Josh Katcher just became Commonwealth’s Attorney in Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Parisa’s biggest enemy in this race are the supporters who have taken to the internet. I read a post on this thread coming after North Arlington specifically, and it really got under my skin. Enough to lodge a protest vote in favor of Katcher this morning. Both candidates have similar platforms, so with all else being equal, I’ll take the one whose camp isn’t out there disparaging my neighbors.

+1 Me, too. They really are the worst. I probably wouldn’t have voted, because it’s democrat v. Democrat but since it’s gotten so ugly (unnecessarily) - I will.

IMO, Josh is the one who has made it ugly. But you do you.

Get something straight. Parisa is the one who made it ugly four years ago by having the nerve to challenge Theo. Parisa should have understood people like her, with her background and experience, don’t belong anywhere near the CA’s position (or judgeships for that matter). They don’t have the values and toughness you need to serve.

Case in point: you don’t handcuff your own line prosecutors by telling them they can’t strike Black people just because they’re Black even when the defendant is Black, or Latinos when the defendant is Latino. Nor do you roll out the red carpet for the shady defense attorneys to go through your records when you’re only obligated to let them in a secure room during business hours. Both are just dumb and anti-prosecution. Do the Commanders show the Cowboys their playbook before they play. The Commanders act like they do, but they shouldn’t. Neither should Parisa force her prosecutors to do so. Besides harming the people, it sets the prosecutors back when they apply for jobs as AUSAs or other higher jobs, and their W-L record pales compared to prosecutors who treat defenders as, heavens to Betsy, the ENEMY of the people.

Josh is just doing whatever it takes to win. Just like he’ll do as CA. Just as we want our prosecutors to do. It’s morning in Arlington County again as Parisa’s reign will end in three days.

No, that is very much not what we want. Conservatives like you maybe. But not most Democratic voters in Arlington. What we want is a top prosecutor who doesn't wield their power as a weapon just because they can, but instead tries to impose accountability for criminal conduct without unnecessarily harsh punishments that do more harm than good.

+1. I’d encourage anyone who is still on the fence to read Brad Haywood’s posts on Next Door, which make a convincing case that Josh Katcher is a crass opportunist who lacks the personal qualities to serve as a CA.

+1

Someone copy/pasted them on page 11 of this thread.

You mean public defender Brad Haywood? The guy who defends criminals? If he was in the federal government he would be in violation of the Hatch Act and shouldn’t be out campaigning for either candidate (he needs to work with whoever wins - so VERY unprofessional of him). Plus, a public defender coming out in favor of Parisa tells me everything I need to know.

Public defenders play an important role in the justice system. You sound like a fascist.

They play an important role so that we don’t convict without any defense attorney, but it doesn’t mean they’re on the right side. Gideon v Wainwright only says you need to be given a court-appointed lawyer. That’s it. It says NOTHING about the resources and independence that defense attorney should have.

The best public defenders and court appointed attorneys are the ones who understand that each dollar spent on public defenders is a dollar taken away from schools, roads, utilities, parks, courts, prosecutors, and ultimately, yes, taxpayers. So they know they need to think very carefully about each minute they spend defending their client. Is it really worthwhile to file the motion to exclude key evidence on a technicality? Is it really necessary to besmirch a police officer’s good name just because there are natural inconsistencies in his testimony? Do you really knock yourself to defend the defendant for a crime you think he probably didn’t commit, when he must have done some other things given that his family and friends look like a bunch of no-good thugs?

The prosecutors should be like the Globetrotters, and it should be VERY difficult to beat them. It used to be that way in Arlington, and the judges, prosecutors, and many defense attorneys agreed that was best to protect our community. Better to lock up a few people a few too many years than to let guilty people go off to terrorize the rest of us. It’s why I’m voting for Josh, and it’s a pretty easy decision. He’ll make sure riff-raff stays in its place.

Is this a troll? So over-the-top.

