Dear Editor:

Usually the swearing in ceremonies of new elected officials have a friendly and conciliatory tone but that was not the case when Jan Goldsmith was sworn in replacing disgraced City Attorney Michael Aguirre who was a no show at the event. Speaker after speaker slammed Aguirre for his pitiful performance in public office. The entire event appeared to be more similar to a drumming out of the military rather than a change of administration. Aguirre had disgraced his office of public trust and was leaving as an embarrassment to the Democratic party and his supporters from four years ago. When elected in 2004 Aguirre gave credit to the LGBT community for his victory. Now many of the same community can take credit for throwing him out. For a Democrat like Aguirre to lose to a Republican by 20% of the vote, which is 70,000 votes, in a city where the Democrats have a 37% advantage in registration over the Republicans is revealing. Dishonesty, recklessness and arrogance were not tolerated by the voters of either party. The one good thing that comes of all this is that we will never again see Aguirre running for public office.

Charlie Sharples

Dear Editor:

It was like waking up from a bad dream. Michael Aguirre was finally given the heave ho by the citizens of San Diego. The lies, the excuses, the bizarre comments like “everyone should evacuate the city” and the mudslides “were caused by the city’s leaking water pipes.” The attendees at last week’s swearing in ceremony of the new city attorney were excited. When Scott Peters announced that Aguirre was going out of town the audience broke into chears. The conman who could not keep support within his own political party was forever banished from his position of trust. No, the 2200 Club will never come back but neither will Aguirre. We once had high hopes for him and worked to get him elected. Hopefully the next time we see his name in the paper is when he is prosecuted for what he has done to the people of San Diego. It would be fitting to see him spend his retirement years in one of the state’s correctional facilities.

Arthur Berman

Dear Editor:

What a shock to see your E-blast poll of readers showing almost half – 48% – blame the No on 8 campaign for the victory of Prop 8. Somehow, I’m not that surprised. It seemed from the beginning the wrong tactics were being used and that right priorities not followed for such a large-scale statewide campaign. The following examples are what I mean:

(1) The invisible Gays. If you expect support from voters show them who you are. All TV ad viewers saw were straight politicians, actors posing as gays, parents of gay children - - everyone but the very people asking voters for the right to marry! Voters never saw for whom they were supposed to be voting. As a result marriage equality was presented as an abstract idea. Bad packaging.

(2) Keep your eyes on the prize. Why was so much attention given to boycotting donors of the opposing side? This makes sense in the long run. But not when time and money are better spent educating potential voters and selling our cause for fairness to them. This is like giving a hot foot to a bull elephant charging you. It feels good but stops nothing. Such campaigns, moreover, can easily boomerang and hurt those already on our side.

(3) Take the high road and reject bullying. All too many ugly stories about death threats, vandalized churches, Yes on 8 lawn signs stolen or trashed, even acts of violence against opponents, made the nightly news. Such intimidating actions have no place in a campaign to win the minds and hearts of the voting public. Yet, the leaders of the No on 8 campaign failed to call a press conference to repudiate or denounce such tactics that were surely counter-productive! A huge mistake. Such silence coming from those with the most to lose damaged the cause they espoused. They underperformed, to say the least.

Perhaps this defeat will cause us to wake up and demand better leaders. New voices that won’t live in a bubble; voices that don’t hide or assume others are on our side just because of a shared history of oppression at some point in time.

John Primavera

www.gaylesbiantimes.com