Scott: Hypothetically, what would happen if nobody voted for either candidate... I.e. lets say an organizer started an "abstain from the City Attorney vote" or "none of the above" campaign. What would be the effect if someone won the campaign with a voter turnout of say 10% or something? What if no one really voted? Just curious. Since the unions find neither candidate acceptable maybe they should just start a recall campaign now under the proviso that either candidate would need to go... Then they could find a candidate more acceptable to their liking and immediately start the process over... I say this because my sense is that no one is really excited about either candidate... So lets call for a do-over. - Fantasy... I know.

Posted by Basic Civics | reply to this comment
September 4, 2008 3:32 pm

Scott...Aguirre relished the endorsement of the Police Officers Association in 2004, along with the Union-Tribune. But, according to him, it is evil personified for the POA to endorse Goldsmith this time around. And the U-T's endorsement of Goldsmith likely is just around the corner. Ah, what a difference four years of incompetence makes.

Posted by cobracat | reply to this comment
September 4, 2008 10:01 pm

Why the attacks on Attorney Mike Aguirre and by whom? Seems simple enough, look at the endorsers of both candidates. Note which of those endorsers, supported in the past as well, candidates with performance (you feel) was poor, bad, inept, or against your "honest and ethical behavior" behavior 'Ideal.' Did the post candidates supported by those same endorsers appear support the majority of the public's best interest? Did the candidates actively and pro-actively attempt to change and correct mistakes, or did they do nothing until after the story got into the newspapers (tks VOSD)? While recorded and historical events are not sure indicator of future performance – they are a better predictor of future performance than the opinions posted on message boards on heard on ‘TV.’

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
September 5, 2008 10:36 am

"No, WSJ, He Is Indeed the Skunk" I can't believe Goldsmith would compose such a letter, much less drive of it to be printed in the Voice of San Diego? Had he really been concerned only about accuracy, truth, and honest reporting he would have contacted the WSJ, provide the WSJ with the proof of his claims and suggest that the WSJ print a public correction of the presented facts. But this is not what he did, not at all, not in the least. In my opinion his attempt to belittle and demean his colleague, publicly, makes him look conceded and petty. Instead of pointing to his own professional contribution and efforts to correct the errors made in the pension case, he acts to remove any credit to his advisory. We do not add to our own laurels by working to remove those given to an adversary.

Posted by Iknowtodd | reply to this comment
September 8, 2008 6:10 pm

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.