We have always been taught there are two sides to every question. In the are of public policy, they are usually in the form of "enact the tax" or "don't enact the tax" or "undertake the project" or "don't undertake the project." It is legitimate to take either position, with an obligation back up one's claim with the best available evidence. But evidently, if you take the "no" position on taxes or projects, especially if you sign a remonstrance, that makes your action "by definition a protest." And any politician who also supports the "no" position is guilty of "no small amount of pandering to anti-tax sentiment." If you are one of those rotten, pandering politicians, you should be ashamed of yourself:
Public officials who protest measures approved by other elected officials should be prepared to demonstrate they've studied the issue in detail, listened to the public and weighed their fiscal responsibilities in protecting school buildings and other vital community assets.
I would have thought such a demonstration of care was incumbent upon all public officials whenever they take a position, either for or against something. But I guess being on the side of the angels allows one to be careless with the public's money and reckless with its trust.