A stupid mistake, very common in low-level races. Every sign printer should be smart enough to catch it, but they aren't. Easily fixed with a sticker. Is this just trainspotting, or is this the most important issue in this race?
I guess you would have to ask the voters John.
"Every sign printer should be smart enough to catch it"
are you also one of these people that blames the printer for mailing out the SS#'s on the envelopes as well?
You call that breaking news? What's next Fred? Someone stepped on an ant hill somewhere? Technically illegal? Well yeah, but not deserving this sort of attention.
It really shouldn't be common to make this error even in "low-level" races. Having helped in many low-level races, this is a rule that most people know and don't want to give their opponent any ammunition.
I'm sure this was just an oversight, but now stickers will have to be placed on each sign.
But are you sure it's not printed on the other side Fred?
Golly,
I remember there were a few times when republicans, and remember when the parties used to SAY on the poster whether they were republicans or dems, well, anyway, the union trade label wasn't on the signs. They would re-do the signs. Looks like a simple oversite unless it is printed on the flipside.
Fred, hardly a political uproar, more like a sniffle that didn't get a tissue.
It's BREAKING NEWS. 
Gonna answer my question, Foust?
Still Unreal, if I was a printer, yes, I'd want to better serve my clients by keeping them out of all sorts of trouble: no images they don't have the copyright for, no violations of postal regulations, and if I printed yard signs, I'd want to help them do it right. You're implying what about my response - that I think the agencies weren't responsible for what was printed on the outside of envelopes, or that the printer can be blamed for the error? Knowing what I know about bulk mailing, I'll blame the printer if they didn't get a signed proof of a sample envelope, and I'll blame the agency if they approved an envelope that had an SSN on the outside.
In short, no the other side did not have a disclaimer...
Is this huge news, no. Is it an election violation from a sitting pol, yes.
This is an error that should not be made by a veteran elected official
You call that breaking news?
Yes I do Nick. It is not the biggest story I have ever broken but you heard it here first.
The sign says Re-Elect... that means she ran before and should know the rules.
This is an issue because Lange is supposed to reveal the source of the funding used for her campaign, just like she is supposed to provide public records to citizens when they are requested.
The issue here is that there is a troubling pattern of behavior on the part of this public official.
I'm sorry, but I can't help laughing at the lefties who got all indignant. It reminded me of John McCain being born in Panama!
I think anyone who would even notice that Lange didn't have her "claimer/disclaimer" may have been conditioned in our current poiltical culture a la Pavlov's dog. Minor detail, but technically naughty nonetheless. Shame Ms.Lane shame!!
Good work Fred, give them a taste of their own medicine.
It's kind of like when a lib gets his clock cleaned logically, so he notes that you said YOUR instead of YOU'RE.
SOme of us would be more interested why the republican assembly ended their session after only working 27 days and getting their full salary.
When Dryfeuss and Thompson were in office, the Dem assembly didn't pack up and go home.
Diane needs to slap some stickers over the sign and done but really, I am more concerned about legislators we elected getting paid for 27 days work in Madison.
More concerning to me is I saw new signs up last night still without the disclaimer.
I am sure she is aware of this issue by now and the still contiue to ignore the law?
Souriously now Politely Disagree do we want to play that game?
How about the Democratic Senate with their quick gavels and refusing to take up common sense issues the people want like photo ID?
Fred, I do not want to impede your present topic but perhaps you can find someone to debate you on your Real Debate site. I think you write very well by the way. I would find it exhausting trying to keep up a blog!
I just don't get the short legislative session and would like to see some pros and cons.
Thanks Fred.
PD, I always welcome guest pieces, if you have issue with the session please write it up and email me at fkd1015@yahoo.com and I'll be happy to post it without edit.
If you wish to look at the legislative session though I'd ask you to look at both state houses.
Not too good at blogging but yes, of course, both houses. I don't see much of anyone protesting about working less than a month and getting paid a year's salary.
PD, please click this link, you will enjoy this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d...h?v=d0FJhOMc-
vA
Yes, Uncle Jay. He is a great character. Thanks Fred. I tripped across a few Betty Butterfield and s/he is good for some real laughs too, of course, well, never mind.
Commenting by HaloScan
