Comments so far on this story:

1. Ann wrote on May 15, 2008 7:29 PM:
"One way for him to avoid criticism at the debate is to not show up. Yes, we know what he stands for. So now I can decide who I really will vote for by watching the rest of them."

2. Algernon Sidney wrote on May 15, 2008 8:24 PM:
"In a weird way, it's probably better for the city that Mike make it past the primary. The destruction he would likely cause as a bitter, defeated, lame duck would be indescribable. With him thinking he has a chance at least the damage will be limited to the kind we've had the last 3 1/2 years."

3. JJ wrote on May 16, 2008 5:14 AM:
"Now that the city has been restored to the credit market with an "A" rating, it is obvious to me that we have been going in this direction all along. We likely would have been here sooner if not for the shenanigans of the current City Attorney. He has done more to hurt the taxpayers and use up their money than many of us will ever know. Jerry Sanders and Scott Peters have told us all along that when they became aware that past decisions were not good, they were dedicated to retifying the mistakes and going forward to recapture San Diego's status of "America's Finest City". No wonder Aguirre doesn't want to show up at debates. There isn't adequate time for him to make enough apologies to the voters and endorsers that he deceived."

4. Norman wrote on May 16, 2008 7:00 AM:
"Aguirre is right. The public already knows his position. Let's have the other dudes get cut throat and give the UT and the Voice someone else to bash for a change."

5. La Playa Heritage wrote on May 16, 2008 7:50 AM:
"All other City Attorney candidates including Jan Goldsmith, Scott Peters, Brian Maienschein, and Amy Lepine all told the Retired Employees at their debate that the will stop the appeal of pensions. The Employees sued the taxpaying citizens of San Diego to solidify their position that the taxpayers owe the Unions Billion of taypayer dollars. Mike did not start the pension mess. Scott Peters and Brian Maienschein create the civic mess. Also the other candidates think that the City Attorney does not work directly for the citizens of San Diego who votes the City Attorney into office. Instead they believe (with no documented proof) that the elected City Attorney works for the Mayor and the City Council. True, most City Attorneys in California are appointed. However, in 1931, because of all the corruption in the 1920's, the citizens voted for an elected City Attorney which is accountable directly to the voters."

6. Fed Up wrote on May 16, 2008 9:29 AM:
"Well I'll be darned: Scott Lewis concedes that City Attorney Mike Aguirre will "make it" into the November run-off after the June Primary election. Maybe you folks need to get out of the office to find out what regular voters think about our city government and who best represents their interests. Polling is notoriously unreliable. Mike Aguirre is close to a folk hero. People know he's trying to change the political culture of this unfortunate city. His opponents do not hold a candle to his knowledge of the law, his honesty or his commitment to community. Opposing Aguirre are two terming-out City Councilmembers who ought to disappear gracefully: one is vacuous and handsome; the other vicious and angry. Another is a disgruntled ex-employee from the City Attorney's office. The official GOP rival to Aguirre is a milquetoast judge with a hairpiece."

7. Jack Griffiths wrote on May 16, 2008 9:48 AM:
"Having to account for your track record before an election always has been part of the game. Certainly there's alot of explaining to do, especially in light of Standard and Poor's positive and encouraging statement about the administrations remedial compliance and plans to stay the course. Ann and JJ make valid points. Perhaps the City Atty sees a disater brewing like he did during the wildfires and has chosen to evacuate the city AGAIN! He wanted the partisan piper to play and now he doesn't want to pay. Very poor campaign form, imho."

8. Billy Bob Henry wrote on May 16, 2008 11:15 AM:
"No ONE IS GOING on to the November election to challenge our great City Attorney. Mike is going to win straight up June 3, with 50+% of the popular vote. Learn to deal with it City employees. Because it is only going to get worse for your gravy train express. Hope this helps."

9. Billy Bob Henry wrote on May 16, 2008 11:17 AM:
"Scott Lewis, if you keep allowing Fred Sainz to post here, please make sure he does it under his OWN name, and not under Algernon Sidney, JJ, or Jack Griffiths. Same goes for Ann Smith. Thank you. Your loyal blog reader, BBH."

10. Fed Up wrote on May 16, 2008 12:21 PM:
"I think BBH may be on to something, predicting an outright win in June by City Attorney Mike Aguirre. That would be good for everyone!"