If this is what you truly believe, you don’t belong anywhere near the judicial system. Or society for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Parisa’s biggest enemy in this race are the supporters who have taken to the internet. I read a post on this thread coming after North Arlington specifically, and it really got under my skin. Enough to lodge a protest vote in favor of Katcher this morning. Both candidates have similar platforms, so with all else being equal, I’ll take the one whose camp isn’t out there disparaging my neighbors.

+1 Me, too. They really are the worst. I probably wouldn’t have voted, because it’s democrat v. Democrat but since it’s gotten so ugly (unnecessarily) - I will.

IMO, Josh is the one who has made it ugly. But you do you.

Get something straight. Parisa is the one who made it ugly four years ago by having the nerve to challenge Theo. Parisa should have understood people like her, with her background and experience, don’t belong anywhere near the CA’s position (or judgeships for that matter). They don’t have the values and toughness you need to serve.

Case in point: you don’t handcuff your own line prosecutors by telling them they can’t strike Black people just because they’re Black even when the defendant is Black, or Latinos when the defendant is Latino. Nor do you roll out the red carpet for the shady defense attorneys to go through your records when you’re only obligated to let them in a secure room during business hours. Both are just dumb and anti-prosecution. Do the Commanders show the Cowboys their playbook before they play. The Commanders act like they do, but they shouldn’t. Neither should Parisa force her prosecutors to do so. Besides harming the people, it sets the prosecutors back when they apply for jobs as AUSAs or other higher jobs, and their W-L record pales compared to prosecutors who treat defenders as, heavens to Betsy, the ENEMY of the people.

Josh is just doing whatever it takes to win. Just like he’ll do as CA. Just as we want our prosecutors to do. It’s morning in Arlington County again as Parisa’s reign will end in three days.

No, that is very much not what we want. Conservatives like you maybe. But not most Democratic voters in Arlington. What we want is a top prosecutor who doesn't wield their power as a weapon just because they can, but instead tries to impose accountability for criminal conduct without unnecessarily harsh punishments that do more harm than good.

+1. I’d encourage anyone who is still on the fence to read Brad Haywood’s posts on Next Door, which make a convincing case that Josh Katcher is a crass opportunist who lacks the personal qualities to serve as a CA.

+1

Someone copy/pasted them on page 11 of this thread.

You mean public defender Brad Haywood? The guy who defends criminals? If he was in the federal government he would be in violation of the Hatch Act and shouldn’t be out campaigning for either candidate (he needs to work with whoever wins - so VERY unprofessional of him). Plus, a public defender coming out in favor of Parisa tells me everything I need to know.

Public defenders play an important role in the justice system. You sound like a fascist.

They play an important role so that we don’t convict without any defense attorney, but it doesn’t mean they’re on the right side. Gideon v Wainwright only says you need to be given a court-appointed lawyer. That’s it. It says NOTHING about the resources and independence that defense attorney should have.

The best public defenders and court appointed attorneys are the ones who understand that each dollar spent on public defenders is a dollar taken away from schools, roads, utilities, parks, courts, prosecutors, and ultimately, yes, taxpayers. So they know they need to think very carefully about each minute they spend defending their client. Is it really worthwhile to file the motion to exclude key evidence on a technicality? Is it really necessary to besmirch a police officer’s good name just because there are natural inconsistencies in his testimony? Do you really knock yourself to defend the defendant for a crime you think he probably didn’t commit, when he must have done some other things given that his family and friends look like a bunch of no-good thugs?

The prosecutors should be like the Globetrotters, and it should be VERY difficult to beat them. It used to be that way in Arlington, and the judges, prosecutors, and many defense attorneys agreed that was best to protect our community. Better to lock up a few people a few too many years than to let guilty people go off to terrorize the rest of us. It’s why I’m voting for Josh, and it’s a pretty easy decision. He’ll make sure riff-raff stays in its place.

