The departure of Carol Lam as U.S. Attorney was sad for San Diego, at least for those who despair at the pervasive political corruption in this town.

Supposedly, the U.S. Attorney General, Alberto R. Gonzales, fired Lam because she didn’t use all her resources to prosecute border crime. That’s true; she used a little bit to fight political corruption.

San Diego is the only town in the country in which a multi-billionaire can ask the city to remodel a stadium, subsidize his rent, guarantee him a profit and, then, when he wants a new stadium, demand that the city build him a new one or he’ll move his team.

It’s also a town where city councilmembers can vote themselves huge pension benefits, purchase “years of service” and, then, when faced with investigation for being corrupt, hire $25,000-a-week law firms at taxpayers’ expense to defend themselves.

Lam represented an independent voice. She did her job perfectly. Taxpayers and clean government advocates loved her. She was so good that Republicans, Democrats, business tycoons and labor bosses viewed her departure with glee. She managed to piss off every recipient of political payola.

Officially, of course, Democrats in D.C. appear horrified that Lam was fired.

While it could be true that the White House fired her in response to complaints by local congressmembers that she wasn’t devoting enough to prosecute border crime, local Congressmembers Duncan Hunter, Darrell Issa and Brian Bilbray, who blamed Lam for border issues, knew full well that prosecuting a few more border crossers wasn’t going to make a dent in illegal immigration.

The White House denies Democratic claims that there was a tie between Lam’s firing and the case against Duke Cunningham.

If there was anything that drew ire regarding Cunningham, it was when Lam sought jail time for him. Issa and Hunter publicly disagreed with Lam, telling reporters that a long jail sentence was unfair. This seemed incredible, given that it was coming from men who vote for long sentences for those possessing even trace amounts of a drug.

But the Republicans weren’t the first to be displeased with Lam.

Even though Democrats are now singing her praises, she had also peeved them. She charged three former city councilmembers (all Democrats) with, in essence, taking campaign money for helping a strip-club owner get relief from the city of San Diego’s lap dancing law.

At the time, Democrats questioned Lam’s political motives when she charged three rising stars with corruption. But, after hearing the proof at trial, most Democrats conceded that Michael Zucchet, Charles Lewis and Ralph Inunza displayed poor judgment and naiveté in their dealings with the strip-club owner.

Then Lam took on Democratic political consultant Larry Remer, notorious for running campaigns for Juan Vargas against long-time Democratic Congressmember Bob Filner.

Vargas and Remer cost Democratic coffers millions. Democrats gave Filner funds to fend off a challenge from a fellow Democrat.

At the time of his indictment, Remer told the Union Tribune that Lam was a stooge for Republican efforts to prosecute Democratic operatives throughout the country.

Lam charged Remer with political corruption because in a previous campaign he received $5,000 from state coffers for political work he did on a campaign for a community college bond measure. It’s illegal to use public monies for political purposes.

Remer claimed the $5,000 wasn’t for monies for his political work, but it was for videos he made during the campaign the school wanted.

A federal jury, sans one, didn’t buy it; it found him guilty of receiving a payment of state funds for political purposes.

Those of us familiar with Remer’s anti-gay ways weren’t surprised about Remer’s indictment, or that he agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge rather than face re-trial.

So Lam was doing her job well and fairly.

Let’s hope her successor does, too.