Risking the wrath of Mayor Robart's Republican friends, his fellow Tea Partyers, evangelicals and County GOP Chairman Alex Arshinkoff, I must again question the sincerity of his response to a certain earlier matter in his midst now that his huge campaign ads so loudly boast of his uncommon expertise in serving as a watchdog of his town's piggy banks. "Without raising taxes," of course.
When the issue of whether to grant a family rate at the Natatorium to a same-sex married couple arose in the spring of 2012, the mayor wiggled around other opinions to resist the lower rate as a costly concession that the city could ill-afford. He coupled that silly notion with references to the state's ban on same-sex marriages even though the couple was married in Washington, D.C.
So that's one unseemly instance of how he's managed the city's finances? And although the rate change held the 6-5 Democratic majority on City Council, it would still have lost by a threatened veto by the mayor.
Even the city law director said a discounted rate would not be a problem under state law. It was already working in other places. But that's how Robart saw it and he prevailed.
Should we be surprised when such pathetic (biased?) ways of governing again turn up if he should win again on Tuesday. It is, after all, 2013. Even in his cloistered suburban island.
Putting this single event in the context of a mayor's many duties doesn't seem to be that important, you may say. But you can learn a lot about the priorities of a chief executive from it.
It was the same Robart, after all, who put his faith in Rick Santorum's religious-based presidential fantasies. Second choice: Newt Gingrich, the dead-ender who wanted to fire all of the school janitors. With Robart, it's always possible that political options can exceed one's grasp.