To any undecided Democrats: this poster is the sort of voter that Katcher is courting. Conservatives who want prosecutors to lock up as many “no-good thugs” and “riff-raff” as possible, with impunity. They hate Dehghani-Tafti because they detest reforms that make the criminal justice system more humane and less cruel. Vote accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Parisa’s biggest enemy in this race are the supporters who have taken to the internet. I read a post on this thread coming after North Arlington specifically, and it really got under my skin. Enough to lodge a protest vote in favor of Katcher this morning. Both candidates have similar platforms, so with all else being equal, I’ll take the one whose camp isn’t out there disparaging my neighbors.

+1 Me, too. They really are the worst. I probably wouldn’t have voted, because it’s democrat v. Democrat but since it’s gotten so ugly (unnecessarily) - I will.

IMO, Josh is the one who has made it ugly. But you do you.

Get something straight. Parisa is the one who made it ugly four years ago by having the nerve to challenge Theo. Parisa should have understood people like her, with her background and experience, don’t belong anywhere near the CA’s position (or judgeships for that matter). They don’t have the values and toughness you need to serve.

Case in point: you don’t handcuff your own line prosecutors by telling them they can’t strike Black people just because they’re Black even when the defendant is Black, or Latinos when the defendant is Latino. Nor do you roll out the red carpet for the shady defense attorneys to go through your records when you’re only obligated to let them in a secure room during business hours. Both are just dumb and anti-prosecution. Do the Commanders show the Cowboys their playbook before they play. The Commanders act like they do, but they shouldn’t. Neither should Parisa force her prosecutors to do so. Besides harming the people, it sets the prosecutors back when they apply for jobs as AUSAs or other higher jobs, and their W-L record pales compared to prosecutors who treat defenders as, heavens to Betsy, the ENEMY of the people.

Josh is just doing whatever it takes to win. Just like he’ll do as CA. Just as we want our prosecutors to do. It’s morning in Arlington County again as Parisa’s reign will end in three days.

No, that is very much not what we want. Conservatives like you maybe. But not most Democratic voters in Arlington. What we want is a top prosecutor who doesn't wield their power as a weapon just because they can, but instead tries to impose accountability for criminal conduct without unnecessarily harsh punishments that do more harm than good.

+1. I’d encourage anyone who is still on the fence to read Brad Haywood’s posts on Next Door, which make a convincing case that Josh Katcher is a crass opportunist who lacks the personal qualities to serve as a CA.

+1

Someone copy/pasted them on page 11 of this thread.

You mean public defender Brad Haywood? The guy who defends criminals? If he was in the federal government he would be in violation of the Hatch Act and shouldn’t be out campaigning for either candidate (he needs to work with whoever wins - so VERY unprofessional of him). Plus, a public defender coming out in favor of Parisa tells me everything I need to know.

Public defenders play an important role in the justice system. You sound like a fascist.

They play an important role so that we don’t convict without any defense attorney, but it doesn’t mean they’re on the right side. Gideon v Wainwright only says you need to be given a court-appointed lawyer. That’s it. It says NOTHING about the resources and independence that defense attorney should have.

The best public defenders and court appointed attorneys are the ones who understand that each dollar spent on public defenders is a dollar taken away from schools, roads, utilities, parks, courts, prosecutors, and ultimately, yes, taxpayers. So they know they need to think very carefully about each minute they spend defending their client. Is it really worthwhile to file the motion to exclude key evidence on a technicality? Is it really necessary to besmirch a police officer’s good name just because there are natural inconsistencies in his testimony? Do you really knock yourself to defend the defendant for a crime you think he probably didn’t commit, when he must have done some other things given that his family and friends look like a bunch of no-good thugs?

The prosecutors should be like the Globetrotters, and it should be VERY difficult to beat them. It used to be that way in Arlington, and the judges, prosecutors, and many defense attorneys agreed that was best to protect our community. Better to lock up a few people a few too many years than to let guilty people go off to terrorize the rest of us. It’s why I’m voting for Josh, and it’s a pretty easy decision. He’ll make sure riff-raff stays in its place.

So you want public defenders to be a mere formality and for creepy egomaniacs like Katcher to have free rein?

