Isn’t it interesting that so many of the people who are demanding a “caretaker” mayor — someone who will accept the appointment but not run again — are politicians who were originally appointed to their jobs, and then ran again?
Dianne Feinstein: Appointed mayor by the supervisors. Ran again, even though she had said she wouldn’t.
Gavin Newsom: Appointed supervisor by Willie Brown. Ran for re-election then for mayor.
Sean Elsebernd: Appointed by Gavin Newsom. Ran for re-election.
Michela Alioto-Pier: Appointed by Gavin Newsom. Ran for re-election.
It is, DCCC Chair Aaron Peskin told me, “more than a bit ironic.”
I have to admit, there’s also something a bit un-democratic about the caretaker idea. What if the supervisors appoint a “caretaker” — and round about July or so, we all realize he or she is doing a great job. Why can’t we, the voters, decide to keep that person in office? And if the person the supes appoint is doing a crappy job, we can vote for somebody else.
I get that someone who isn’t spending the entire interim period running for re-election might have some advantages. But in the end, the “caretaker” is a bit like term limits. Shouldn’t the voters be the ones to decide that?