The DMN ran an editorial over the weekend that said Mike Rawlings should run for another term. My take: Sure, why not? He can’t build a coalition on the council, but he is onboard with school reform. I’m for the latter more than the former.
The paper’s reasons Mayor Mike should run again? (Other than because he’s “a salesman with a soul,” of course.)
1. He works hard. “His schedule is relentless, and the workload takes a huge toll.”
2. Mary Suhm was amazeballs. “The new city manager has yet to show that he is able to fill the role that Mary Suhm played at City Hall. Her personality and presence were powerful enough for her to stand as the city’s primary leader.”
3. We don’t like anyone else who could run. “Rawlings’ absence would add a gaping hole in leadership that the city can ill afford.”
I’m not sure why that’s supposed to be true. Clearly, you’re okay with a city manager being “the city’s primary leader,” even though he/she is not elected, correct? And don’t we know as much about the likely candidates (Alan Walne, Dwaine Caraway, and Marcos Ronquillo) than we did about Rawlings?
I’m not saying the man shouldn’t run again. I’m just saying I still don’t know why the DMN thinks it’s a good idea.