Gross. Sounds like the American Nazi Party maintained a shadow presence in Arlington after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Parisa’s biggest enemy in this race are the supporters who have taken to the internet. I read a post on this thread coming after North Arlington specifically, and it really got under my skin. Enough to lodge a protest vote in favor of Katcher this morning. Both candidates have similar platforms, so with all else being equal, I’ll take the one whose camp isn’t out there disparaging my neighbors.

+1 Me, too. They really are the worst. I probably wouldn’t have voted, because it’s democrat v. Democrat but since it’s gotten so ugly (unnecessarily) - I will.

IMO, Josh is the one who has made it ugly. But you do you.

Get something straight. Parisa is the one who made it ugly four years ago by having the nerve to challenge Theo. Parisa should have understood people like her, with her background and experience, don’t belong anywhere near the CA’s position (or judgeships for that matter). They don’t have the values and toughness you need to serve.

Case in point: you don’t handcuff your own line prosecutors by telling them they can’t strike Black people just because they’re Black even when the defendant is Black, or Latinos when the defendant is Latino. Nor do you roll out the red carpet for the shady defense attorneys to go through your records when you’re only obligated to let them in a secure room during business hours. Both are just dumb and anti-prosecution. Do the Commanders show the Cowboys their playbook before they play. The Commanders act like they do, but they shouldn’t. Neither should Parisa force her prosecutors to do so. Besides harming the people, it sets the prosecutors back when they apply for jobs as AUSAs or other higher jobs, and their W-L record pales compared to prosecutors who treat defenders as, heavens to Betsy, the ENEMY of the people.

Josh is just doing whatever it takes to win. Just like he’ll do as CA. Just as we want our prosecutors to do. It’s morning in Arlington County again as Parisa’s reign will end in three days.

No, that is very much not what we want. Conservatives like you maybe. But not most Democratic voters in Arlington. What we want is a top prosecutor who doesn't wield their power as a weapon just because they can, but instead tries to impose accountability for criminal conduct without unnecessarily harsh punishments that do more harm than good.

+1. I’d encourage anyone who is still on the fence to read Brad Haywood’s posts on Next Door, which make a convincing case that Josh Katcher is a crass opportunist who lacks the personal qualities to serve as a CA.

+1

Someone copy/pasted them on page 11 of this thread.

You mean public defender Brad Haywood? The guy who defends criminals? If he was in the federal government he would be in violation of the Hatch Act and shouldn’t be out campaigning for either candidate (he needs to work with whoever wins - so VERY unprofessional of him). Plus, a public defender coming out in favor of Parisa tells me everything I need to know.

Public defenders play an important role in the justice system. You sound like a fascist.

They play an important role so that we don’t convict without any defense attorney, but it doesn’t mean they’re on the right side. Gideon v Wainwright only says you need to be given a court-appointed lawyer. That’s it. It says NOTHING about the resources and independence that defense attorney should have.

The best public defenders and court appointed attorneys are the ones who understand that each dollar spent on public defenders is a dollar taken away from schools, roads, utilities, parks, courts, prosecutors, and ultimately, yes, taxpayers. So they know they need to think very carefully about each minute they spend defending their client. Is it really worthwhile to file the motion to exclude key evidence on a technicality? Is it really necessary to besmirch a police officer’s good name just because there are natural inconsistencies in his testimony? Do you really knock yourself to defend the defendant for a crime you think he probably didn’t commit, when he must have done some other things given that his family and friends look like a bunch of no-good thugs?

The prosecutors should be like the Globetrotters, and it should be VERY difficult to beat them. It used to be that way in Arlington, and the judges, prosecutors, and many defense attorneys agreed that was best to protect our community. Better to lock up a few people a few too many years than to let guilty people go off to terrorize the rest of us. It’s why I’m voting for Josh, and it’s a pretty easy decision. He’ll make sure riff-raff stays in its place.

This has to be a Parisa supporter trying to make Josh supporters look bad. Its so over the top it can't possibly be real.