11. La Playa Heritage wrote on May 16, 2008 2:48 PM:
"Outright wins in June for both Mr. Aguirre and Mr. Francis would let everyone have a lovely summer, and plan for the future."

12. JJ wrote on May 16, 2008 2:55 PM:
"For LaPlaya H - Those who think the City Attorney works for the people, but ONLY thru their elected officials, have plenty of documented proof. It's called the City Charter and the LAW. Court rulings have proved this over & over. And, you, FED UP - The judges making the rulings don't agree that your folk hero is knowledgable about the law. Where were you when we were in the courtroom listening as the judges told him so? He lost every pension case. Does that sound like knowledge of the law? Pleeeeze guys, Open your eyes! Mighty Mouse is not here to save the day."

13. SayWhat? wrote on May 16, 2008 3:36 PM:
"La Playa H = Mikey Aguirre. And BBH is being paid by Mikey to blog all day for him instead of doing real work at the office."

14. db wrote on May 16, 2008 4:29 PM:
"hey, buzz. how much did you make in real estate? can you take that into the afterlife?"

15. Billy Bob Henry wrote on May 16, 2008 5:58 PM:
"12. JJ wrote on May 16, 2008 2:55 PM: Where were you when we were in the courtroom listening as the judges told him so? He lost every pension case......MIKE HAS NOT LOST A SINGLE PENSION CASE. THEY ARE ALL AT THE APPEAL LEVEL. Nice try JJ, SD City public employee living at the trough."

16. JimG wrote on May 16, 2008 7:18 PM:
"If you suspected that the people running the debate had lost their objectivity on matters related to your performance, would you show up for the debate?"

17. Steve McMillan wrote on May 16, 2008 8:40 PM:
"Hey Billy Bob Henry; I can tell you factually poster "Jack Griffiths" is in fact Mr. Jack Griffiths; "JJ" is NOT Fred Sainz; "Algernon Sidney" who knows? The bigger question is "Who is Billy Bob Henry"? Seems a bit two faced for you to pontificate about screen names of posters when you refuse to acknowledge who you really are. You have spent months on here spewing lies and misinformation; degrading City Employees and caustically putting forth your slanted and in most cases completely inaccurate rants. I'm Steve McMillan; 29 year City Employee; former SDPOA VP/GM; former Trustee PUSD; native San Diegan... Who are you?"

18. Go Diego Go!! wrote on May 16, 2008 8:47 PM:
"OK...it's pretty clear here that La Playa Heritage has been drinking the "I Like Mike" kool aid..I'll assume he or she has not been in SD long..Brian Mainshine isn't even old enough to remember when the pension underfunding stuff started. I'm pretty sure that this Council put the pension underfunding scheme on the ballot so no one else can rob peter to pay paul. and then this stuff about "there's no proof the City attorny works for the city..." OK...someone needs to get their facts straight...that's the problem with blogs. People can say anything whether or not they actualy know anything..."

19. Charlie Pratt wrote on May 17, 2008 4:33 PM:
"I have been to 3 City Attorney "debates." Mr. Aguirre is so quick and funny that the air goes out of the room for the other candidates. Scott Lewis' conjecture that an Aguirre-less "debate" may be a better showcase for the four remaining candidates makes sense. But it may not be as much fun."

20. Jack Griffiths wrote on May 18, 2008 8:05 AM:
"When a person of Mr McMillan's caliber takes a person to task its not w/o good reason or provocation.He's sending a message the VOSD needs to hear.Feedback rule #2 needs to be honored by the bloggers and enforced by the VOSD.The Editorial Board crafted rule #2 with good reason and its policy needs consistent application if the early promise of the VOSD is to be sustained and the subscriber rolls built up.There is more than sufficient verbiage and linguistic device within the lexicon of the English language to make almost any point w/o resorting to personal rancor and vulgar rants.IMHO, it's a simple maintenance issue for the VOSD,like disposing of the trash. It needs to be done daily."

21. GODDESS wrote on May 19, 2008 8:22 AM:
"To LaPlaya Heritage: Your facts reveal a lack of knowledge. 1) City employees did NOT sue the citizens of SD for their benefits. The benfits were already in place, and Aguirre sued the retirement system in an effort to take away earned and vested benefits. 2) True, aguirre did not start this mess. But neither did Maienschein or Peters. They weren't even in office when the initial damage (underfunding, Manager's Report #1) was approved in 1996. Jack McGrory and Susan Golding started the mess. aguirre has just made it worse. 3) If I trip on a sidewalk and sue the City, does aguirre represent ME? Of course not! I have to hire my own attorney and the City Attorney's office defends the CITY! DUH!"

