While running this morning, I saw a Bush-Cheney yard sign displaying telltale evidence that someone (other than the owner) had violently disagreed with it:

I was immediately reminded of this post:

Many Republicans are afraid to put Bush-Cheney bumper stickers on their cars or signs on their lawns because they are afraid of physical retaliation from angry liberals.

It is not just that one sees few Bush-Cheney bumper stickers and lawn signs - even in areas in which one knows his support is high. I do not have such a bumper sticker or lawn sign. In fact, most Bush supporters I have asked, even those who are fairly passionate on the topic, just don't think the risk of a key-scratch or broken home or car window, or much worse, is worth whatever benefit one receives from a partisan bumper sticker or lawn sign. There are just too many personal stories of cars and homes defaced and damaged.

The sentiment is not symmetrical: One sees plenty of Kerry-Edwards bumber stickers and lawn signs - even in highly Republican neighborhoods. Indeed,one sees plenty of such stickers and signs that express left-wing sentiments much more intense and partisan than mere support of the Democratic presidential ticket. Not infrequently these stickers and signs mention some form of violence or even death with respect to Republican officials. (Via InstaPundit.)

Obviously, people don't want the aggravation of putting up a sign and then having someone rip it to shreds (or do something worse), and I really can't blame them. But instilling fear doesn't strike me as the best way for the Kerry-Edwards campaign (or its supporters) to win hearts and minds.

I didn't think the Bush numbers went up because of what Bush said in his speech so much as in reaction to mobs in New York's streets. People find the politics of personal confrontation or physical violence (whether against persons or property) alienating, especially those who are not political ideologues.

I know this will sound crazy, but I think some of this might be an unintended consequence of the Internet -- but not in the way most people would imagine. The Internet, by allowing free and uninhibited dialogue, facilitates the finding of like-minded thinkers and the expression of opinions without inhibition, either anonymously or publicly. Here's how I think it can ratchet up the anger quotient:

Not that people who commit acts of vandalism are trying to persuade anyone. But neither are those who hurl insults. They do want to "win," though, and they may think that getting the attention of people by intimidation ("by whatever means necessary") constitutes winning.

Even if it means losing.

UPDATE: I guess this is the second sign:

In the photo below, three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while sitting on her father's shoulders. Her Bush-Cheney sign was grabbed by Democratic thugs and ripped to pieces, reducing the child to tears. We are picking up more and more reports of this kind of behavior by Democrats on the campaign trail. A week or two ago, this partisan violence, once unheard of in Minnesota politics, occurred at the Minnesota State Fair when Democratic thugs roughed up a couple of Republican college students.

The Democrats' violent tactics don't seem to be doing them much good, however, as the latest Gallup poll has the President leading by fourteen points. That isn't right, of course, but it indicates how the race is going, and why Kerry supporters are increasingly resorting to violence.

It's also fueling a climate of losing. The "Bush bounce" in my view, was more a reaction to this climate -- of ad hominem attacks, attacks on restaurant and theater goers, threatening people's homes, publishing citizens' names and home addresses, and more (cycles of violence, perhaps?) -- than to anything Bush or the Republicans said or didn't say at the Convention.

Obviously, these attacks don't work, and the ordinary voting public is disgusted -- much as Minnesotans were disgusted by the tawdry display of crass partisanship at Senator Wellstone's funeral.

But now that a backlash is clearly in play, the angry partisans only escalate their tactics. (And accelerate the process of losing.)

UPDATE: Atrios speculates that Parlock (the father) had one of his sons pose as the union thug:

....was Parlock having one of his sons portray a union stooge?

This guy is a serial disrupter with pretty much the same story every time.

Remember this when the Cornerites and Little Green Snot Bubbles spout off and try to make this a big story...especially in the wake of the known abuse protestors get at the regular "Triumph of the Will" functions that comprise a Bush Campaign appearance.

Please note: interviewed on the Glenn Beck radio show, Phil Parlock categorically denied that the person in the photos holding a piece of a torn sign is his son. And the attempts to “prove” it at Democratic Underground are laughable. If some real evidence shows up to support this claim, I’ll be sure to take note of it.

But the prevailing belief in the fever swamps seems to be that if you show up at a Democratic rally with a “Rethuglican” sign, you deserve anything that happens to you. Or to your children.

If I were a Jewish Republican, I don't think I'd appreciate the characterization of Bush appearances as "'Triumph of the Will' functions."

Is it really necessary to frame an argument that way? I defend the First Amendment right to call people Nazis, but I worry that such speech leads to further (and more physical) incivility.

MORE: The painters union president responds:

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades believes in the fundamental right for civil discourse, freedom of speech and activism to support our candidates and issues.

What happened in Huntington, West Virginia yesterday is an affront to everything we, as a union, pride ourselves to represent. We extend our apologies to the Parlock family, especially Sophia, for the distress one of our overzealous members caused them.

I have personally taken steps to address this issue internally, and will take immediate disciplinary action to the fullest extent allowed under U.S. Department of Labor regulations and the constitution of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.

It is my hope that this incident reminds all of our members that every last citizen in this country has the right to express his or herself freely. Not one single one of us has the right to tell them otherwise.

General President James A. Williams
The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades

This might help solve the mystery of whether he's Parlock's son. Doubtless there will be updates by those whose speculations prove false. (If it turns out he was Parlock's son, I'll certainly note that in another update.)

UPDATE: Via Glenn Reynolds, I found this link at Rising Hegemon (Attaturk), which initially suprised me, for the language is identical to that of Atrios which I just quoted above. I now see that Atrios was quoting Hegemon. My mistake -- which means my complaint about the characterization of Bush appearances as "'Triumph of the Will' functions" is properly directed at Attaturk, and not Atrios. (But my thoughts about Nazi references remain the same.)

I also see that Ed Morrisey is skeptical about this. I'm always skeptical, and right now I have no way to verify any of the Charleston (WV) Daily Mail quotes accusing Mr. Parlock of prior acts of sign waving.

He may well be a professional sign waver. But unless the man who tore up the little girl's sign is shown to be Parlock's son, previous acts of legal protest would be largely irrelevant.

And why should it suprise anyone that a man who helped his three year old wave a Bush-Cheney sign at a Democratic gathering would turn out to be a career activist? For that matter, wouldn't that be true of most wavers of signs at opposing party events?

Would I recommend doing what Parlock did? No more than I'd recommend putting a Bush-Cheney bumpersticker on a car and parking it in Berkeley! Or wearing a slutty dress in certain neighborhoods.