Just as Arbitrary and Capricious as Pledging Not to Raise Taxes in the First Mayoral Term

Bob Clement is now begging unforeseen circumstances (like a yet-to-be-made decision whether or not he might run for re-election to a second term) that bar him from pledging not to raise taxes during second term as Mayor.

How is he able to foresee all circumstances over the next four years and pledge with no qualifications not to raise taxes, but he cannot foresee whether he will run for re-election and whether he might make a pledge at that point (both the second-term decision and pledge would be made in his first term)?

Here is his full response to WPLN on the question of pledging not to raise taxes:

Well, I think it’s unreasonable to even ask that question because I’m only running for a term right now. I’m running to be the next mayor for the next four years and then at the end of those four years, then Bob Clement has to decide "Am I going to seek reelection?" and then we’ll have to determine the financial resources we have and the challenges ahead.

There is a fine line between being arbitrary and capricious and being a politically savvy candidate. Maybe I should be more cynical about his tactics: perhaps he is savvy enough to realize that a first-term Mayor does not have to run on gimmicks like no-tax pledges, because he can fall back on the office to promote his campaign.

His WPLN response also suggests that Bob Clement seems to have started referring to himself in the third person à la Bob Dole.