Compromise only good for some things
Friday, Jun 7, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From a Tribune editorial…
The Illinois General Assembly sent Gov. Pat Quinn a concealed carry of firearms bill that embodies the art of compromise. In other words, nobody likes it.
Pro-gun groups say the bill is too restrictive. They say it carves out so many places you can’t carry a concealed weapon that it neuters the ability of law-abiding citizens to adequately protect themselves.
Gun control advocates say the bill is too loose. They say it doesn’t give law enforcement enough discretion to deny concealed carry permits.
We’re not crazy about the bill, either. We would have preferred a law modeled after New York’s, which empowers local law enforcement to approve concealed carry permits only when applicants show they have a need for extra protection.
That concept didn’t get much traction in the Illinois General Assembly. Lawmakers sent Quinn a bill that incorporates the wish lists of pro-gun groups and gun control advocates, including Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
Quinn could veto the bill or attempt to rewrite it. We advise him to sign it.
* An e-mailed response from a longtime reader and subscriber…
If I can, allow me to pile on the Tribune Editorial Board for a moment. Did you catch their piece today praising the concealed carry legislation? They called it a “bill that embodies the art of compromise.”
Yes, these are the same rabidly anti-compromise folks who have trashed John Cullerton at every turn for trying to find some middle ground on pension reform. Which is it, Tribsters…should the General Assembly and governor dig their heals in and demand the best bill possible, or should they acknowledge an impasse and negotiate a bill that is far from perfect, but better than doing nothing?
On one issue, compromise is a political art form. On the other issue, compromise is a nearly impeachable surrender of legislative and executive responsibility. Unfreakingbelievable.
Indeed, the same day the Trib praised a legislative compromise on guns, they again trashed Cullerton for refusing to “cave” to Speaker Madigan on pensions.
Discuss.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 12:00 pm:
===Unfreakingbelievable.===
Ditto. Well said. Asking for intellectual consistency from the Tribune editorial board is asking too for much apparently. It’s almost like they think we’re too stupid to remember what they wrote yesterday. It’s kind of insulting to their readers if you ask me.
- Bill White - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 12:01 pm:
The Trib wants what it wants. Consistency is irrelevant. Same as it ever was.
- Ghost - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 12:16 pm:
it depends on whetehr you thing the trib ediorial board should operate on a set of logical guidelines which create standards which are capable of repetition…or just work off of emotional appeals, based on whehther they personnaly like or dislike the person/subject they are writing about.
For some reason we think the media should be option A, and I give the SJ-R points for at least trying to be like option A, or you can be option B, which would be the tribune
- Charlatan Heston - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 12:38 pm:
I tend to look at the Tribune and Sun-Times in much the same way I look at Bill Daley. In attempt to remain relevant they pipe in with little to no impact….and more often then not, miss the mark
- Charlatan Heston - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 12:39 pm:
* than
- dupage dan - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 12:49 pm:
Yes, the Tribune wants Cullerton to give in to MJM - a person the Tribune frequently exoriates in articles and editorials as too imperious and engaged in nefarious business deals for which they provide little substantive evidence.
So, what else is new?
- muon - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 1:10 pm:
It seems no different than their overall pension position which in 2011 was all about 401k-style plans and in 2013 is all about COLAs.
- RonOglesby - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 1:12 pm:
Its the same Trib that demanded Lisa take the CCW ruling all the way to the supreme court. Now they support compromise on this.
Wanna bet a compromise Pension bill actually passes they will talk about how they didnt really like it, BUT the governor should sign it.
Allows them to take a position and seem like the smartest kids in the room no matter what they write.
- Wensicia - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 1:14 pm:
The Tribune is so fixed on massive pension reform that they’ll gladly embrace the devil (Madigan) to see it pass. Now Cullerton is in their doghouse because he offers something that might pass constitutional muster and would be accepted by the hated unions. For the Trib, compromise means agreeing with how they see things.
- Joe M - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 1:21 pm:
Perhaps the Tribune thinks that if it writes crazy enough editorials, the Koch Brothers will buy them, and rescue them from their financial problems.
- siriusly - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 1:25 pm:
Interesting that these people can’t decide which way they want it.
Lucky for them that they don’t have to be consistent because polling data shows, that nobody cares what they think anyway!
- Downstater - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 1:56 pm:
Isn’t the Sun-Times just as bad?
- Jim - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 2:06 pm:
Always amused by the Trib bashers. Critic is comparing apples to orange. The Trib is urging, at least in part, Quinn to sign gun bill because GA is under a federal court order to pass a gun bill or see concealed carry take effect in July with NO rules.
There’s no court mandating mandating action (common sense mandates it, but there’s not much common sense in springfield) on pensions, and there’s a reasonable case to be made that Madigan’s bill is the wiser approach to take because Cullerton’s bill is weaker. I’m setting aside the arguments about constitutionality because only the courts can resolve that.
No comparison on the issues, but I’m glad the Trib bashers have a chance to vent.
- Ahoy! - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 2:09 pm:
well, no offense to editorial boards, but are they actually accountable to anyone? Do they have an incentive (besides it’s the right thing to do) to not be hypocrites?
- Linus - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 2:11 pm:
It’s very much like the Tribsters’ electoral endorsements. They’ll absolutely pound candidate X for a vote/position they don’t like, but entirely ignore an identical vote/position in their praise for candidate Y.
Granted, consideration of the totality of a candidate’s record and positions does call for flexibility and nuance in forming an overall opinion. Yet the Trib’s over-the-top, foaming-at-the-mouth vehemence about so many specific matters simply destroys its endorsements’ credibility.
Drives. Me. Insane.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 2:39 pm:
@Jim-
You do have a point on the federal immediacy of passing a CCW bill leading to greater need for a compromise solution to get something done now. Still, the Trib bashers have a lot of good reference material in the recent history of their editorial board.
- Rod - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 3:11 pm:
Rich your longtime reader and subscriber’s comments were well taken about the editorial positions of the Tribune. None the less I was glad the Tribune was asking the Governor to sign the concealed carry compromise bill.
- jake - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 3:16 pm:
I am not a fan of the Tribune editorial board, for many reasons. But I think they have it right on the concealed carry legislation. That was a very polarized situation where something absolutely had to be done, with essentially a guarantee that the right thing to do (permit concealed carry with some additional safeguards in addition to the FOID card) would be opposed by more people than supported it.
- Fred - Friday, Jun 7, 13 @ 4:13 pm:
== Jim == I’m not sure the issues are as different as you think. Sure, the court order changes things a bit, but still, the Trib could take the same uncompromising positions on guns that they take on pensions if they wanted to. Some gun control advocates want Quinn to veto the bill and have Lisa Madigan appeal the 7th Circuit ruling to the Supremes and ask the high court to stay the lower court order. The Supreme Court refused to take up a challenge to the restrictive New York law the Trib likes, so why not dig in and fight concealed carry, the gun control advocates argue.
Sensibly, the Trib rejects the gun control advocates’ point of view and encourages compromise…and in doing so they are actually behaving like most newspaper editorial boards do — staying above the fray and urging sober, measured solutions.
They show no such inclination toward middle-ground sensibility on pensions. They are so deeply invested in the issue that they have ceased being an third-party observer/referee on pension reform. Instead, they take a position similar to the most radical of gun control advocates. They want a win for their side, not public policy compromise.
In short, they are not acting the way one would expect a self-proclaimed nonpartisan editorial board to behave, which is why they have earned so many detractors on this blog and elsewhere.