[Anonymous]

I was leaning Parisa but switched sides after all the fear mongering mailers I got about republicans. I lean libertarian and criminal justice reform so generally aligned with Parisa’s views on the issue. However every mailer trying to scare me that josh katcher is an R or friends with them is exactly what we need less of in this county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was leaning Parisa but switched sides after all the fear mongering mailers I got about republicans. I lean libertarian and criminal justice reform so generally aligned with Parisa’s views on the issue. However every mailer trying to scare me that josh katcher is an R or friends with them is exactly what we need less of in this county.

*support criminal justice reform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was leaning Parisa but switched sides after all the fear mongering mailers I got about republicans. I lean libertarian and criminal justice reform so generally aligned with Parisa’s views on the issue. However every mailer trying to scare me that josh katcher is an R or friends with them is exactly what we need less of in this county.

The campaign will be over in a few days. The Commonwealth’s Attorney will be in office for four years. You voted for someone who doesn’t share your belief in criminal justice reform, because his opponent has said (correctly) that he’s drawing significant support from people who don’t like criminal justice reform. Well done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote for Katcher if you like excuses to say the n-word.

https://medium.com/@arlingtoncriminaljustice/an-open-letter-to-the-arlington-county-falls-church-legal-community-and-democratic-primary-voters-942f39b71adb

Didn’t Parisa chastise him for the unnecessary use of the word? He was reading from a transcript, but it did not seem necessary AT ALL to use the actual word. Right after Parisa chided him, he quit and started to run against her. You know, using his campaign URL that he purchased in 2017. The more I find out about him, the less I like him.

I don’t know how this is getting buried

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote for Katcher if you like excuses to say the n-word.

https://medium.com/@arlingtoncriminaljustice/an-open-letter-to-the-arlington-county-falls-church-legal-community-and-democratic-primary-voters-942f39b71adb

Didn’t Parisa chastise him for the unnecessary use of the word? He was reading from a transcript, but it did not seem necessary AT ALL to use the actual word. Right after Parisa chided him, he quit and started to run against her. You know, using his campaign URL that he purchased in 2017. The more I find out about him, the less I like him.

I don’t know how this is getting buried

Katcher and his friends don’t want you to focus on how he’s repeatedly displayed spectacularly bad judgment: by unnecessarily using the n-word multiple times in court and then trying to exploit a teen’s death for his own political purposes. The guy makes me want to puke.

[Anonymous]

Their platforms are very similar. This nonsense about fascists and nazis is just plain stupid. An incumbent like Parisa gets the benefit of, well, being the incumbent. She also gets the scrutiny of what happened during her tenure. There’s nothing she could have done to stop the drunk driving incident. Also, it was, objectively speaking, reasonable to try the drunk driver as a juvenile. But just because something is reasonable, doesn’t mean it’s popular. To not even show up at the sentencing hearing for such a high-profile and contentious case was political malpractice. This was a case where she was showcasing the consequences of committing to not trying juveniles as adults (again, a reasonable choice and part of her criminal justice reform platform, but also one that was contentious in this very tragic case and one for which she should have been taking visible ownership). I don’t fault Katcher for exploiting this weakness that Parisa willingly opened herself up to. It’s almost like she assumed she would be running unopposed and wouldn’t face accountability at the polls. Any political strategists out there disagree???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Parisa’s biggest enemy in this race are the supporters who have taken to the internet. I read a post on this thread coming after North Arlington specifically, and it really got under my skin. Enough to lodge a protest vote in favor of Katcher this morning. Both candidates have similar platforms, so with all else being equal, I’ll take the one whose camp isn’t out there disparaging my neighbors.

+1 Me, too. They really are the worst. I probably wouldn’t have voted, because it’s democrat v. Democrat but since it’s gotten so ugly (unnecessarily) - I will.

IMO, Josh is the one who has made it ugly. But you do you.

Get something straight. Parisa is the one who made it ugly four years ago by having the nerve to challenge Theo. Parisa should have understood people like her, with her background and experience, don’t belong anywhere near the CA’s position (or judgeships for that matter). They don’t have the values and toughness you need to serve.

