Pete Stark was a pathetic member of Congress. He was a complete opportunist, as evidenced by the fact that early on he was a conservative Republican. That just wouldn't work to get elected in the Bay Area. He became so loony that (even) Nancy Pelosi blocked him from becoming the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, to which he would have risen because of seniority. We thought we would see an improvement when he was replaced by Swalwell - NOT! Swalwell is grossly incompetent, completely full of himself, and is merely Pelosi's lapdog.

I have to fully agree with Diskman regarding Pete Stark. I'm also surprised at the tribute that Swalwell gave him. Although Swalwell has demonstrated that he is not much better at being truthful. Here's an excerpt from my letter to the editor back in May of 2012 regarding Stark. "Throughout Pete Stark’s career, his penchant for verbal volatility has been well documented. He once called a black Cabinet official a “disgrace to his race,” accused a female colleague of being a “whore” for industry, and dared another member of Congress who told him to “shut up” to come and fight: “I dare you, you little fruitcake.” That history is one of the chief reasons why House Democrats passed Stark over for the gavel of the powerful Ways and Means Committee in 2010, despite his seniority.
Now he dares to say that his opponent (Swalwell) was provided a platform to attack him on personal issues at the League of Women Voters debate.
Just one more example of Pete Stark simply not telling the truth. In fact, he was the one that falsely accused his opponent of taking “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in bribes; a statement that he was forced to apologize for under the threat of a slander lawsuit. He also accused his opponent (Swalwell) of having a spotty voting record, again a flat out lie that he was forced, again, to apologize for. At the conclusion of the debate, he lashed out at his opponent with a profanity laced sentence reportedly calling his opponent a “f____ crook”..
Even the Chronicle has had enough of him saying “Stark’s disregard for the truth, not to mention basic decency, has been an embarrassing display in Campaign 2012.”

While Stark wasn’t great, and his faults need to be remembered, is his time of passing the appropriate time to do so? If anything, this is when ones merits should be highlighted (their faults remembered). He served his community as a public figure, and regardless of our agreement to his decisions, in his time of death, we should all be respectful of that contribution.