once again to steal and replace the sign placed with the property owner’s permission with Sue’s. Real nice.
[quote]Finally, signage removal or blocking on public property is one thing.[/quote]Yes, and that one thing is “illegal”.
My mistake… placement of signs, without permit, on City property and/or within City street right of way is a violation of the City’s Municipal code.
So, here we go again: Sue as Victim.
These actions are offensive to Davis standards of campaigning. While we all universally condemned the nasty mailer, Sue reacts to documented wrong-doing by issuing non-denial denials, attempting to justify the actions, blaming someone else and calling the acts “political humor.” Other than that, she doesn’t have time to deal with this now.
Just as Rich’s column tried to absolve Sue of her bad behavior with Ruth, Sue’s supporter attempts to minimize this as the acts of a hard-working, well-intentioned person driven “over the edge” by other people’s meanness. I also heave a big sign.[quote]”…I will ask Mike to take a look at these other signs to see if he thinks he placed my sign in front of them.”[/quote]Since Dr. Syvanen apparently has trouble truth-telling to his wife, one has to wonder whether we’ll read next. I hope she also asks him why he would be pulling out [u]any[/u] of the other candidates’ signs even if it was in “a very few places” or “about two spots”–depending on what story we’re getting.
[quote]”Dan Wolk’s campaign claims that this sign was on the property of Jim Kidd, a local property owner, who supports Mr. Wolk but not Ms. Greenwald.”[/quote][quote]”Sue’s husband then sees that his illegally placed sign that was placed without permission has been removed and then trespasses once again to steal and replace the sign placed with the property owner’s permission with Sue’s. Real nice.”[/quote]Sounds like a good possibility in this case, newshoundpm. But, this kind of vandalism of and on private property is illegal in some communities. I wonder about Davis.
[quote]this kind of vandalism of and on private property is illegal in some communities. I wonder about Davis. [/quote]It’s called “trespass” (as well as ‘vandalism’). Davis doesn’t have specific ordinances, that I’m aware of, that amplify the common law princile.
Dave Greenwald writes: “From our perspective, signs have little value in terms of electoral issues…”
But, in terms of electoral issues, who gets elected is the bottom line; which is why signs are so important! Sign-gate shows how petty power issues become the focus of energy that in an ideal world would be directed toward solving problems. But, after all, politics is, bottom line, the art of controlling one’s environment.
Sue has described what happened – a frustrated family member/campaign volunteer who acted inappropriately and got caught. However, simple apology seems to be missing in Sue’s response. She isn’t the victim here, she must realize.
I think people are right in saying that if this had been someone else’s campaign volunteer trashing Sue’s signs, the conspiracy theorists would emerge with a vengeance.
This doesn’t affect my vote in any way.
As the [i]Vanguard[/i] usually points out when someone gets caught red-handed, this just means the folks have been doing this many, many times without being observed.
One thing you can say about the documented “sign hiding,” Dr. Syvanen is an equal opportunity offender. Wonder how Brett Lee escaped unscathed?
David, had you tracked down the good doctor for his own comments about what he did?
Okay, I asked Mike about those pictures. He said he had not placed most of those signs in front of other signs. They conveniently show the chamber PAC slate being blocked. Mike did not do that. And we have not taken sides in this race.
Again, he found my sign in the bushes on Covell and a Wolk sign where my sign had been. He took the Wolk sign down, placed it in the Ivy, but my sign back up where he believed he had originally placed it, and then put the Wolk sign back up behind it. He said that he did that in one similar situation, and he thinks it was a Wolk sign as well.
[quote]”Dan Wolk’s campaign claims that this sign was on the property of Jim Kidd, a local property owner, who supports Mr. Wolk but not Ms. Greenwald.”-[/quote]We have had problem with Jim Kidd refusing to let tenants give permission to put up lawn signs. He has done that during this campaign, and it is illegal.
I had explained to Mike a number of times that he shouldn’t touch another candidates sign — not one finger — EVEN IF that candidate’s workers had removed my sign, trampled on it, and then had taken the more visible spot that my sign originally had.
