SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - The four candidates analysts believe are long shots to defeat Jackie Speier in the contest to replace Tom Lantos stuck to the issues and declined to attack the longtime politician in the race’s only debate Tuesday.

The candidates discussed the war in Iraq, the environment, health care and several other issues during the two-hour forum and engaged in almost no mudslinging. A special primary on April 8 could determine who fills the remainder of Lantos’ seat after the longtime member of teh U.S. House of Representatives died in February.

Democrat Speier spent 18 years in the state Legislature and six as a San Mateo County supervisor, while her four San Francisco and Peninsula opponents have never been elected to office.

Republican Mike Moloney, 67, who lost to Lantos three times, had the packed crowd in stitches with his casual answers and even made Speier laugh when he referred to himself as an “old fart.” He criticized Speier’s lack of foreign policy experience in his closing, but otherwise the forum was focused on questions, which were submitted by residents in the packed South City council chambers.

The most commonly talked about issue was the war in Iraq. Speier, Moloney, 38-year-old Democrat Michelle McMurry and Green Party candidate Barry Hermanson all said removing troops from the Middle East nation would be a top goal if elected.

Republican Greg Conlon, a former California Public Utilities Commission president, said he would continue to try to win the war if elected.

The candidates each carved a niche during the forum. McMurry chose to focus on health, science and technology issues. Conlon spoke about increasing military strength and balancing the national budget without increasing taxes. Hermanson consistently spoke about reducing Pentagon spending and repeatedly held up a graphic showing how much the nation spends on the military. Speier often referred to her experience, citing 300 pieces of legislation she helped sign into law.

If one candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote on April 8, he or she will serve the remainder of Lantos’ term, which expires Jan. 3. If no candidate receives a majority, the leading vote-getter from each party will vie for the seat at the June 3 election. Many of the candidates, including Speier, will likely also compete for the seat’s next two-year term, which begins in January, in the November election. The June 3 election will also serve as the primary for the November race.

A public memorial for Lantos will be held tonight at 7 in the South San Francisco Conference Center.

mrosenberg@examiner.com

Comments from Examiner Readers

8:52 AM MST on Sat., May. 3, 2008 re: "Familiar names file for Havre de Grace election"

Examiner Reader said:
This is an important election for me because I care what happens to downtown Havre de Grace. Does anyone know of candidates to vote for that would keep to the planning and zoning's mission statement, that is 'To perserve, protect and enhance the physical and built environment for its' historic heritage and for the properity of present and future generations ...'. Fred Cullum, Barry Anderson and others have recently publicly announced their support of the construction of a 4 story modern style 54 unit housing building. This building will share the same block with 8 existing residental homes. In addition only 27 parking spaces are being proposed in an area that is already challenging to park. Does anyone know which candidate would better support smart growth in Havre de Grace?

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

9:58 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 9, 2008 re: "Nader taps former Supervisor Gonzalez for running mate"

Examiner Reader said:
For the record, Matt Gonzalez only narrowly lost to Gavin Newsom by 53-47 percent--not 43 percent, as your article states. And this was after being in the race for only 5 months. Democrat millionaire Newsom, meanwhile, had been campaigning for over a year (arguably two) and spent a whopping $6 million to the Green populist Gonzalez's impressive, but far more modest, $900,000.

10 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:31 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 28, 2008 re: "Some mull idea of Sen. Bill Clinton"

Examiner Reader said:
I still think Bill should be able to run again for president. He has been put of the white house for 8 years...We need him to lead again and bring us back to a balanced budget and take care of americans not Iraq's.

11 agree | 11 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:34 AM MST on Sat., Mar. 1, 2008 re: "Nader taps former Supervisor Gonzalez for running mate"

Examiner Reader said:
Right, Examiner Reader. Matt initially ran as a democrat, then quit in mid-election when he thought it would help him more in the Haight. After he lost for mayor, he quit even though he was the second most powerful political figure in SF, leaving no one except Chris Daly to call out Newsom on his many screw ups. Daly's lack of anger management made Newsom look better than he would have if Gonzalez had Cajones (spelling?)to stick around. I suspect Matt whored himself as a lawyer to build a political war chest on the backs of the SF taxpayers. Matt refused to run against Newsom in 2007 because he couldn't win(and he can win THIS?). No, Matt is running to elevate his political image. He is using Ralph, much like he has used the democrats and SF progressives in the past. If Nader truly wanted to elevate the debate, he could have supported Dennis Kuchinich, a more viable candidate who could have stayed in the race longer with more support.

55 agree | 46 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

4:56 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 29, 2008 re: "Nader taps former Supervisor Gonzalez for running mate"

Examiner Reader said:
Whatever... Matt Gonzalez is a big baby quitter. He lived across the street from me and I actually voted for him for major, my 1st and probably last green vote. When he didn't win he just quit. Now whenever I see him I try to scream 'QUITTER' as loud as I can. He was head of the Board of Supes and actually could have made a difference and a name for greens. But no, he just quit. Now he gets to ruin the election so McCain is our president. He'd probably quit if he and Nader got elected too. Quitter. Quitter Quitter!!!

