I watched this video. Was there a debate of discussion? What I saw was a bully berating the moderator and not answering simple questions. Then yelling when he did not get answers or the answers he wanted. No one "WON" this encounter. But I reached one conclusion, Mr. Aguirre sees conspiracy against him EVERYWHERE. Even implying moderator was being unfair when she chose Mr. Goldsmith to conclude first. I can hardly wait until the voters retire him from public office in November, the circus sideshow between November and December, when Mr. Aguirre is forced from office, will be very entertaining!

Posted by JustWondering | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 12:07 pm

Mike Aguirre makes a compelling argument in this video for pyschiatric intervention.

Posted by Analyst | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 12:53 pm

Aguirre spent more time attacking Goldsmith than he did defending his own record. I guess there isn't much to defend.

Posted by Cobracat | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 12:56 pm

I don't know who won, but I do know who lost: the viewers. Hey KPBS? Dump Penner and find someone relevant.

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 1:29 pm

I don't think it showed anything new at all. Aguirre seems to make a lot of sense by he's clearly got serious, serious self-control issues. Nothign new. Goldsmith appears to be either lying, flopping, regurgitating the SD republican party line, or has no idea what he's talking about. Not a surprise. KPBS is clearly in need of someone that can actually moderate these things. Nothing new. I did think it was funny when Goldsmith was threatening not to appear in any more debates - which given Mike's performance today would be a bad decision.

Posted by Snake Eyes | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 1:53 pm

What a frustrating job it has to be trying to moderate a debate between a wallflower and a venus fly trap. But I would have to give the nod, at least in this debate, to Mike. He raised some valid points: 1) The right wing and union leaders shopped around for a candidate to run against this incumbent. These interests don't want a guy who can hold them hostage to trules that they don't like. 2) Jan is a nice guy. Like Casey Gwinn and John Witt were nice guys. But nice, as we saw with Casey, just covers up for poor lawyering. If my stomach was bloated, like the City is bloated with corruption, I'd rather have my a--h--- working than my head just nodding in agreement. I think it is going to fly between now and November,and Jan will outspend mike 5 -to-1.

Posted by Legal Eagle | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 2:32 pm

I agree with you Snake Eyes, Goldsmith needs to have as many of these "Debates" as possible, the people need to see how out of control Aguirre is. They ought to have a town hall style meeting so we can witness this debacle in person. Goldsmith appears to be the professional of the two. As an Independent, I'm leaning towards Goldsmith. Aguirre needs help!

Posted by blue spartan | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 3:27 pm

Mike won, game over :)

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 3:28 pm

Wow Mike....Is it just the Republicans out to get you or are you worried about the "monsters" too? Whatever you think about Goldsmith, at least he comes across as sane - which should be a prerequisite of the office.

Posted by wow | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 3:59 pm

Aguirre has the law on his side and will win on appeal in the pension case. It was already determined by independent auditors/attorneys that the pensions were made illegally. Mike attacked Goldsmith because Goldsmith doesnt know the law, has not practiced law for decades and will become a lapdog to city council. Aguirres' cases goto the appelete courts because cases this large always goto appeal and a decision is not important until the appelete court hears it. In his private practice he sued large corporations in complex cases. They always goto appeal which takes years and he won them on appeal. Goldsmith could not answer to Aguirre's basic question of when the last time he tried a case as an attorney. Goldsmith wants to become a lapdog to city council endorsed the right wing. Who wants to go back to casey gwinn?

Posted by freethinker | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 4:05 pm

Seriously? Given Aguirre's actions and ranting, if I were running Goldsmith's campaign, I would schedule nightly debates and just let Aguirre go crazy. Could you imagine if the moderator were actually able to control him, he would look downright manic. I can't imagine Aguirre winning in Nov., but then again the standard San Diego voter is clueless... If/when he does lose, I agree Nov. til December will be awesome to witness...

Posted by Capitol | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 4:33 pm

Seriously? Given Aguirre's actions and ranting, if I were running Goldsmith's campaign, I would schedule nightly debates and just let Aguirre go crazy. Could you imagine if the moderator were actually able to control him, he would look downright manic. I can't imagine Aguirre winning in Nov., but then again the standard San Diego voter is clueless... If/when he does lose, I agree Nov. til December will be awesome to witness...

