From The Papers: An Amateur's Reaction To Politics

So, the Chronicle this morning carried an article stating that interim Mayor Ed Lee is most likely going to announce that he will, in fact, run for a full term. This comes on the heels of a very visible 'Run, Ed, Run' campaign--think 'Run Lola Run' but without the funky German techno-soundtrack, although both Lola and Ed have distinctive hair, Lola on top of her head, and Ed on his upper lip.

The reason for the campaign is that when Ed Lee accepted the position of interim mayor when Gavin Newsom emigrated to Sacramento as Lt. Governor, he said he would not run for the full term. This apparently helped secure him some support on the Board of Supervisors, several of whom are now planning to run themselves.

Let's assume that the promise not to run was sincere at the time, and not an example of the old bait-and-switch. The fact that he has changed his mind is controversial. Or at least it is controversial among those who are running for mayor against him. Supervisor David Chiu is quoted as saying, "Our successes this year have been based on trust, and many San Franciscans share the widespread disappointment that Ed Lee has broken his promise to our city."

Widespread disappointment? I want names of those disappointed. I have not seen anybody worrying, wailing, or gnashing their teeth over this. I like a lot of what I know about David Chiu, but this seems like sour grapes to me.

So he changed his mind. Who cares? He still has to run. He still has to be elected, and the reports I have seen during his interim stint show that he has been productive and beneficial to the city. How dare he want to continue if he thinks he can do good work? I'm more bothered by the fact that the 'Run, Ed, Run' campaign was apparently run by people with links to former Mayor Willie Brown and Rose Pak, the head of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce excludes practitioners of the Falun Gong from cultural events. I didn't directly experience Willie Brown as mayor, but his column in the Chronicle strikes me as smug and self-aggrandizing. Lee says he has no involvement with the 'Run, Ed, Run' group.

The promise not to run seems irrelevant to me. It reminds me of a somewhat petty dispute among friends of mine one time, where Female Friend A made Female Friend B promise not to date Male Friend C, even though Male Friend C would have driven Female Friend A crazy if they had ever dated, which they never did. Female Friend B made such a promise, but later did date Male Friend C for a time. Outrage? Hardly. Maybe Female Friend B shouldn't have made such a promise, because things change, such as with Ed Lee's perspective on the mayoral race. But Female Friend A shouldn't have asked her to make that promise, because that promise is silly.

For people to get their feathers ruffled over Ed Lee deciding to run after all is a waste of time and energy. There are more important matters. Let the voters decide if Ed Lee should be mayor, or if one of the other candidates can present themselves as a better option.