Chamber breakfasts are supposed to be quaint affairs. Business people and politicians coming together to revel in their successes, network, and make their best pitch for an upcoming project or votes in an election. I have been to more than a few of these events, which usually turn out to be snoozefests. However, today’s Schuylkill Chamber of Commerce debate between incumbent District Attorney James P. Goodman and Republican challenger Christine A. Holman was anything but.
Instead of staging the debate as a joint press conference, where one candidate gets an allotted time to make his case and is followed by his opponent, this year’s debate committee decided to allow opening and closing statements, questions from the floor, and rebuttals of an opponent’s answer. This format allowed Goodman and Holman to go at each other with full force. And that is exactly what they did.
Things started off civil enough, though , as Goodman lauded his prosecutorial record, citing the fact that he has sent more people to state prison this year, almost triple, than former DA Frank Cori did in 2005. He mentioned the fact that he has used grant money to form elder abuse and sex crimes units within the District Attorney’s office and has hired three new full-time prosecutors over the past four years to staff those units. In addition, Goodman praised himself for clearing an alleged log jam of cases left by his predecessor.
Holman countered with her resume of work as a prosecutor of juvenile crimes under Frank Cori and her trial work as a public defender. She claims to have tried over 2000 cases during her years of public service and promised to be a “working district attorney” by maintaining her own load of cases that she will prosecute personally. Finally, Holman pledged to serve out her term as DA if she was elected and not accept any appointments to higher office. She asked Goodman to do the same, but he never did.
Things became a little testy when the subject turned to illegal immigration. Holman promised to combat illegal immigration in the county by forming a task force, financed partially by the federal government, to hunt down, detain, and prosecute those who live in this county illegally. She recited statistics that indicated when local law enforcement joins the fight against illegals, crime goes down, and advocated a desperate need in this county for the top law enforcement official to be in the lead. Then, she brought up Shenandoah, claiming that Goodman “embarrassed Shenandoah and the rest of Schuylkill County by mishandling the [Luis Ramirez murder] case” and chided him for delegating the responsibility of prosecuting the case to a subordinate.
Goodman brushed off Holman’s criticisms, stating that he had looked into forming a task force, but claimed it was “too costly” and he didn’t believe that the district attorney should be the county officer to hunt down illegals. He said that he would prefer the Sheriff’’s office to take the lead in such an endeavor. Furthermore, Goodman said that he was more concerned with prosecuting all crimes equally and not leaving victims who happened to be illegal immigrants out in the cold. Goodman explained himself in the Shenandoah case by saying that he followed the law and the facts by putting those on trial that the evidence pointed to, despite the fact that the victim was an illegal alien.
Goodman went on to report that he had prosecuted three first degree murder cases in his four years and asked Holman of she ever participated in a jury trial and what she would do if an illegal immigrant was the victim of rape. Holman rebutted by stating that juvenile cases are all bench trials, where judges who are trained and experienced in the law decide cases instead of juries stacked with laymen who “learn as they go”. She claimed that bench trials are much harder to prosecute than juries and that she would have taken part in more adult prosecutions if Goodman hadn’t canned her when he first came into office merely because she had supported her former boss during the 2005 campaign.
The biggest fireworks came when discussing the drug epidemic in Schuylkill County. Goodman heralded his record of “taking drug dealers off the streets and putting them behind bars.” He cited recent examples in the news about huge drug busts as evidence of his accomplishments. However, Holman disagreed with his assessment, stating that Goodman had broken his main campaign platform of no deals for drug dealers. “Over the past four years, my opponent has pleaded down or withdrawn the cases of 48% of this county’s drug offenders,” Holman said. She went on to cite numerous examples of alleged drug dealers who had their cases unceremoniously dropped.
Goodman took issue with Holman’s statistics. He became noticeably red-faced and some in the audience reported that he was even shouting when he asked Holman to qualify her statistics. He explained that in many cases where charges were withdrawn against drug dealers, it was because either the defendant had died or the police’s confidential informant had failed to appear to testify.
WPPA radio’s Step Up to the Mic, broadcasted the first half of the debate in their second hour of programming today. Those who were unable to attend the debate or those who just want to hear the candidate’s go back and forth can find the recording in WPPA’s show archive on their website. The second half of the debate may be aired on tomorrow’s show, time permitting. I would encourage all to listen in.