22. Peter Q wrote on May 19, 2008 8:25 AM:
"Scott: You did a great job on last nights debate-I was sorry MA decided to miss-It made the whole thing more of a Scrimage then a Contest..But maybe you and MA are right and we're now in the process of selecting an entry into the General election to run against Mike. I thought the four that showed up came off poorly-Jan and Amy's opening remarks, on why MA was not there, made them sound bitter and petty and I don't think they ever recovered. Brian and Scott's attempts to defend their vote on the Bond disclosure material sounded sophmoric.The're running for an attorney's job but don't understand the law? MA may have been wise to miss-I came away thinking "None of the above" looked worthy of the job-- Keep up the hard hitting Q's."

23. GODDESS wrote on May 19, 2008 8:27 AM:
"BBH: The fact that all of aguirre's suits are at the appeal stage VERIFIES that he initially lost them all!"

24. Rock On wrote on May 19, 2008 11:01 AM:
"The vast majority of Aguirre's pension lawsuit was thrown out and Aguirre's office was fined some $20,000 by the court for its incompetence in prosecuting the case. Aguirre had NOTHING to do with the Rocky de la Fuente success on appeal. Aguirre was thrown off the Tom Story prosecution for blatent conflict of interest (that's for ethical reasons). I'm sure he's won a few cases as CA, but I can't think of any. Now, Aguirre does represent the "people" of the City, but does so as the legal counsel for the municipal corporation of San Diego, as represented by the Mayor and Council. So, for Aguirre to accuse the Mayor's office of being previously aware of a hazardous condition that caused the destruction of houses in La Jolla is not only inexcusable, but could cost him his bar card. It's no surprise he's be so quiet as election day approaches."

25. Billy Bob Henry wrote on May 19, 2008 11:08 AM:
"21. GODDESS wrote on May 19, 2008 8:22 AM: ......City employees did NOT sue the citizens of SD for their benefits. The benfits were already in place, and Aguirre sued the retirement system in an effort to take away earned and vested benefits . . NOT TRUE, the pension system intitiated the lawsuit for declatory relief and to settle the matter and to determine if they are valid. LAST-no lawsuit is "won" or "lost" until there is a FINAL decision, which there has not been, so Mike has not lost any lawsuit-and the pension system has not won any lawsuit. Last, when I take a person to task, like Jack Griffiths and Steve McMillan it is not w/o good rerason or provocation. Hope this helps."

26. GODDESS wrote on May 19, 2008 3:21 PM:
"BBH - How can we know if you are qualified, educated or knowledgeable enough to take anyone to task if you won't tell us who you are?"

27. Caitlin wrote on May 19, 2008 6:47 PM:
"We've gotten off track here. Aguirre chose to cancel because he is simply a lot to take and it is in his best interest not to be under the public microscope too often. Of course Billy Bob Ilko has it backwards but, regardless of who filed, there is still a winner and a loser in just about any lawsuit. Aguirre lost this one badly and is finally realizing that litigation on behalf of an entity is much more difficult than his usual practice of slinging mud and settling suits with no regard for their merit."

28. Billy Bob Henry wrote on May 20, 2008 3:12 PM:
"Caitlieing-do you actually have a law license?? If yes, have you ever practiced law?? If yes, then you know there is no winner or loser in any of the pension cases (or any case) because they are on appeal. What part of that do you NOT understand?? I hope you are not an attorney, because your statements here would be grounds for Bar discipline, in addition to malpractice."

29. Caitlin wrote on May 23, 2008 9:51 AM:
"Please Mr. Ilko...I went to the same law school as your beloved Mr. Aguirre. He is a disgrace I now have to bear. You and Aguirre are only two people on this planet who don't yet realize the pension case is over. The real question is, have you ever practiced law? And, we all know the answer. Grounds for Bar discipline? Yeah...sure."

30. Bob Ilko wrote on July 19, 2008 9:36 AM:
"For the record, I am not nor ever been "Billy Bob Henry"."