On the other hand, she’s young, clearly ambitious, she’s a former labor union president which potentially gives her a base and an appealing contrast to the other candidates in the race, and being president of Emily’s List gives her entre to an enormous fundraising apparatus.
I think she probably did indicate to Newsom privately that she wouldn’t pursue the seat, but a few months of being called “Senator” can have a way of changing a person.
Does “caretaker” effectively mean that Padilla has two votes and the help of Feinstein’s former staff?
No. Butler has all the rights and prerogatives of any other Senator, and Feinstein’s staff (at least those who don’t move on to other jobs) will work for her. Just by virtue of both being liberal Californians, I’m sure Padilla and Butler will vote the same way almost 100% of the time.
Of course, but that doesn’t mean she will be exercising them. If she doesn’t align with Padilla on everything, I would put that down to the influence of Feinstein’s staff. Will she even have any committee assignments?
Yes, she will have committee assignments. Why wouldn’t she?
I’m not sure why you assume that she’s just going to do whatever Alex Padilla or Feinstein’s staff tell her to do. Sure, as with any newbie Senator, I’d expect her to turn to more senior Senators and staff for guidance about how things work. But she’s an accomplished individual with an impressive background as a labor organizer and president, university regent, and senior advisor to Kamala Harris. I highly doubt that she’s going up there to be a puppet for anyone. She’ll make her own decisions.
If she is, indeed, a caretaker, she should probably take her cue from those that were actually elected by the people of California; Padilla and (by proxy) Feinstein’s staff. If she sees her role as a policymaker rather than a caretaker, she should certainly exercise her independence.
I think she can be a caretaker and also figure it out on her own. It’s kind of insulting to imply that she has to defer to anyone for the next year.
She doesn’t have to defer to anyone. But if she’s just a caretaker, she probably “should”.
Well, I didn’t call her a “caretaker” but I believe those that did meant only that she was appointed specifically with the intention that she will not run for a full term in office. While she’s there, as a duly sworn Senator, she takes a personal oath to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.” Only she can decide what that entails.
Exactly, there’s no such post as “Caretaker Senator.” Once she’s sworn in she’s the Junior US Senator from the State of California with all the full official prerrogatives of a US Senator. As such, she’ll face the same operational issues of being a newbie Junior as anyone freshly elected/named (lamer committee assignments, losing a lot of key legacy staff to other opportunities, etc.).
Politically, if the whole idea is to grant none of the declared candidates the advantage of incumbency (or even the sense of entitlement to demand that all other Ds drop out, which I get a certain vibe some would feel) , then that would have been a backroom deal with Newsom and there’s nothing per se wrong with a backroom deal.
However, sure, that will create the hindrance of people thinking of her as a mere seat-warmer because of Newsom’s promises (we already know Barbara Lee is not happy with that). But she’s a competent person. I know I’d take that gig.
Why should she? What she should do is the best job possible given her intelligence and savvy. She’s not some noob. She is very capable and experienced in national politics and as a California voter I hope she forges her own path.
If you were appointed to the Senate for a partial term, would you defer to someone else to tell you how to vote? Even if you were just filling the seat for 15 months? I sure as hell wouldn’t. I have opinions on how things should be, and I presume Sen.-designate Butler does too.
Someone filling a vacant seat in the Senate is never expected to simply defer to people who were elected on how to vote. That’s simply not how it works, nor should it be.
Good point, and no need for the “Junior”, either.
Being a Senator from CA with less seniority than Alex Padilla, she will be “junior.” Every state has a junior and a senior.
Right, as a descriptive adjective, “junior” or “caretaker” makes sense. As the name of a post, “Junior Senator” or “Caretaker Senator” do not exist.
ah, yes.
I do not think she will, but I think she will run for other things.
Since your “choice” generally boils down to 1. Voting with the party of sanity- or 2. Voting with the dudes with the MAGA hats, there really aint much choice here.
Sure, there are a few votes not along party lines, but on anything important, there really is little choice.
As flurb said it is very, very likely they will align on most everything of national importance. Feinsten and Padilla were/are what would have once been called part of the more “moderate” technocrat wing of the DP, but now are usually just called communists by many Republicans 
.
Padilla and Butler are much closer in age and in the area of Butler’s passion of union politics, Padilla has not been noticeably anti-union. Both are Newsom allies, however loosely that is defined.
I just don’t think it is likely to be an issue. They might end up disagreeing on something like siting a local reservoir somewhere or something. But they’ll be “CA liberals” as members of the Senate.
That I disagree with. And is this notion reminding anyone else of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? As the press said there - if someone doesn’t feel qualified to actually do the job, then they shouldn’t accept the job. At least, I recall something along those lines when he went around punching people - only saw it once, and it’s been years ago. But that’s what it comes down to - if it’s your job, then it’s your job, and you shouldn’t just be sock puppet for someone else.
Though certainly I can say I came away from that movie with the impression he really wasn’t qualified for the job and shouldn’t have accepted it (despite the ending), but that’s not really relevant to this discussion.
I wonder what kinda pension attaches to a less than 2 year term…