Look for a quick decision on D4 appointment

|
(44)
DCCC member Alix Rosenthal may have forced the mayor to act

A Democratic Party resolution calling on Ed Lee to appoint a mother to the Board of Supervisors may have driven the slow-moving mayor to fill the seat of departing Sup. Carmen Chu quickly, perhaps as soon as today (Feb. 21), City Hall sources are saying.

Lee appointed Chu to fill the post of Assessor-Recorder vacated when Phil Ting moved to the state Assembly. But he's been dragging his feet on naming Chu's replacement.

Alix Rosenthal, a member of the Democratic County Central Committee, has put a resolution on the agenda for the group's Feb. 27 meeting urging the mayor to name a woman with a family. Her argument:

Political office is often beyond the reach of mothers, because balancing a political life with family and work is often an insurmountable challenge.  Appointing a mother to fill the District 4 seat will demonstrate the Mayor’s commitment to stemming the tide of families leaving San Francisco, and it may serve to inspire women with children to be politically engaged, and to run for office themselves in the future.

That, of course, could put the mayor's allies on the DCCC in a tough situation. Will they vote to urge the mayor to do something he doesn't want to -- or will they vote against, you know, motherhood?

Of course, if the mayor makes an appointment before Feb. 27, the resolution becomes moot.

Rosenthal and some other politically active women are supporting Suzy Loftus, a member of the Police Commission and a mom. But D4 is more than half Asian, and has always had an Asian supervisor, so it's unlikely the mayor would appoint a non-Asian to the job.

One obvious candidate: Katy Tang, who is now Chu's legislative aide.

The mayor will want someone he can count on as loyal -- and who he's pretty sure can win an election. His last two appointees to elective office, Christina Olague and Rodrigo Santos, were both defeated the first time they faced the voters.

But at this point, Lee isn't saying anything. Look for an announcement soon.

 

 

 

Comments

a black
an asian
a hispanic
a gay male
a lesbian
a father
a mother

No danger of, say, picking the best person for the job? No, just tokenism.

The sad thing is that even SCOTUS is picked that way now. Affirmative Action at work.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 12:37 pm

drive you up a wall.

Posted by marke on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 2:23 pm

notion that any body should be selected by "painting by numbers" rather than on a meritocratic system.

Competence has been devalued by political correctness and posturing.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 2:38 pm

rationale given I find potent.

Mothers are the least likely to fill board seats, and yet they represent an important constituency; effectively each represents two, of whom neither typically has much representation.

Good on Alix.

And giving Lee the least amount of time possible to be crafty is, of course, a good policy in general

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 10:42 am

the interests of their constituents. Obviously appointments are a little different, and no reasonable SF'er would expect Lee to select, say, an Avalos supporter, the fact remains that there is a set of skills and values a Supe should have, and one of those is the ability to see beyond their own narrow, personal viewpoint.

I don't need to be a mother to vote for mother-friendly policies.

Posted by anon on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 11:12 am

to vote for mother- and child!- friendly legislation.

I *do* think that the perspective of mothers -- and of primary care-giving fathers! -- is something that is most likely to be represented by those actually serving in that capacity.

These San Franciscans are generally precluded from serving on the board due to the time pressures involved, and so it makes a more sense than your run-of-the-mill ID Politics.

Of course, the real impetus is to advertise and curtail the mayor's dilatory behavior. This is agit prop. This is what I think of when I see the phrase "playing for keeps." You lose this one.

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 12:28 pm

order to defend the rights of group X, you have to be a member of group X.

It's a logical nonsense. The framers of the 1960's civil rights laws were all white, and mostly Jewish in fact. A politician has to be able to understand the problems of others. He doesn't have to be an "other".

This whole "making appointments by numbers" racket is a travesty. Pick the best candidiate. The D4 Supes should not be X just because there is no X in the other ten districts. You'd be better off making that argument if we still had city-wide Supes.

It's Lee's job to pick. We gave him that job, so we should let him do it.

Posted by anon on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 1:12 pm

No, "anon" AKA "Anonymous" AKA "Bold Lying Guest", you aren't allowed to get away with saying stuff without being called upon to back it all up with citations. You've got a track record which won't go away. Remember?

This actually is a bit different from run-of-the-mill "identity politics" because the identity involved is not an isolated ethnicity but pertains a segment of the population to which the great majority of San Franciscan's have an affinity: everyone has been a child and has had a mother (or primary care-giving father).

These constituents are not only systemically underepresented in office, but also are the most representative of the interests of children who are otherwise have no voice at all.

Anyhow, the whole point of this seems to have been to curtail the mayor's dilatory behavior and dissuade him from appointing someone particularly nasty. As a rhetorical and strategic ploy, it seems likely to work perfectly, and therefore rubs you the wrong way.

(Don't forget the citations.)

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 1:46 pm

X in order to understand the problems of X. That myth has been debunked many times. A true post-racial, non-discriminatory electorate will not care about the demographic constituency of their elected officials. They care only about their competence, empathy and ethics.

Lee will make his own decision after taking advice, just as any other mayor would. If you don't like his picks, you should have voted for someone else.

Posted by anon on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 2:33 pm

This is about motherhood (and primary care-giving fatherhood) and the interests of young non-voters.

What do you hate about the mothers and their American families?

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 9:07 pm

The end of tokenism.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 9:31 pm

should instead choose an inferior candidiate?

Posted by anon on Feb. 23, 2013 @ 9:34 am

political world view based on hunting down people of all races that agree with your narrow agenda and calling it diversity. How the progressive tokenism is different than right wing tokenism is a mystery.