Posted by Capitol | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 4:33 pm

Goldsmith has already caved in and sold out to the City Unions in their lawsuit against the citizens of San Diego for political endorsements. Goldsmith will drop the pension lawsuit without a fight and give the Unions everything they want, even though the debt was not voted on by the citizens as required by law. Giving up on appeal is not a good legal strategy and is not fiscally responsible. Goldsmith should be standing up for the citizens of San Diego, not the Employee Unions and Countrywide Financial.

Posted by La Playa Heritage | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 5:14 pm

Agree with Larry on this one. Penner lost control of the forum. She's too mild-mannered for rough-and-tumble politics. If the goal is to discuss issues that matter to people then get someone else to sit in the moderator's chair.

Posted by Mindbomber | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 6:05 pm

I found it rather unbelievable. Aguirre came off as unstable and paranoid. Aguirre solicited the support of the labor unions in his first campaign. In fact, he got the endorsement of the Police Union. Did that make Aguirre beholden to the Police Officer's? No. So what's the big deal? Why is he so concerned with who endorses Goldsmith?

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 6:12 pm

It's all over but the voting, and there is little doubt that Mike will lose. But after watching this, I can't help but wonder how shallow the legal pool is in San Diego that these two unimpressive people are our top two choices. And "Legal Eagle", you apparently are being ironic in selecting your name, in that you are completely wrong in your legal assessment here. But on a different issue, why do you call Casey Gwinn a nice guy? He was and is anything but, and he is the second worst City Attorney we've ever had. Witt was top drawer in every respect, and nice to boot. If one is competent, one can get away with being nice. Finally, Mike lost this debate, and it wasn't close, but Goldsmith was absolutely horrible too.

Posted by Algernon Sidney | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 6:36 pm

“Of course he doesn't want to run against a judge. He doesn't do well with judges.” Game, Set, Match. Good night now!

Posted by Point Loman | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 7:37 pm

I don’t believe there is a problem with the pool of attorneys. No offense is intended to Judge Goldsmith, but who would be willing to volunteer to take this venomous, low crawling abuse. If the “debate” aired on KPBS is an indicator, give Judge Goldsmith credit for recognizing there's something rather odd about our City Attorney’s behavior to say the least. I hope Mr. Goldsmith has the fortitude to take on future “debates” over the next few months. This way Mr. Aguirre will continue to show us this deeply rooted psychosis, along with the paranoia which has made him ineffective as a litigator.

Posted by JustWondering | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 8:12 pm

Legal Eagle, I wouldn't want you (or Mike) as my lawyer. Less than 1/5 of all civil appeals are reversed at the appellate level. Even a hack like Billy would know that.

Posted by KS | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 9:22 pm

I think the real loser of the debate was Gloria Penner. What a dismal job of emceeing, as usual.

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
August 11, 2008 9:23 pm

Boy did ANN hit a homerun in comment #20 above. Let's let Ms. Penner handle the softball interviews and round tables with the likes of Bob Kittle. Mr. Aguirre acted more like an obsessed Tasmanian devil snarling and snapping. He could hardly keep himself contained. Oh and by the way, who, besides Mr. Aguirre, decided those who have been successful in life are no longer allowed access to their representatives or don’t deserve a voice. While it may be true there’s been questionable practices, I would remind us all this city has “developed” into one of our nation’s finest, by the direct investment of those willing to lead. I’d also remind those with short memories many of the endorsements Mr. Aguirre complains about today are the same ones he coveted in 2004.

Posted by JustWondering | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 6:42 am

19. KS wrote on August 11, 2008 10:22 PM: "Legal Eagle, I wouldn't want you (or Mike) as my lawyer. Less than 1/5 of all civil appeals are reversed at the appellate level. Even a hack like Billy would know that."...NOT ON NOVEL COMPLEX LITIGATIONS MATTERS. It is at least 50%, probably much higher.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 7:25 am

Freethinker has the most accurate and defining comment here.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 7:28 am

I am personally glad I have a City Attorney who is unafraid to pursue our interests. He saved the city $100 million in the Roque de la Fuente case (won on appeal) he is going to save us $800 million in the illegal pension scam on appeal like he wins all his cases. His outside attorneys he brought in have netted the city $9 mil (after paying them). He is saving certain homeowners whom were defrauded from the fulfillment of illegal contracts. Yet all some people can do here is complain that he is attacking his opponent on evidentary facts that Goldsmith is a right winger who got labor endorsements for promising to stop the pension suit, has not practiced law for decades, and who will do nothing except rubber stamp city council crap. Who wants a spineless person with bar membership to represent us as city attorney?