The reason that I gave him this advice was not merely an excessive sense of propriety, it was also because I knew that the political operatives and the aspiring political operatives in this town would seize on ANY excuse to make a political issue. I knew that, I predicted that, and I advised my campaign to act defensively.
Dang it, David, here you are again reprinting stuff from other different sources without giving proper credit. It looks as though you’ve lifted this story directly from Bernie Goldsmith’s Facebook page reporting (as well as last night’s [i]Davis Patch[/i])–photographs, Sue’s quotations, other’s statements and all.
At: https://www.facebook.com/bernie.goldsmith you’ve asked:[quote] “Bernie: do you have any evidence that sue or her campaign did this?”[/quote]and then there’s this interesting series:[quote][u]Sue[/u]: “I can tell you one thing, Bernie — he would never engage in sign vandalism….two spots….about two spots….very few places….”[/quote]Multiple choice. Pick one of her responses. Then, wait for another.
Then see reports that piles of other candidates’ signs have been found and that places that residents know were decorated with Wolk and Frerich signs [u]before[/u] only Greenwald signs were there. The latter comment was offered by Bernie Goldsmith as a caution that:[quote]”(Dr. Syvanen) consider very carefully his claim about ‘Greenwald’ signs being on that spot first, because the memories of many people will disagree with his version of events.” [/quote]The only slight hint you provide about your source is your use of Bernie’s quote for your contention that: [quote]”As campaign antics go, this is small potatoes. Even Bernie Goldsmith, who had posted a group of photos on Facebook….”[/quote][i]Vanguard[/i] readers should [u]know[/u] the sources of [i]Vanguard[/i] stories. We should [u]know[/u] that Bernie Goldsmith did the real legwork and reporting here, and partly to allow us to make judgments about the legitimacy of the story.
The first photo with a blurry figure and a sign seals it for me. Finally, a confirmed sighting of Bigfoot in Davis!!
[quote]”The reason that I gave him this advice was not merely an excessive sense of propriety, it was also because I knew that the political operatives and the aspiring political operatives in this town would seize on ANY excuse to make a political issue. I knew that, I predicted that….”[/quote]This activity must be embarrassing for you, Sue, and I don’t want to be rubbing it in more than it deserves to be.
But, it’s also embarrassing that you’d be claiming your cautions to your husband are out of “an excessive sense of propriety” and because you knew your enemies would “seize on ANY excuse to make a political issue.”
It’s surprising that you don’t view these incidents as something very wrong and worthy of apologies to the people your campaign damaged.
We all stuck up for you against the unions’ nasty mailer. You should speak up on behalf of the candidates who were targeted by your campaign (or, at least, by one of your campaign workers).
There are too many lawn signs anyway. There is no shortage, they are everywhere. Nobody is going to look at this sign or that one and go oh now I know who to vote for or in the case of some signs now I know who to vote against.
Now if Sue sent Mike out to take down the “Don’t vote for Sue Greenwald” sign from Toad Hollow it might be an issue since its the only one I know of in town.
Yes messing with signs is a violation of our election process but making a big deal out of this by saying its illegal is the same level of depth as people who go off about amnesty for illegal aliens with their what part of illegal don’t you get attitude. This is smaller potatoes than rolling through a stop sign. Still all you indignanr posters missed the best line possible:
Wife disavows husband.
Mike S is a saint who else would go out there and worry about signs ?
@ Mike H – Mike’s view of the world: People at signature tables trying to engage in conversation = evil conspiracy to block signature gathering. Carefully placing sign to block opposing candidate’s sign and removing/trashing signs for favored candidate = an act of a saint.
As my name implies, I never comment on blogs. But I am compelled to do so now.
I am a downtown business owner and, as a result, I have had conversations with the two property owners in question (who own apartments along this stretch of Covell). Neither of them, in any way, support Sue Greenwald. Her signs should never have been there in the first place. They would have been put there without permission.
And that is where Sue’s “explanation” falls flat: that her husband was just “replacing” signs that were there before. Not only were they not there before, but they had no business ever being there. If even one sign was put up by Sue’s husband on those properties, which the picture clearly indicates, it was being done without permission or support. And to claim they were just being “replaced” is a lie.