Perhaps Alan Keyes could move to SF and run for the BOS.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 10:07 pm

That there are mothers (and African Americans, and Asians, and gay people etc.) who are eminently qualified for the job? Don't you think someone with kids might bring a different perspective that might make her MORE qualified?

Posted by tim on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 4:06 pm

Avalos and Mar have kids, so that perspective is already there. Actually, my first thought was "why a mother and not a father?" I guess that's why. Still, I think this whole discussion misses the point. I don't think we should be excluding someone simply because they don't have kids, or based on any other single criteria for that matter. Even if we stipulate that a mother offers some extra special je ne sais quoi, surely all mothers can't be more qualified than all non-mothers. Maybe there's someone awesome who isn't a mother, and I don't think they should be automatically erased from consideration for that, which is what this resolution implies.

BTW... this discussion is academic. Whoever Ed Lee appoints, it won't be someone awesome. Mother or not, they'll likely serve corporate interests. But I'm just not a big fan of identity politics.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 4:31 pm

but you must admit that young mothers are to a great extent systemically precluded from office. This can be viewed as an "accommodation" for that class of citizen and their offspring.

Just to keep things totally clean, I'd urge the Democrats to amend the motion to read "mothers -- or fathers who are providing the substantial care for young children whether or not they are biologically related to them."

And, again, the real point is to keep Ed Lee from getting all blago on us.

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 10:53 am

appoint the supervisor. Why would it matter to him what you or I think? He will do what every mayor does and pick someone who will support the platform that he stood for office on, and won.

Posted by anon on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 11:14 am

"He will do what every mayor does and pick someone who will support the platform that he stood for office on, and won."

anon, that's plain silly.

Can you begin to realize how diametrically opposed that sentiment is to Big Troll Trope #3 -- "All Politicians Lie"???

Amusing!

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 12:10 pm

Why, when he beat Avalos by a big margin at the polls?

Posted by anon on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 12:23 pm

It's the basis for the constant braying about how Lee "won by a landslide"...

... which, of course, he did not.

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 12:40 pm

landslide or not. You cannot quibble that Lee does not have a mandate to proceed on the platform that he stood for office on. And you cannot reasonably expect Lee to act on the agenda of his easily defeated opponent.

Posted by anon on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 1:16 pm

and secondly, if Lee has lost 20% of his support, he has *no* mandate.

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 1:54 pm

The numbers I see say the exact opposite.

Either way, he has that job until the next election, and I expect him to lead based on the platform he stood on.

Posted by anon on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 2:34 pm

59% yay!

"In October 2011, seven San Francisco mayoral candidates sent a letter asking Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas Perez and California Secretary of State Debra Bowen to investigate reports that Ed Lee supporters were using stencils, filling-in ballots and collecting voter's ballots for them.[20][21] The letter was signed by Public Defender Jeff Adachi, County Supervisor John Avalos, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, City Attorney Dennis Herrera, California State Senator Leland Yee, Michela Alioto-Pier and Joanna Rees. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Lee_(politician)

Posted by Guest on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 1:57 pm

Oh wait, nowhere. Because it is bogus and unfounded.

Bad loser much?

Posted by anon on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 2:35 pm

There's no election rigging in America. Election rigging only happens in other countries. Our elections are 100% clean and fair. How do we know? Because American officials never take election-rigging charges seriously. Of course! Why didn't I think of that?

Posted by Greg on Feb. 25, 2013 @ 9:28 am

when your side loses an election. When your side wins, it is instead a "crushing mandate for progressive policies".

Funny that.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 25, 2013 @ 9:40 am

I assume lillipublicans is referring to the former governor of Illinois, who is now serving a 14-year sentence for corruption. He tried to solicit bribes for political appointments, including the vacant U.S. senate seat of Barack Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich

Posted by Guest on Feb. 23, 2013 @ 1:21 pm

the best black lesbian mother we can find just because we don't have one of those yet.

Jeez.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 4:56 pm

Theresa Sparks was voted off the island, although she is transgender, she doesn't toe the so called "progressive" ideal.

Perspective is 100% of zero in this equation, the point is agreeing with progressive doctrine. Starchild will never be endorsed by the Bay Guardian for holding old time gay libertarian ideals, what the Guardian wants is doctrinaire true believers. Dressing it up as diversity is a joke.

Identity politics with progressives is finding a person of the correct identity that agrees with the doctrine and then backing them. This isn't "tolerance" or "diversity," whatever you wish to call it this week, it is just getting over.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 9:59 pm
Posted by halogen cooker reviews on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 8:30 am
Posted by Judy on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

I think he should appoint a grandmother.

Posted by The Commish on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 4:42 pm

We don't have one of those yet.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 5:00 pm

The drug addled community is under represented on the BOS.

With Daly gone there is a lack of bi-polar ravings on the BOS.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 10:02 pm

Godfather's are poorly represented, IMHO.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 23, 2013 @ 1:23 pm

it's amazing how silly political correctness and quota's can get once you follow the logic.

Posted by anon on Feb. 23, 2013 @ 1:47 pm

A real hit. I mean, hey - can't be worse than Ed Jew!

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 5:03 pm
Posted by Guest on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 5:12 pm

How about Lucretia Snapples? A half-brained dude who couldn't get it up would be perfect!

Posted by Whoops! on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 5:38 pm

Points to her for mentioning Ed Jew, though.

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 10:46 am

As always ready with an anti-womyn comment.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 2:10 pm

Has "power-broker" Ross Pak farted her recommendation yet?

If so, is Mayor Lee sitting down-wind?

Posted by Troll the XIV on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 7:52 pm

I bet he'll appoint a mother. A mother-f**ker, that is! Ha ha ha.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 10:43 pm