Comments so far on this story:

1. Christopher Hall wrote on October 10, 2007 8:50 PM:
"While the city attorney comes and goes, the San Diego Union-Tribune is forever, and the newspaper has much more impact, past, present and future, than any one individual, whether that person is a politician, business person or homeless transient. The comparison of the Aguirre foibles and the one by the SD UT is kind of like this: Aguirre did it a bunch of times, so let's just keep the screw up by the SD UT in that perspective. But I believe it is never appropriate to appear to 'grant a waiver' for bad behavior because someone else has been bad. And since the paper has so much more impact on the entire region of San Diego compared to Aguirre, I'd definitely not consider the two adversaries equal on any terms whatsoever. The SD UT appears to have screwed up, and we can't trust them anymore."

2. Basic Civics wrote on October 10, 2007 9:36 PM:
"I think that only the newsies can save the UT now. If the newsies don't trash their own editorial board for this, then, it strikes me that the UT has lost a significant amount of credibility on this issue."

3. Billy Bob Henry wrote on October 10, 2007 9:50 PM:
"The UT will not be here forever, in fact they have sold off all of their newpapers in the mid west and the UT is spilling red ink left and right. Will it fold? Maybe, maybe not, but it is going to have to rethink it's business plan if it wants to be around another 10 years.........."

4. yikes wrote on October 10, 2007 10:07 PM:
"the real subtext in Kittle's now laughable effort to remove Aguirre judicially rather than democratically: we are incredibly desperate because there is no one willing to run against Mike . . . the real question we should be asking: how will this play with Hal Fuson's brunch companions on Sunday . . . could Kittle be gone before Mike? Mike looks like a lock for re-election; will Kittle be around in December 2012? Hal? You there, Hal?"

5. Ed wrote on October 11, 2007 12:14 AM:
"I believe Bob Kittle, the Bowtie Guy himself, will soon disappear from the UT but soon emerge as an editorial assistant to Fixed News' Bill O�Reilly. In my dreams ..."

6. Califia wrote on October 11, 2007 7:35 AM:
"I agree that the editorial was a huge mistake. The real question is why Mike chooses to surround himself with people who are demonstrably incompetent. Now that is a matter that should be investigated."

7. Norman wrote on October 11, 2007 8:23 AM:
"Right on Scott!"

8. Christopher Hall wrote on October 11, 2007 8:28 AM:
"OK BBH, I cry Uncle -- here the link to the sinking ship: link"

9. Point Loman wrote on October 11, 2007 8:45 AM:
"As much as I despise Mike Aguirre and the terrible job he is doing for our city, I have to admit that the UT screwed the pooch on this one big time. This is, since the UT decided to become the city's "Watch Dog", exactly the type of shoot first, check your facts later type of journalism we're now being subjected to. It kills me when people believe the garbage they read in the Watchdog Reports. The UT has no credibility. This isn't the first time it's happened. Maybe just the first time it's happened on the editorial page, rather than the front page or metro section. Our major daily newspaper is a joke and continues to fan the flames of our fair city as a national laughing stock. Thank goodness we have VOSD. Lesson to all: read the UT, and then do your own research."

10. Cheeky wrote on October 11, 2007 9:59 AM:
"So Mike Aguirre's deputy Karen goes from $54,000 a year to $143,000 a year in TWO YEARS, and everyone points fingers at the U-T? Ms. Burton gets a 12% pay increase while other city employees get squat, and no one raises an eyebrow? If this special treatment and acceptance of campaign contributions were happening with another elected offical or department, Aguirre would be screaming for their termination. All objectivity has been lost by Aguirre's supporters. You people have all had a frontal lobotomy."

11. Larry wrote on October 11, 2007 10:07 AM:
"A lot of staff got raises; significantly more than the few who gave his campaign money. And accepting money isn't the same as soliciting money. Once again, sloppy effort on your part, Scott."