Posted by freethinker | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 8:46 am

"Freethinker" makes a great point. People are attacking Aguirre not because he single handedly destroyed the ability of the CA Office to perform basic legal functions for the city, not because he replaced experienced attorneys with political operatives, not because he files frivolous cases for political purposes, not because he throws around accusations of corruption in the mold of Joe McCarthy, not because any one of us would fire Aguirre as our own attorney with the amount of cases he's lost. No, San Diegans don't like Aguirre simply because he attacks Goldsmith for being a Republican with labor support. You're right, freethinker, it just doesn't add up.

Posted by Doesn't Add up | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 4:32 pm

freethinker...for the 7 millionth time on this and other posts, Aguirre did not win the De La Fuente case. Outside counsel did all the work...before the idiot even took office.

Posted by Cobracat | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 5:02 pm

Thats an interesting statistic Billy Bob. Could you cite your source for that? If you are correct then I will be the first to appologize.

Posted by KS | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 11:43 pm

Freethinker said: "(Aguirre) saved the city $100 million in the Roque de la Fuente case" ANSWER: NO HE DID NOT! That appeal was taken over by Latham and Watkins well before Aguirre was elected to office, and that lawfirm won the matter. Aguirre and his office had NOTHING to do with it. And whether he wins the $800M pension appeal remains to be seen. But seeing how misinformed your understanding of the de la Fuente case is, I'll hardly rely on your other appellate predictions. And why do you so quickly forget Aguirre's unethical bribing of witnesses with criminal immunity in exchange for their testimony in his civil case? Or receiving a $20k sanction by the Court for shoddy work? Or his implicating the City on T.V. in the Mt. Soledad landslide case? These (few of many) instances show such obvious lack of judgement, how can you defend it?

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
August 13, 2008 7:53 am

Freethinker - you're right; law dictates the appeal. Unless Aguirre has printed a new calendar, that law is the Statute of Limitations and makes a reversal impossible. Remember that turning back time is just an expression. Ms. Penner did not lose control as much as it was snatched from her by a rude, unprofessional maniac. It was like watching my mother being beaten in an alley, by a predator. True, Jan Goldsmith is no fireball, but he knows the law and is supported by numerous members of both parties, plus the same unions that Aguirre begged for support, then attacked in 2004. Give me Goldsmith any old day. He will be a great City Attorney. I looked at his website and am amazed by all the bipartisan endorsemtents. Of course, all of you did the same before posting your comments, right?

Posted by JJ | reply to this comment
August 13, 2008 8:36 am

I'm just wondering what the heck is complex litigation? Sounds made up like military intelligence. Maybe some marketing folks came up with this idea for the bar association so attorneys could charge $500 an hour instead of $300. Who decides if something being litigated is complex or simple? Assuming "complex" litigation is difficult to understand, how could a jury of peers ever be expected to understand such complexities? IMHO our City Attorney, is a department head, or in other terms the manager of medium sized law firm. He, or she, needs to show leadership, and management skills. He has a staff of 140 attorneys who should be his "expert" litigators. The City Attorney sets the course for this judicial ship, making sure his subordinates are competent to handle the tasks they are assigned to handle.

Posted by JustWondering | reply to this comment
August 13, 2008 11:41 am

I didn't see the debate, but I've seen all the media hystaria. We've all lost. Not only time by media overplay, but also because we've lost Millions if not Billions of dollars to developers who regularly duped us out funds, tax dollars, and land. Statistics from the Gov't recently showed that 2/3 of Corp.s (US & Foreign) haven't paid ANY corporate taxes in the 90's& 00's! Some ones paying!, if not them, then us! Now, Scott and others, are you willing to be duped again?! daniel_beeman@yahoo

Posted by FreedomPleaseOrg | reply to this comment
August 13, 2008 1:17 pm

There goes BBH again with his big city lawyer legal analysis. Tell us again about your big time experience with Supreme Court appeals. Where exactly do you get your facts from about appeal decision percentages? Anybody with any common sense who has watched the video of the debate quickly realizes Aguirre's operating in a world of his own. He's childish, unprofessional and an embarrasment to our fine city.

Posted by Citizen X | reply to this comment
August 14, 2008 8:15 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.