Reader WD sends in a thought about my post on whether Stephen Cushman will be appointed to an unprecedented third term on the Port Commission, in spite of the fact that it’s city policy to limit.
He said I’m being (gasp!) supportive of Cushman’s potential third term.
So…you sound as if you leaving the door open about Cushman. At the very least, your article was wishy-washy.
One thing you learn when you get old and crusty like me, you get suspicious when people start talking about someone being irreplaceable.
Just isn’t true.
I will say this: I agree wholeheartedly with what the mayor said in Craig Gustafson’s story yesterday: It’s ludicrous to think that Cushman is the only person in San Diego capable of representing the city on the Port Commission.
I mean, Cushman is fine. But this city is full of captains of industry, adept political minds, scholars, activists, workers and capable people of all stripes. There are plenty of good thinkers who could interact with businesses, unions, football teams and residents and produce the best results for the city of San Diego. To think that Cushman is the only one who can do that and that we have to break council policy to keep him on the Port Commission is, like the mayor said, ludicrous.
Now, I understand politics. I understand that labor unions and the Chargers have rallied behind Cushman. They are interests who apparently have enough sway over the City Council to get the group to break its own rules and reappoint Cushman.
I suppose anyone who can rally support from both Donna Frye and the Chargers has reached an impressive level of political power.
But the City Council should know that it has 1.3 million people to choose from, not two. And the mayor should do more than complain about their selection. He has so far floated Peter Q. Davis as a possibility in place of Cushman. He shouldn’t just stop offering up names. He should come up with another alternative if the council is too lazy to look for other candidates.