Democrat Jackie Cilley is the only major candidate for governor who refuses to take The Pledge to veto a sales or income tax. She and her supporters portray this decision as a bold and courageous one. In fact, Cilley is the candidate acting most like a typical politician. She is being coy and evasive about her real position on taxation, which she refuses to divulge to the voters.

Cilley maintains that politicians who sign pledges do the voters a disservice. Here is how she put it on New Hampshire Public Radio’s “The Exchange” on Thursday: “The only thing that pledges do is to shut down conversations. It says to the Legislature, 424 people, ‘if you come up with a plan, a plan that’s a better thing than anything we have today, I’m not listening.’”

That is utter sophistry.

By that logic, a politician must never make a promise, for a promise to do anything once in office will only “shut down conversations” about alternatives. Cilley obviously does not believe this, as she has taken a few firm positions on issues that are important to her. For example, on “reproductive rights,” she asserts on her website, “I would veto any attempt by the NH legislature to restrict these personal rights.” Why does she think it is OK to “shut down conversations” about this issue, but not about taxation?

There is no practical difference between a “pledge” as Cilley uses the word and a promise from a candidate. A pledge need not be signed. It is a promise that can be made verbally or in writing. To avoid stating her real position on a broad-based tax, Cilley attacks pledges in general. That is not a principled position; it is a dodge.

Of the four prominent candidates for governor, Cilley is the only one who has not stated her position on broad-based taxes. She claims that she is not necessarily for one. What she advocates, she says, is having “a conversation” about the state’s tax structure. That is vaporous obfuscation.

She has stated repeatedly and clearly that she strongly dislikes the state’s current tax structure and wants to change it. She wants to end our reliance on property and business taxes, she says. But instead of proposing an alternative, she refuses to state a preference and talks wistfully about the need for having a conversation. Why, though, does she insist that this conversation happen after she is elected, and not before?

If Jackie Cilley really were the bold, daring candidate her campaign portrays her as being, she would tell the voters what she plans to do about New Hampshire’s tax structure. Her three main rivals have done so. Why won’t she?