On the other side, I have a problem with:One thing to consider, always, is what horrors an opposition-party president would have sponsored, and how much worse the existing legislation might have been.
I'm not a believer in "co-option" (also known as "triangulation"), or adopting part of an opposition agenda in order to defeat it. Still, there is something to be said for it: sometimes by moderating the worst of a national impulse we can defeat that impulse's worst impact. We also cannot ignore the immediate impact of co-option in its smothering effect: once enacted, a co-option law tends to shut down the agitation.
I'd put "No Child," Campaign Finance, and Medicaid Rx bills into the co-option categories. Since their enactment there's been precious little agitation by the opposition for more. The Rx giveaway even shut down the largest, most powerful lobby in DC, AARP.
But that's politics. I know the response this will illicit: where's the principle? Like I said, I'm not a fan of co-option, although I will admit its limited value.
A major, major plus.