Sometimes you hear something through the grapevine and it makes you cringe. In the case of judicial candidate Daniel Gabler, he sent out a mass autocall that made me cringe.

Gabler says he’ll be tough on criminals and that his opponent will not because his opponent has defended criminals.

My reaction is this — what exactly is Gabler’s problem with a defense attorney defending their client? What part of “innocent until proven guilty” does Gabler find so completely offensive that he would spend money to “expose” another candidate who acted in good faith to defend his client to the best of his ability?

Without even talking with the other candidate, I already know that Gabler would be a riskier choice because Gabler is sending strong messages that his mind is made up on cases before they even come before him. I would like to think that Gabler has the judicial temperament to do the job should he be elected but if his campaign is any indicator of how he really feels, he has already decided that anyone who has been charged is guilty — and that would make him a horrible judge.