To quote an infamous politician, “This would go a lot faster if you would stop lying.”
Hi guys, I just created an account here. I really hope that nobody here is making any ballot decisions based on a few badly placed lawn signs.
I wish you good luck, Sue. To be honest, if you made me bet on things, I’d say you’re going to win this election.
If you will forgive me for making hay and online amusement with these badly placed lawn signs by my house, I’ll forgive you for saying I staged the photos, now that it’s clear that they weren’t staged, and that someone placing these signs might have made a quite forgivable error in judgment.
Some day one of our own favored candidates will have to eat crow over something stupid a volunteer did. Maybe it was stupid of me to post these lawn sign photos and make fun of the situation. I hope I haven’t made any lasting enemies through it. Let’s laugh at these little incidents and chalk it up as a lesson in keeping things in perspective and clean campaigning.
[quote]”Yes messing with signs is a violation of our election process but making a big deal out of this by saying its illegal is the same level of depth as people who go off about amnesty for illegal aliens with their what part of illegal don’t you get attitude. This is smaller potatoes than rolling through a stop sign.[/quote]No, actually, this is a violation of our election process.
I do agree with your headline. No doubt, he’ll also get his butt kicked when they get home.
[quote]Wife disavows husband.[/quote]By my count, Saint Mike has now taken at least three trips under the bus at Sue’s hands.
I guess in the Greenwald campaign the buck stops ……… over there.
Disappearing lawn signs is not the issue. How the candidate responds is.
Take responsibility, apologize, and whatever you do, don’t lie.
0 for 3 by my count.
inevercomment: [i]”I have had conversations with [b]the two property owners in question (who own apartments[/b] along this stretch of Covell). Neither of them, in any way, support Sue Greenwald. Her signs should never have been there in the first place.”[/i]
It is possible (maybe even likely?) that the Sue Greenwald signs were put there by tenants of those buildings. To do that lawfully, they would have to get the permission of their building’s owner.
Here is the applicable Davis ordinance on tenants’ rights in this regard: [quote] [b]12.01.120(8)[/b] Not withstanding any lease to the contrary, no landlord or lessor shall prohibit a tenant lawfully in possession from posting political signs. Political signs may be posted or displayed in the window, on the balcony, or on the door of the premises leased by the tenant in a multifamily dwelling, or from the yard, window, door, balcony, or outside wall of the premises leased by a tenant of a single family dwelling. [/b] Common areas, such as the lawn along Covell, are outside of where tenants of multi-family dwellings may post such campaign signs.
Correction: “Common areas, such as the lawn along Covell, are outside of where tenants of multi-family dwellings may post such campaign signs.”
That does not belong in my quote of the municipal ordinance. To satisfy Mark West, I take responsibility for my mistake, I am sorry for it and I will never lie about it and claim it was anyone else’s fault.
Sue Greenwald said: “We have had problem with Jim Kidd refusing to let tenants give permission to put up lawn signs. He has done that during this campaign, and it is illegal.”
OK Sue, given what Rifkin has posted just above, what is your basis for stating that a landowner not allowing an apartment tenant to place a campaign sign in a common lawn area is illegal? Would be nice for you to check your facts before you go spouting off, lest folks start to believe that maybe you do that regularly. And, while you are at it, can you confirm that a tenant actually gave your campaign permission to place a sign there to start with? You seem to imply that this is what occured, but given all of the dancing going on around the truth, I’d like you to confirm that is what you are claiming. A piece of advice. Given that your gave explicit instructions to your campaign volunteer not to mess with anyone elses signs and he did so anyway on multiple occassions, and has not admitted it, you might want to relieve him of such signage duties.
[quote]”It is possible (maybe even likely?) that the Sue Greenwald signs were put there by tenants of those buildings.”[/quote]Why is this likely (even possible) if Sue and her husband did not offer it as a rationale for the signs that, first, never were touched and, later, were just a couple.
It’d be easy enough to ask Sue if this is what happened. It’s be easy enough, now that you’d provided a potential alibi, for her to find at least one supporter/tenant in the building who would testify on her behalf that he/she put up Greenwald signs.
