Maybe it's just a different slant on the same old problem, but governing responsibly - and staying in office - seems ever more challenging.
Take tax increases and "alcopops," for example. These not-so-obviously connected matters illustrate the challenge of addressing important public issues without damaging one's re-election prospects.
In these matters, one thing leads to another - and no good deed goes unpunished.
Gov. Martin O'Malley moved last fall to increase various state taxes. He thought he had to if Maryland was to deal with a $1.5 billion budget deficit and to go on providing services the state needs and that people want. He thought it was the responsible thing for a governor to do.
As a result, his popularity plummeted in public opinion polls.
And so, several months later, he backed away from what would have been recorded by opponents as yet another tax increase. To govern, Mr. O'Malley says, is to choose. In this case - though he was obviously conflicted - he chose his popularity over the best interests of Marylanders.
The issue arose after Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler ruled that certain sweet-flavored alcoholic beverages should be taxed as spirits, not beer.
Critics charged that alcopops are marketed to young people, not yet drinkers, who don't much like the taste of beer or whiskey. The industry and its lobbyists threw up choruses of protest: Why, the thought of a "gateway drink" had never crossed their minds.
In the midst of the alcopop controversy, Del. Heather R. Mizeur of Montgomery County became a competitor in the legislature's 2008 quote-of-the year contest:
"These drinks get dressed up in a six-pack," she said, "but if we had truth in advertising they would come with a shot glass."
Members of the General Assembly had approved a measure to overturn Mr. Gansler's ruling, sparing the industry a tax increase. The governor demurred, studied, hefted the veto pen - and then demurred again.
He allowed the bill to become law without his signature, saying he wanted the Assembly to take another run at the issue. It was a transparent gubernatorial maneuver tantamount to caving in to the alcoholic beverage industry and to those who reacted so negatively to tax increases. Those who worked to kill the bill as harmful to children came away empty-handed.
