Just what is the downside to the 72-hour review period proposed by Rep. Greg Walden?
    Second question: Cannot certain Democrats detect a golden opportunity to practice true bipartisanship in a time when the term is all but a joke?

Walden is calling on Democrats who had co-sponsored House Resolution 544 — which requires a 72-hour review period on non-emergency federal legislative proposals — but wouldn’t sign a petition to move it forward. (See article, page A1.)

Walden and Washington Democrat Rep. Brian Baird have demonstrated cross-party spirit in jointly calling for support for the petition.

Those who won’t challenge Democratic leadership on this issue should remember the mantra: Choose your battles.

Walden deserves praise for championing an idea whose time has come: that our legislators, let alone the American public, be granted a full 72 hours to read and — perhaps! — understand important legislation where inevitably there is tax money involved, among other long-lasting impacts.

Seventy-two hours: That’s the equivalent of a long weekend.

There’s a sort of irony in this. It is long weekends, as in four days, typically, that are part of the problem in our too-hurried Congressional decision-making process. Our senators and representatives often spend more days in a given month campaigning and fund-raising than earnestly working in D.C.

In an interview shortly before his death Sen. Edward Kennedy recalled the era of six-day work weeks, and how in his days as a junior senator he could expect Christmas and New Year’s off; nothing more.

In other words, the need to carve out ample time to review legislation is only a symptom of a political system that is now geared less toward policy-making and more toward partisan maneuvering.

Wouldn’t it be great if, for every 20 hours our legislators spend either stumping for cash or listening to lobbyists, they spent one hour visiting high schools and community centers to explain what is behind recently-passed or newly proposed bills? Not just the bills Senator Soapbox himself has sponsored, but others of national interest?

Our tradition of freedom of speech prevents requiring our leaders to do such a thing, but as a scheduling decision it would show they put constituents first.

And in keeping with the social contract inherent in our system of representative democracy, wouldn’t it be great if, during these instances of current civics, citizens agreed to simply listen and learn?

The 72-hour rule would be one start toward at least the occasional opportunity for an elevated form of discourse, from D.C. all the way to Dee.