62 agree | 59 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

4:12 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 29, 2008 re: "Nader taps former Supervisor Gonzalez for running mate"

Examiner Reader said:
Examinator, you are wrong. Matt Gonzalez, unlike Ralph Nader, has NO principals. He is only about himself. Matt ran for supervisor as a democrat, then jumped ship when he saw the democratic party affiliation wouldn't help further his political ambitions. He has been whoring himself as a lawyer to build a political war chest for a future run at Mayor. He was too much of a coward to run against Gavin (How I wish someone would have), and now he will use Ralph Nader as a springboard to become mayor of SF in a run against Aaron Peskin in 2012. The Irrelevant Party can make noise in SF which is fine. They will have no impact on the election. Most of their better ideas are stolen from the Democrats, and the rest are either communist, or are intended to fill their own pockets with cash from "publicly financed elections". The greens are different from the other parties, their just on the outside looking in.

56 agree | 47 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:49 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 29, 2008 re: "Nader taps former Supervisor Gonzalez for running mate"

EXAMINATOR said:
Does any one even remember the name of Nader's previous running mate(s)? The Democrats are already blaming Nader and Gonzalez for losing an election that's eight months away. By then plenty of people outside San Francisco will know who Matt Gonzalez is and that he, like Nader, is a man of principle. The Examiner story quotes from local Democratic party hacks but doesn't even go to the trouble of finding any Gonzalez supporters of which there are plenty in San Francisco. Watching Democrats squirm at the mention of Nader and Gonzales brings a lot of people including myself glee but reading the veiled threats against Gonzalez political future demonstrates exactly why plenty of people will vote for him and Nader because they're NOT Democrats.

72 agree | 49 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:13 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 29, 2008 re: "Nader taps former Supervisor Gonzalez for running mate"

Examiner Reader said:
Of course Matt Gonzalez is running for mayor! Peskin vs Gonzalez. This is merely a way to keep his name in print for the next couple of years. At least he isn't filing lawsuits against the city to fill his political coffers anymore.

48 agree | 58 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:08 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 29, 2008 re: "Nader taps former Supervisor Gonzalez for running mate"

SF NATIVE said:
The problem with this is that my Green Party friends try to tell me there is no difference between the democrats and republicans. I beg to differ. Too bad they couldn't perceive the difference between Gore and Bush. Now, can't they tell the difference between Obama, Clinton and McCain? Is Obama "more of the same". I for one don't think so. While I agree on many of their positions, The Greens, and particularly Nader, are becoming political gadflies, the Wendell Wilkie adn Bull Moose party of our generation.

61 agree | 69 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:54 AM MST on Sat., Feb. 16, 2008 re: "Some mull idea of Sen. Bill Clinton"

Examiner Reader said:
Bill Clinton is an idiot who benefited from his doing absolutely almost nothing during a fundamentally quiet time nationally and internationally speaking. He did manage to drop 4 perfectly laser guided bombs on a Chinese Embassy, destroy our borders and economy with NAFTA and in the view of those of you who continually reality check themselves, would make a great Senator. We already have several hundred Demo Senators who have their heads up their A---s and neither do we need either or both Clintons in politics at the same time nor any longer. Popularity and hucksterism do not politician make -- That depends upon what "IS IS" Cut me a break, the Clintons need to be led out to pasture -- unless you want to start to scrutinize Hillarys malfeasance as BOTH a first lady, the worst our nation ever had; and as a Senator beginning with her lies regarding her campaign funds. Care to join my Netroots group? We are out to get the Clintons for their criminality!! Wake up okay?

126 agree | 96 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:20 AM MST on Sun., Feb. 10, 2008 re: "McCain wins big on Super Tuesday"

Examiner Reader said:
To the reporter who wrote this -- why did you describe Romney's campaign as "lackluster?" One year ago, no one knew who Romney was ... yet last Tuesday, he either beat McCain or came in just a few percentage points behind him in numerous states. Huckabee, meanwhile, won only the states where evangelical Christians are the Repulbican majority (which for him, was the equivalent of rounding up your relatives to vote for you.) Yet you choose to use the word "lackluster" to describe Romney's campaign? I'm a working journalist, so I know what it's like to work under tight deadlines. But deadlines are never an excuse for sloppy, sensational writing.

89 agree | 100 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:24 AM MST on Wed., Feb. 6, 2008 re: "San Franciscans vote in record numbers"

Examiner Reader said:
Can someone tell me why CNN, CBS and ABC projected that Clinton won in California when some polls (four in Northern California and two in Southern California) were still open. With them still open projections should not be put out on the radio and television until all polls in that state are closed.

105 agree | 94 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:48 AM MST on Wed., Feb. 6, 2008 re: "No clear winner in Clinton-Obama tug-of-war"

Examiner Reader said:
This is wrong. The article says "Clinton took the two biggest prizes, California and New York." Clinton did not "take" California. California is NOT a winner take all state. Most likely the two will spilt California delegates evenly (Obama may win more in the end).

109 agree | 103 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

5:04 PM MST on Mon., Dec. 31, 2007 re: "Life is good in Ward 3, but challenges await new council member"

Lefteris said:
Cool.

184 agree | 179 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:00 PM MST on Fri., Aug. 17, 2007 re: "Candidate says he will sue over �slanderous statement�"

Jeannette said:
The Eric Bouchat I knew was always a kind and considerate person. To say someone never have trouble in a marriage or in life for that matter would be a falsehood. In this case, Eric's life is out in the open. I did look at the court records and it seems that the wife was a bit on the aggressive side also. It sounded like a bad marriage, so go ahead and cast the first stone. Signed, Jeannette (Pfannenstiel) Gover St Louis, MO

399 agree | 436 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate