News about Walsh was delivered too late

I can forgive Joe Walsh for being in financial straits in this economy since unlike Melissa Bean he hasn't received a $174,000 paycheck annually from the taxpayers, and $28,000 from Charlie Rangel.

I'm troubled, however, that your reporter, Russell Lissau, disclosed Mr. Walsh's (gasp!) condo foreclosure only after the primary election. His story comes too late to inform primary voters of Joe's "baggage", but with ample time left to insinuate that Mr. Walsh might not have the proper fiscal restraint to be a member of congress. In his follow-up story, Mr. Lissau tutored us with choice quotes from some poli-sci professor chirping in on Lissau's revelation, admonishing, "you put any bad news about yourself out as early as possible" and then, "The more you look like a loser, the harder it is to raise money."

Congrats to Mr. Lissau on finding some irrelevant academic to contribute his political analysis, so that he could just "report" it. Should we be grateful for Mr. Lissau's gift of belated facts all wrapped up with his own slant?

Despite Lissau's post-primary attacks on Walsh, most voters in the 8th are fed up with unbridled spending and will vote to end it. Bean may not have a foreclosure in her past, but what she does have in her past is her voting record, which can be summarized as bloated government spending, government control, government health care, and government jobs. Is this proper fiscal restraint?

Joe Walsh's pledge is to shrink government and not shackle us with the economy destroying "health care bill" that Melissa Bean voted yes on. Voters can guess about what Walsh's foreclosure means, but know for certain that another term of Bean means more taxes, bigger government, and no fiscal restraint.

Jeanne Yeagley

Barrington