Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I practice law in Arlington. Josh Katcher isn’t a reform prosecutor. He is a return to biased, win-first mentality prosecution. The difference in his values and character and Parisa Delghani-Tafti is that he, as a white male, comfortably says the N-word in court. Parisa, a woman of color, never would. https://medium.com/@arlingtoncriminaljustice/an-open-letter-to-the-arlington-county-falls-church-legal-community-and-democratic-primary-voters-942f39b71adb

This strikes me as a fair point and one that resonates with me. I’m not sure why Parisa’s supporters are on here hating on voters who are angry with how she handled the Braylon Meade case. Just walk away from that conversation! Remind voters why Parisa is a candidate who aligns more with their values. Telling people off, especially when they’re coming from an emotional place, isn’t a great way to sway voters. Even if you’re right, resist the urge! My mind was changed shortly before I voted, but I swear a comment I read online just going off about all the special treatment Braylon’s mom and community were asking for was so offensive I found it hard to cast a ballot in Parisa’s favor. After all, her supporters had made clear in their eyes I’m just a rich entitled racist not smart enough to understand how the court system works.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is this a joke?

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.

Josh has been going around saying that when he wins “punishment is back!”

But that’s for certain sections and people of the jurisdiction. He’ll judge people according to their status and usefulness. That’s all we can ask. Keep the bad people on a leash. But treat kindly those of us who have earned some respect when our kid does something stupid. Parisa treats kids who get in trouble the same way no matter who they are and it’s unfair to those of us who keep our County (or city) well-funded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Her job performance was fine. The fact that she didn't give special treatment to certain families is actually a plus in my book. There shouldn't be a "political consequence" for integrity.

If showing up to a sentencing hearing for the perpetrator of a very serious crime that devastated the community constitutes special treatment, maybe she’s not doing a great job?

I've asked this a few times on this thread, as have others: if she, as a matter of practice, does not attend any sentencing hearings, why then should she have attended this one? Horrible tragedy, for sure, but what about this case merits different practice than all the other tragic cases? Yes, it was sad for all of Arlington and it definitely devastated certain segments within Arlington, but let's be honest - it didn't devastate the entire community. The fact is that it was another case in a big portfolio of cases that she, as the head of the office, oversees. That sounds cold, but that's how DA/CA offices in large cities function. We are not a small town where everyone knows everyone else and the local DA handles everything themselves. So, what about Braylon's case warranted an expectation that Parisa would deviate from her practice? This sounds personal to you, but so too are crimes against other victims and I don't think we hear those other victims claim they deserved her attendance at the sentencing hearing.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Josh has been going around saying that when he wins “punishment is back!”

But that’s for certain sections and people of the jurisdiction. He’ll judge people according to their status and usefulness. That’s all we can ask. Keep the bad people on a leash. But treat kindly those of us who have earned some respect when our kid does something stupid. Parisa treats kids who get in trouble the same way no matter who they are and it’s unfair to those of us who keep our County (or city) well-funded.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Her job performance was fine. The fact that she didn't give special treatment to certain families is actually a plus in my book. There shouldn't be a "political consequence" for integrity.

If showing up to a sentencing hearing for the perpetrator of a very serious crime that devastated the community constitutes special treatment, maybe she’s not doing a great job?

Anonymous wrote:I practice law in Arlington. Josh Katcher isn’t a reform prosecutor. He is a return to biased, win-first mentality prosecution. The difference in his values and character and Parisa Delghani-Tafti is that he, as a white male, comfortably says the N-word in court. Parisa, a woman of color, never would. https://medium.com/@arlingtoncriminaljustice/an-open-letter-to-the-arlington-county-falls-church-legal-community-and-democratic-primary-voters-942f39b71adb

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Her job performance was fine. The fact that she didn't give special treatment to certain families is actually a plus in my book. There shouldn't be a "political consequence" for integrity.

If showing up to a sentencing hearing for the perpetrator of a very serious crime that devastated the community constitutes special treatment, maybe she’s not doing a great job?

I've asked this a few times on this thread, as have others: if she, as a matter of practice, does not attend any sentencing hearings, why then should she have attended this one? Horrible tragedy, for sure, but what about this case merits different practice than all the other tragic cases? Yes, it was sad for all of Arlington and it definitely devastated certain segments within Arlington, but let's be honest - it didn't devastate the entire community. The fact is that it was another case in a big portfolio of cases that she, as the head of the office, oversees. That sounds cold, but that's how DA/CA offices in large cities function. We are not a small town where everyone knows everyone else and the local DA handles everything themselves. So, what about Braylon's case warranted an expectation that Parisa would deviate from her practice? This sounds personal to you, but so too are crimes against other victims and I don't think we hear those other victims claim they deserved her attendance at the sentencing hearing.

Those others are expected given where they live and the people surrounding them, whether it’s their fault or not. But Braylon could have been any one of our sons and daughters. He didn’t live next door to illegals or run around with MS-13, and yet he’s gone. So it’s very, very different as he had a much better future ahead of him than people down there have, where they’re just trying to get through Nova or beauty school. Parisa should have recognized that and shown her respect when an unusual victim like Braylon came along.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Her job performance was fine. The fact that she didn't give special treatment to certain families is actually a plus in my book. There shouldn't be a "political consequence" for integrity.

If showing up to a sentencing hearing for the perpetrator of a very serious crime that devastated the community constitutes special treatment, maybe she’s not doing a great job?

I've asked this a few times on this thread, as have others: if she, as a matter of practice, does not attend any sentencing hearings, why then should she have attended this one? Horrible tragedy, for sure, but what about this case merits different practice than all the other tragic cases? Yes, it was sad for all of Arlington and it definitely devastated certain segments within Arlington, but let's be honest - it didn't devastate the entire community. The fact is that it was another case in a big portfolio of cases that she, as the head of the office, oversees. That sounds cold, but that's how DA/CA offices in large cities function. We are not a small town where everyone knows everyone else and the local DA handles everything themselves. So, what about Braylon's case warranted an expectation that Parisa would deviate from her practice? This sounds personal to you, but so too are crimes against other victims and I don't think we hear those other victims claim they deserved her attendance at the sentencing hearing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Her job performance was fine. The fact that she didn't give special treatment to certain families is actually a plus in my book. There shouldn't be a "political consequence" for integrity.

If showing up to a sentencing hearing for the perpetrator of a very serious crime that devastated the community constitutes special treatment, maybe she’s not doing a great job?

I've asked this a few times on this thread, as have others: if she, as a matter of practice, does not attend any sentencing hearings, why then should she have attended this one? Horrible tragedy, for sure, but what about this case merits different practice than all the other tragic cases? Yes, it was sad for all of Arlington and it definitely devastated certain segments within Arlington, but let's be honest - it didn't devastate the entire community. The fact is that it was another case in a big portfolio of cases that she, as the head of the office, oversees. That sounds cold, but that's how DA/CA offices in large cities function. We are not a small town where everyone knows everyone else and the local DA handles everything themselves. So, what about Braylon's case warranted an expectation that Parisa would deviate from her practice? This sounds personal to you, but so too are crimes against other victims and I don't think we hear those other victims claim they deserved her attendance at the sentencing hearing.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Her job performance was fine. The fact that she didn't give special treatment to certain families is actually a plus in my book. There shouldn't be a "political consequence" for integrity.

If showing up to a sentencing hearing for the perpetrator of a very serious crime that devastated the community constitutes special treatment, maybe she’s not doing a great job?

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.

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.

Her job performance was fine. The fact that she didn't give special treatment to certain families is actually a plus in my book. There shouldn't be a "political consequence" for integrity.

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.