By Bob Schelen
Dear Democratic Leader
Your Yolo County Democratic Party has endorsed Dean Johansson for Yolo County District Attorney. After a long and thoughtful process, we have concluded that Dean’s positions reflect the Democratic Party platform and that he shares the Democratic values of our County as expressed in overwhelming support for criminal justice reform propositions recently on the ballot.
His opponent, current District Attorney Jeff Reisig, sees the office in a different light and on a number of issues has disagreed with both the Democratic Platform and the positions of the majority in Yolo County on the reform propositions.
Dean is a registered Democrat and the last party his opponent associated with was the Republican Party.
While California sees the office of District Attorney as non-partisan, we believe that Democrats show leadership in advancing our values when we support a District Attorney candidate that agrees with and embodies them. Democratic activists, including our elected officials, can make a contribution to constructive change by joining together to support and elect our endorsed candidates. Supporting, by endorsement or otherwise, a candidate for District Attorney who does not reflect our values can frustrate our efforts.
For these reasons, we call upon you, as an elected Democrat in Yolo County, to rescind your endorsement of the current District Attorney Jeff Reisig and show your support for Dean Johansson.
Bob Schelen is the Chair of the Democratic Central Committee
Thank you, Bob Schelen.
Pam
I see an endorsement without the provision of a reason for that endorsement is not a particularly strong statement. For any political leaders in our community, I would request that you specify why you are making your particular endorsement, for either candidate as Mr. Schelen has done here.
Are you being snarky Tia? That’s my niche on this site. There is not specific reason named above other than the incumbent is a Republican. This is as vague as endorsements get. Unless you consider something vague about “shared values” to be specific.
Jim
“ he shares the Democratic values of our County as expressed in overwhelming support for criminal justice reform propositions recently on the ballot.”
Absolutely no snark intended. If an endorser cannot say something more specific than “My candidate is the good guy” or is “near perfect” with no evidence provided to back it up, then I question the value of the endorsement.
I consider specific criminal justice reforms which have appeared either on a ballot as in this case to be just that “specifics”, as opposed to generalizations such as “tough on crime”.
we will have to just disagree on that.
In other words: Democrats, make sure you stay in-line voting for your party apparatus. Make sure you vote to advance the ideological cause while ignoring the actual role being served by the election.
And Republicans are icky and irredeemably deplorable and we noble and righteous Democrats should take our rightful place as the ruling class of the victim and ignorant class.
Too hell with law and order…
Yes, we know of Haidt, one of us that has criticized our righteous minds… the fact that we are incomplete moralists… focusing only on harm and fairness and ignoring what he calls the richer moral diet of conservatives… those people that filter on other moral considerations like sanctity… sanctity of law and order and sanctity of life.
But to hell with sanctity… we know what Utopia looks like and it includes weak law enforcement!
You’ve pretty much hit on my and my spouse’s, and son’s reason for being registered as NPP and ‘third party’… the Democrat party is not democratic… “hegemony” over issues and individuals… Republicans have the same disease/impediment.
Mr Schelene is a poster child for the dogmatic view…
As we recently saw when Bill Dodd changed his party and won most voters don’t pay much attention and (with rare exceptions) just vote for the guy or gal with a D or R next to their name. Party “leadership” tends to be a lot farther to the right for the GOP and father to the left for the Dems (and a LOT farther to the edges in local races where big money does not place more moderates in leadership positions). For non partisan races voters (with rare exceptions) vote for the incumbent.
True… which appears to be why some want to make “non-partisan” races, “partisan”… bad trend, in my view… on the DA side, pretty much decided to vote for a “term – limit”, regarding the incumbent… was 50-50, so that affects my ‘coin-flip’…
Jeff
Nope. On all counts. I have provided, as has David, very specific instances in which I believe that there has been either 1. overcharging 2. possible conflation of behavior with criminal intent vs behavior driven by mental illness 3. cases of waste of resources on entrapment of otherwise law abiding citizens 4. cases of waste of resources when alternative and less costly forms of restitution would have provided a better result. 5. A case in which I believe Reisig’s choices led to a direct, real, material hazard to our community which resulted in severe injury in the form of a second methamphetamine affected infant.
I have been very specific. It is you who have failed to provide any specifics despite multiple requests to do so. One could reasonably ask who is really more ideologically driven here.