Case in point: you don’t handcuff your own line prosecutors by telling them they can’t strike Black people just because they’re Black even when the defendant is Black, or Latinos when the defendant is Latino. Nor do you roll out the red carpet for the shady defense attorneys to go through your records when you’re only obligated to let them in a secure room during business hours. Both are just dumb and anti-prosecution. Do the Commanders show the Cowboys their playbook before they play. The Commanders act like they do, but they shouldn’t. Neither should Parisa force her prosecutors to do so. Besides harming the people, it sets the prosecutors back when they apply for jobs as AUSAs or other higher jobs, and their W-L record pales compared to prosecutors who treat defenders as, heavens to Betsy, the ENEMY of the people.

Josh is just doing whatever it takes to win. Just like he’ll do as CA. Just as we want our prosecutors to do. It’s morning in Arlington County again as Parisa’s reign will end in three days.

So you want a County Attorney who engages in unethical, unconstitutional conduct? Cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Their platforms are very similar. This nonsense about fascists and nazis is just plain stupid. An incumbent like Parisa gets the benefit of, well, being the incumbent. She also gets the scrutiny of what happened during her tenure. There’s nothing she could have done to stop the drunk driving incident. Also, it was, objectively speaking, reasonable to try the drunk driver as a juvenile. But just because something is reasonable, doesn’t mean it’s popular. To not even show up at the sentencing hearing for such a high-profile and contentious case was political malpractice. This was a case where she was showcasing the consequences of committing to not trying juveniles as adults (again, a reasonable choice and part of her criminal justice reform platform, but also one that was contentious in this very tragic case and one for which she should have been taking visible ownership). I don’t fault Katcher for exploiting this weakness that Parisa willingly opened herself up to. It’s almost like she assumed she would be running unopposed and wouldn’t face accountability at the polls. Any political strategists out there disagree???

Face accountability for . . . doing her job and not playing politics?

We have enough divisiveness in our country as it is. Do we really need to make this contentious purely over politics? It's really a turn off in this race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their platforms are very similar. This nonsense about fascists and nazis is just plain stupid. An incumbent like Parisa gets the benefit of, well, being the incumbent. She also gets the scrutiny of what happened during her tenure. There’s nothing she could have done to stop the drunk driving incident. Also, it was, objectively speaking, reasonable to try the drunk driver as a juvenile. But just because something is reasonable, doesn’t mean it’s popular. To not even show up at the sentencing hearing for such a high-profile and contentious case was political malpractice. This was a case where she was showcasing the consequences of committing to not trying juveniles as adults (again, a reasonable choice and part of her criminal justice reform platform, but also one that was contentious in this very tragic case and one for which she should have been taking visible ownership). I don’t fault Katcher for exploiting this weakness that Parisa willingly opened herself up to. It’s almost like she assumed she would be running unopposed and wouldn’t face accountability at the polls. Any political strategists out there disagree???

Face accountability for . . . doing her job and not playing politics?

We have enough divisiveness in our country as it is. Do we really need to make this contentious purely over politics? It's really a turn off in this race.

She’s an elected official. The idea that she gets a free pass from the political consequences of her job performance is absurd. As an elected official, she has her professional duties, but she is also answerable to her constituents when the next election rolls around. It’s not “playing politics.” It’s literally the nature of her job as an “elected” official. She is endorsed by a political party, gets fundraising from that political party, and mobilizes their resources to turn out the vote in her favor, it is all politics. If she wants a job where she answers to no one, there are plenty of traditional legal jobs that are not elected positions. I agree that it’s a turn off that it’s heated, but if you don’t want things to be contentious, you’ll have to do away with elections entirely. You don’t get to choose which elections are hotly contested. That’s not how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their platforms are very similar. This nonsense about fascists and nazis is just plain stupid. An incumbent like Parisa gets the benefit of, well, being the incumbent. She also gets the scrutiny of what happened during her tenure. There’s nothing she could have done to stop the drunk driving incident. Also, it was, objectively speaking, reasonable to try the drunk driver as a juvenile. But just because something is reasonable, doesn’t mean it’s popular. To not even show up at the sentencing hearing for such a high-profile and contentious case was political malpractice. This was a case where she was showcasing the consequences of committing to not trying juveniles as adults (again, a reasonable choice and part of her criminal justice reform platform, but also one that was contentious in this very tragic case and one for which she should have been taking visible ownership). I don’t fault Katcher for exploiting this weakness that Parisa willingly opened herself up to. It’s almost like she assumed she would be running unopposed and wouldn’t face accountability at the polls. Any political strategists out there disagree???

