Runamok Hypocrisy

Came across this post this morning, complaining about an allegedly illegally-posted sign by a Republican candidate for reelection.

There is little that I hate in politics more than the application of purportedly objective criteria in the service of a partisan agenda. It's called "hypocrisy," and it seems that Craig Vitter's outrage is reserved for signs allegedly illegally-posted by Republican or Republican-identified candidates.

He has now complained about signs allegedly illegally-posted by Neabsco School Board candidate Julie Lucas, and now Delegate Jeff Frederick.

But 'nary a word about the multiple possibly illegally-posted signs by Democrat candidate for BOCS Chairman Sharon Pandak and Neabsco School Board candidate Manes Pierre. Or even Maureen Caddigan, for that matter.

He calls it a "crusade," or invites you to do so, if you will.

Seems to me to just be a crusade to silence Republican candidates, or rather, to beat them over the head with behavior he tolerates from Democrats.

Mr. Vitter has written a letter to Delegate Frederick. If I may, I offer my not-so-humble suggestion for an apropos response:

Dear Mr. Vitter:
Thank you for your note. I am always delighted to hear from the voters and citizens, even those who don't reside in my district.
I must confess that I found your note about being "confronted by one of your large campaign signs on the north-east corner of the intersection of Route 1 and Dale Blvd" and public announcement of it rather curious, since it suggests a commute rather more limited that the one that I would imagine that you have. Given my limited knowledge of your place of residence, though, I am certainly curious as to why my sign and my campaign is the target of your ire. Without a doubt, mine was not the only allegedly illegally-placed sign that you passed on your commute, yet it is only one that you seem to have noticed, and you direct your attention to me.
Curious.
You also assert that "This sign is place [sic] on the hill within the state owned [sic] right of way [sic] in violation of state code 33.1-273." Whether it is or it is not "within the state owned [sic] right of way [sic]" is not something that I am prepared to concede, since I have not seen the sign. Suffice it to say that campaign workers tend to be a zealous lot, and I do not and cannot take responsibility for everything that they do. I discourage them from placing signs illegally, just as I discourage them from removing (illegally placed or not) signs from opposing campaigns, or campaigns of other than Republican candidates.
I likewise discourage them from applying objective criteria in the service of a partisan agenda.
Rest assured, however, that I will see to it (personally, if necessary) that all of my campaign signs are removed from whatever location in which they are posted subsequent to Election Day.
Best regards, etc.

Sadly, I have my doubts that Delegate Frederick will respond in the way that I have suggested.

UPDATE: Craig responds to my post here, saying that he has attempted to contact Manes Pierre, and had his mail returned as "undeliverable." Too bad he misses the point in his effort to belittle....