12. TY wrote on October 11, 2007 10:14 AM:
"While the Voice postulates, leave it to Don Bauder to actually TALK to the chairman of the Ethics Commission, who says the commission has no jurisdiction over the City Charter. Meanwhile, Uncle Sanders readies for a busy weekend -- four (count 'em) FOUR re-election BBQs announced by the Republican Party. Oink!"

13. Mark Schaeffer wrote on October 11, 2007 10:40 AM:
"Otis Chandler transformed the LA Times from a partisan rag to almost world-class status by telling his family members, in essence, to keep their beliefs away from the paper, and cry all the way to the bank. Too bad the Copleys never did the same thing -- they might have had half a chance."

14. Sparky wrote on October 11, 2007 10:47 AM:
"Lost in all of this is the ethics or lack of displayed by Mr Aguirre. Anyone with a brain who has read the balony Kittle writes should not be suprised at his over reaching. Bob is the king of spin and should be writing for one of the Tabloids, not a new paper responsible for REPORTING factual news and providing ACCURATE editorials. We don't have to agree with a position in an editorial but we should be assured the information used in such is accurate and based in fact. Kittle did not loose credibility as he has not had any in some time. Look at Mr Aguirre's actions, ethical lapses, tirades and incompetence and highlight that. The story will write itself."

15. Scott Lewis wrote on October 11, 2007 10:59 AM:
"TY- I put up a post at about noon yesterday (Wed.) with that exact perspective from the exec. director of the ethics commission. You can see it here: link"

16. TY wrote on October 11, 2007 11:18 AM:
"Scott -- So why the hemming and hawing today? Is Dan "Throw Mike on the Barbee" Shea dangling the rent check over your head? Let's not forget -- Kittle received nary a limp-wrist slap for emailing Scott Peters from work -- prior to a glowing editorial board interview! -- about undergrounding telephone poles in his swank La Jolla neighborhood. Guess life is a box of hypocrites, "potentially"...."

17. Steve K wrote on October 11, 2007 11:36 AM:
"So Kittle and Co. are the leaders of the WE Hate Mike Club--what else is new?"

18. Civic Minded wrote on October 11, 2007 11:52 AM:
"1. The Charter section referred to sounds more like a prohibition on taking direct bribes in return for jobs and raises: a common problem back in the good old days. We all know that campaign contributions are indirect bribes, oops, I mean contributions to support elections and are legal. At least there are limits on them. 2. I once was complaining about the UT's bias to a local elected official whose response was "No one reads the UT except political junkies so don't worry about what they say or don't say." In other words, the majority of voters are not influenced by the UT. Its a sad commentary on the state of our civic literacy but that is another topic all together."

19. San Marcos says, wrote on October 11, 2007 12:23 PM:
"It looks as if the Unions are very powerful in San Diego and have hold of the UT. No wonder all of the fuss. The statute of limitations on those huge outlandish pension benefits that will bankrupt San Diego seems to be running out. And the San Diego City Attorney wants to uncover the scandal that is so well hidden. Is it any wonder that they come after him with both barrels. Mike isn't perfect, he jumps in, sometimes brashly, but you have got to give the guy credit for the courage it takes to stand up and be counted when the unions have "unlimited funds at their disposal". Did Mike solicit those payments to his campaign ? It doesn't seem so. People who work at City Hall maybe have seen that he is worthy of being reelected. Republicans are after him !"

20. Billy Bob Henry wrote on October 11, 2007 12:59 PM:
"Mark Schaeffer, you are right about the LA Times and Ottis Chnadler, but you must remember, OTTIS CHANDLER WORKED EVERY SINGLE DAY RUNNING THE LA TIMES! Fat and obese David Copley has never worked a day in his life. Ottis Chandler worked in virtually every single department the LA Times had-from delivery to advertising to the production room floor-ALL before he ran the paper. Ottis was a smart and tough cookie! David Copley is no Ottis Chandler, Copley is more like Homer Simpson (of course Homer does not have a 50 million dollar yacht to live on and Homer is deep down an honet caring guy!)."