A couple questions: Do we love Sue so much that we’ll overlook [u]any[/u] weird, contentious, illegal thing she comes up with? Is she a victim princess, a drama queen or the only hope we have to keep the other four council members from doing something weird or illegal? I don’t know; I just love her. But, it sure isn’t easy.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”It is possible (maybe even likely?) that the Sue Greenwald signs were put there by tenants of those buildings. To do that lawfully, they would have to get the permission of their building’s owner.”[/i]
Rich, it certainly is possible, but it is also not terribly likely in this election. The reason I say that is that the vast majority of tenants in this town are students, and given the issues that have taken center stage in this election, students really are not engaged in the election at all. Further, there is no “student friendly” candidate like Rob Roy or Lamar Heystek who has any kind of student following. Finally, there is no Presidential Primary to grab any student interest in the election.
So, bottom-line the chances that the Greenwald signs were put up by tenants is probably somewhere between slim and none.
I just saw CBS 13’s report on this matter. I am disappointed that Sue Greenwald chose to accuse me of staging these photographs.
“They conveniently show the chamber PAC slate being blocked.” -Sue Greenwald
I am disappointed that she chose to insinuate some unidentified Chamber PAC involvement in this mess.
-Michael Bisch
[i]”Finally, there is no Presidential Primary to grab any student interest in the election.”[/i]
There is, however, the US Senate primary, featuring about 45 candidates and Diane Feinstein.
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-smlPNEcXm7M/T8V3UmYE_wI/AAAAAAAAAls/fEgYhqarArM/s1600/Sample_Ballot_2012.jpg[/img]
Anyone have a link to the CBS coverage?
[i]There is, however, the US Senate primary, featuring about 45 pretenders and Diane Feinstein. [/i]
None of today’s UCD undregrads are old enough to remember Chrissie Hynde.
[quote]I just saw CBS 13’s report on this matter. I am disappointed that Sue Greenwald chose to accuse me of staging these photographs.”[/quote]You’re kidding. This is starting to get fun. Was Sue correct in labeling this as “political humor.”
Why did she identify the Yeti as her own husband? Did you Photoshop it, Melissa?
CBS link please.
[quote]”I am disappointed that she chose to insinuate some unidentified Chamber PAC involvement in this mess.”[/quote] Sue, why didn’t you give me credit for being first to note that Brett Lee was the only one not blocked? This isn’t much evidence to make such a charge against the Chamber, however. Maybe your husband likes Brett better or thinks the other three are stronger competition.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/video/7342065-signs-tampered-with-in-davis-council-race/
[i]”Anyone have a link to the CBS coverage?”[/i]
You can see the Channel 13 story here ([url]http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/video/7342065-signs-tampered-with-in-davis-council-race/[/url]).
A few brief notes on local TV news: 1. The news reporter, who doubles as a weather forecaster, mispronounces Frerichs; 2. When Dan Wolk shows up (at least in the version I saw), there is nothing to identify him; and 3. I loved the movie, “Anchorman.”
[img]http://www.spikednation.com/sites/default/files/emvideo-youtube-SiHdL-6U4Sk_1.jpg[/img]
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”You’re kidding. This is starting to get fun. Was Sue correct in labeling this as “political humor.”
Why did she identify the Yeti as her own husband? Did you Photoshop it, Melissa?”[/i]
I got a chuckle about the political humor comment too JS. When I posted the following “political humor” over the weekend it was excoriated. Since Sue is now in a humorous mood, maybe she will see the humor in it on second viewing.
[i]It had to be Sue, it had to be Sue
We wandered around, and finally found – the somebody who
Could make us be true, and could make us be blue
And even be glad, just to be sad – thinking of Sue
Some others we’ve seen, might never be mean
Might never be cross, or try to be boss
But they wouldn’t do
For nobody else, gave us a thrill – with all of her faults, we love her still
It had to be Sue, wonderful Sue, it had to be Sue[/i]
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”Sue, why didn’t you give me credit for being first to note that Brett Lee was the only one not blocked? This isn’t much evidence to make such a charge against the Chamber, however. Maybe your husband likes Brett better or thinks the other three are stronger competition.” [/i]
Actually, if you look at the bottom left of [url]http://davis.patch.com/articles/photos-campaign-sign-controversy-stirs-up-davis-city-council-race#photo-10096102[/url] you will see that all non-Greenwald candidates were uprooted or blocked.
