* It’s still a free country and everyone is entitled to think how they want, and I strongly disagree with this analysis…

The latest Democratic mailers are accusing state Rep. Lindsay Parkhurst of voting against programs for veterans and the elderly.

That’s misleading. The Democrats have provided no proof she targeted those programs in particular. […]

The Democrats are using a similar tactic against Rep. Jerry Long, R-Streator, in La Salle County. A recent flyer accuses Long of opposing money for programs that track sex offenders, citing the same budget bill that he joined Parkhurst in voting against. The programs tracking sex offenders consume only a tiny fraction of the budget, which is tens of billions of dollars.

My own opinion is that if you vote “No” on a bipartisan compromise budget that’s signed into law, this is what you can expect. Yes, it’s ugly, but their vote is their vote. Those who voted “Yes” have had to answer for whatever’s in the bill, like money for the Obama presidential center.

So, while Parkhurst and Long may fully support those state programs in their own minds, their actual voting record is the only thing that truly counts. It’s public record. It’s fair game.

But I know from previous posts that many disagree. So…

* The Question: Is it fair game to ding legislators over the details of a bipartisan budget that they officially opposed or supported? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

…Adding… I should add that some of these mailers (that the Dems do all the time) can backfire on their candidates. As well they should. But that’s also part of the campaign process. Your opponent goes too far, you benefit. Saying somebody supports rapists or child molesters or whatever because they voted against a budget can cause the accuser problems if the hit isn’t believable.

But the overall point still stands.