21. WTF? wrote on October 11, 2007 3:51 PM:
"San Marcos? Unions run the UT? Are you insane? I must have missed a beat on VOSD to fail to notice that the delusions of BBH had been adopted by another regular. I'll admit that I occasionally indulge the little bit of craziness that makes a sometimes mundane world less soul-crushing... BUT even self-served lunacy must be spiced with a smidgeon of dignity and honor (especially when grilled). Now an obvious swipe at the unions just to sound deranged really borders more on the malicious side of the psychological spectrum. Perhaps a ruling from Fred Sainz is in order."

22. Don't sink the dialogue wrote on October 11, 2007 4:46 PM:
"Count on BBH to bring the dialogue into the gutter. OK, David Copley is "fat and obese." How is that relevant? Yes, he's fabulously wealthy and has a mansion and a yacht. How is any of this helpful to the conversation? Do you really need to pick on the guy? He's not a bad human being because he's swimming in inherited dough. He's actually a pretty nice person. Part of the reason that paper sucks so badly is that he doesn't have the stomach to lay off staff. There is more dead wood in that place ... They could do just as good a job with half the people. First on the block should be the supremely out-of-touch editor Karin Winner, whose leadership skills are nonexistent."

23. Christopher Hall wrote on October 11, 2007 7:46 PM:
"Hey 'Don't sink the dialogue' -- BBH does have a valid point in mentioning the largess that is sinking the SD-UT..."

24. Dale Peterson wrote on October 12, 2007 7:09 AM:
"Scott, you got it exactly right. The editorial was journalism at the lowest common denominator. Watching Kittle vs. Aguirre is like watching Olberman vs. O'Reilly. They are the all same people. Doesn't matter what the political orientation is---they are the same guys."

25. Steve K wrote on October 12, 2007 8:58 AM:
"Copely should sell the U/T to a competent publisher."

26. matt wrote on October 12, 2007 9:55 AM:
"San Marcos, you would be hard pressed to find ANYTHING in the UT editorials that supports the city unions! The UT has always been anti-worker and anti-union. They just can't always decide who they hate more, Aguirre or union workers!"

27. Joe wrote on October 12, 2007 12:00 PM:
"Why not knock Aguirre with an oversized club, just like he does to others? It been apparent for a long time that only bombastic statements will make news in San Diego. Why not make wild comments like the City Attorney and have a two sided conversation on issues, instead of just one sided declarations of nonsense by Mike? Sorry Scott, noone looks to journalists for clear believable commentary any more. The profession has similar integrity/believabil problems like Congress, the Presidency and the judical branch. They all have an angle and the public is just disgusted!! Whatever happened to the public good?"

28. Germain wrote on October 12, 2007 2:57 PM:
""Lets be clear" how funny. Had you wanted clarity you would have included Aguirre's defense, which - Surprise - is also in the city charter. But you don't want clarity - this SLOP - is exactly that. More bashing, minus the point in the city charter recently affirmed by the appeals court."

29. truth to power wrote on October 12, 2007 3:26 PM:
"The U-T rules San Diego as it rightfully should. It represents the powerful, the vested real estate interests, the San Diego State grads (are there any other schools? look how they bashed poor Chancellor Fox at that upstart UCSD, which won't have a thing to do with the downtown special interests.) You can't make money with newspapers for very much longer (Web sites either, to judge by the lack of ads on the Voice), but the U-T will safely occupy its niche for many years, no matter how hard Scott Lewis tries to trash them."

30. Bevo wrote on October 16, 2007 6:28 PM:
"What I found interesting about this story is that Deputy City Attorney Karen Heumann, according to the October 15th story "Demand for Retraction" has hired an attorney (Karen Getman)to represent herself."

31. Califia wrote on October 16, 2007 10:14 PM:
"Did you ever watch a council meeting during which Karen Heumann "advised" members? If her manifest incompetence and ignorance of municipal law were not so serious, you would split your sides laughing. I think that Mike put her there just to thumb his nose at council members."