More background, this from Melissa Martinez’ Facebook Page, including the outright denial from Sue and her charge that Bernie Goldsmith posted phony pictures:
[quote]Sue Greenwald
Bernie, you know darn well that these pictures are staged. I have always had a higher opinion of you.
Yesterday at 3:47pm
Bernie Goldsmith
Who do you think is staging them, Sue?
Yesterday at 3:49pm
Sherry Hughes Richter Puntillo
They are NOT staged, Sue. A witness caught Mike (your husband) in the act and took a picture of him! Really. Admit it and move on. Enough already.
Yesterday at 3:50pm
…..
Melissa Martinez
Hello everyone concerned: I have no reason to lie. We watched this individual work himself up and down both sides of Covell. He looked right at us after I snapped the picture of him dumping the DW sign in the shrubs. I later was able to confirm the “volunteer” was Sue’s husband. He did this in broad daylight and in his own car parked along with him…
As of this morning all SG signs had been removed but I do have photos if those need to been seen.
Yesterday at 4:27pm [/quote]
I think this might end Sue’s run. Her opponents are probably giddy.
Thanks for the CBS link. What a hoot!
There’s Sue bemoaning the many “distractions” in this terrible campaign season (including all the signage problems she’s had), plus her confessing to her husband’s acts against two signs. The reporter notes that blocking another candidate’s sign is a legal violation of the city’s code. Tossed under the bus and into the pokey.
She, Do you know the song “Stand By Your Man” ?
It’s a dirty race, alright
Someone told me they saw a Sue sign covered up by an orange sign, with The Wonder Dog running away
[quote]Wife disavows husband.[/quote]Throwing Saint Mike under the bus on regional TV? That’s pretty scummy.
Holding on to this ridiculous assertion that my photos were staged is also pretty scummy. I shot what I saw. Other people, people that I didn’t know before this whole thing, took similar photos. They were not staged.
I’m a single guy, and am jealous about not having a mate devoted enough to do something like this for me. Unfortunately this episode might hurt Sue, as married voters will look themselves in the mirror and realize that even their ‘better half’ has rarely if ever exhibited such touching loyalty; and they may not choose to vote for someone they can only envy.
Yes, this whole episode is touching, musch as the female black widow devouring her mate after his usefulness has come to an end…
“I think this might end Sue’s run. Her opponents are probably giddy.”
I suspect Sue is a sure thing for re-election . I do think it’s time for her to dump the victim act and go for “contrite”, but that is possibly beyond her range .
[quote]Mike S is a saint who else would go out there and worry about signs ?[/quote]
So you condone such behavior by a spouse bc it is supportive of the candidate?
[quote]I suspect Sue is a sure thing for re-election . I do think it’s time for her to dump the victim act and go for “contrite”, but that is possibly beyond her range .[/quote]
I suspect the race is anyone’s to win or lose…
Of course it is wrong to tamper with lawn signs whether you get caught or not. It would be good if everyone who did it would apologize, whether they were caught or not. I can not speak for another person but if I got caught doing what others have also done it would take a HUGE gulp to apologize when others don’t/won’t, but perhaps I would lead and do so. It is not getting caught that makes the apology necessary, it is the doing the act that does. And getting caught is even the wrong reason to apologize (of course). I call for all lawn sign tamperers to step up to the plate and APOLOGIZE.
The Steve Souza sign in my yard has been stolen at least six times now. I believe Steve has given up on our yard and stopped replacing it. I can’t say I blame him. The signs cost money. I had assumed it was just the drunken yahoos who parade up and down my street from 11pm – 3am every Friday and Saturday night being young stupid drunken yahoos. It had never occured to me that a candidate or her husband might be behind it. Political humor? Are you kidding me? This is not student council or prom committee. This is a real grown-up job that has great impact on the lives of 65,000 people.