Face accountability for . . . doing her job and not playing politics?

We have enough divisiveness in our country as it is. Do we really need to make this contentious purely over politics? It's really a turn off in this race.

She’s an elected official. The idea that she gets a free pass from the political consequences of her job performance is absurd. As an elected official, she has her professional duties, but she is also answerable to her constituents when the next election rolls around. It’s not “playing politics.” It’s literally the nature of her job as an “elected” official. She is endorsed by a political party, gets fundraising from that political party, and mobilizes their resources to turn out the vote in her favor, it is all politics. If she wants a job where she answers to no one, there are plenty of traditional legal jobs that are not elected positions. I agree that it’s a turn off that it’s heated, but if you don’t want things to be contentious, you’ll have to do away with elections entirely. You don’t get to choose which elections are hotly contested. That’s not how it works.

I respect the fact that she's done her job, she's relied on her line prosecutors to do their jobs, and she didn't pretend to be a vigilante a-hole like Josh Katcher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their platforms are very similar. This nonsense about fascists and nazis is just plain stupid. An incumbent like Parisa gets the benefit of, well, being the incumbent. She also gets the scrutiny of what happened during her tenure. There’s nothing she could have done to stop the drunk driving incident. Also, it was, objectively speaking, reasonable to try the drunk driver as a juvenile. But just because something is reasonable, doesn’t mean it’s popular. To not even show up at the sentencing hearing for such a high-profile and contentious case was political malpractice. This was a case where she was showcasing the consequences of committing to not trying juveniles as adults (again, a reasonable choice and part of her criminal justice reform platform, but also one that was contentious in this very tragic case and one for which she should have been taking visible ownership). I don’t fault Katcher for exploiting this weakness that Parisa willingly opened herself up to. It’s almost like she assumed she would be running unopposed and wouldn’t face accountability at the polls. Any political strategists out there disagree???

Face accountability for . . . doing her job and not playing politics?

We have enough divisiveness in our country as it is. Do we really need to make this contentious purely over politics? It's really a turn off in this race.

She’s an elected official. The idea that she gets a free pass from the political consequences of her job performance is absurd. As an elected official, she has her professional duties, but she is also answerable to her constituents when the next election rolls around. It’s not “playing politics.” It’s literally the nature of her job as an “elected” official. She is endorsed by a political party, gets fundraising from that political party, and mobilizes their resources to turn out the vote in her favor, it is all politics. If she wants a job where she answers to no one, there are plenty of traditional legal jobs that are not elected positions. I agree that it’s a turn off that it’s heated, but if you don’t want things to be contentious, you’ll have to do away with elections entirely. You don’t get to choose which elections are hotly contested. That’s not how it works.

I respect the fact that she's done her job, she's relied on her line prosecutors to do their jobs, and she didn't pretend to be a vigilante a-hole like Josh Katcher.

And as a voter, you have the privilege of evaluating her performance and deciding if you want to vote for her. It’s a great system! I’ve gone back and forth on the two candidates. One thing that raised my eyebrows was the story that Katcher didn’t like Parisa (his boss) telling him how to do his job. There’s probably plenty to the story I’m not privy to, but men who can’t stand having a woman as a boss - I’ve seen that before and I can’t help but think that’s part of what’s going on here. Is this just a big misogynistic overreaction?