6 Comments
October 15, 2009 at 12:26 pm
It’s easy to run against someone when you have no record. It’s easy to say “I am going to change things when I get in there” to people across the county. You can go anywhere in the county and say “this guy is bad, and here’s why”. Yet, for all of her slandering, Christine Holman is a fool if she thinks she can do a better job than Jim Goodman will. Jim Goodman has brought this county out of the dark ages when concerned with crime and drugs. Jim Goodman has done so many good things for this county in his short time in office. It’s hard to run against your own record. Unless, you have actually done things. Jim Goodman developed a crime task force for Elder Abuse. Jim Goodman goes into middle schools and talks to kids about staying in school and away from drugs. Jim Goodman got money from the federal government to expand the county’s drug task force, and in doing so has been able to bring in more drug dealers off the streets and put them behind bars. With all that being said, Jim Goodman has had a higher prosecution rate than his predecessor and many others, and has done all this while being a devoted husband and a father. It isn’t always sunny in a courtroom, sometimes your plans don’t always go accordingly, and you have troubles in certain aspects. Yet, Jim Goodman has kept his campaign promises, and has made this county a safer place for us all. It’s all too easy to say your going to change things, but Jim Goodman is one of the few that actually has. Christine Holman had a chance to prove if she was worthy to be on Jim’s team to help this county, and she blew it. She wasn’t fired because she was a Republican, she was fired because she was lazy and didn’t follow orders. Is this the District Attorney that we want for this county??? Do we want someone that not only “says” she is going to change things, but is running against Jim Goodman for personal reasons? Jim Goodman has proved that he has gotten things done for this county. What has Holman done, besides badmouth Jim Goodman and talk about how bad Democrats are? Christine Holman wasn’t trying to help anybody except herself until she started her campaign. Then we saw her at every block party and retirement home in the county. Telling these people how she is on their side, and that Jim Goodman isn’t. That would be laughable, if it wasn’t just sad. When I am going to vote for someone for a certain job, I go with the person that has gotten things done. That is Jim Goodman in my book. “Acta non verba”, thats Latin for “deeds, not words”. Deeds, Mrs. Holman, not words.
October 15, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Soooo…what you’re saying, Terry, is that it was OK for Cal Shields and Jim Goodman to center their DA campaigns on the crucifixion of Frank Cori…but that it’s NOT OK for Holman to do it?
Either your memory is short…or it’s convenient.
October 15, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Terry seems to be quite the authority on Jim Goodman – although you seemed to have skipped over mentioning the Shenandoah case. I guess your guy was too busy in the schools and being the million dollar husband and dad to effectively prosecute that case – if that’s the best this guy can do, he should hang his head in shame!!! If you think this buffoon is doing a good job, your standards aren’t too high! How can you claim to know why Mrs. Holman is no longer in the DA’s office unless you are a Goodman cronie and simply doing their dirty work?? I know Mrs. Holman and know your accusations are not true – she was fired for being a Republican as was Jim Caravan and one other woman. The Goodmans have operated this way for years – there are plenty of people who they screwed over for being the “wrong” party. Do your homework before opening your mouth and you will see what they are all about!!!!!
October 16, 2009 at 7:01 am
What strikes me is the utter hyopcrisy of Goodman. Remember when he ravaged Cori for supposedly having a high number of plea deals? Goodman had to know full well that standard operating procedure in PA jurisprudence (the whole country, actually) is for a first-time drug offender with a small amount of drugs is ARD (probation with no verdict rendered); furthermore, you give the small fish a deal in the hopes of nailing the big fish, which is your only realistic hope of having a shot in hell of putting a dent in the drug problem. Everyone in this battle knows this. So Goodman trumps up a bogus campaign against Cori with a deceptive foundation that he’s pleading out too many drug convictions. Goodman spends $250,000 of money from a mysterious source, wins, and, lo, as was inevitable, he too is pleading out the cases involving small time drug offenses. Note: if prosecutors don’t do this, our all-already swamped court system would be insane. Serious convictions would fall through the cracks as scores of teenagers pinched for a gram of pot would be waiting for trial. Anyway, the way I see it, the postman always rings twice, and Goodman has earned an electoral spanking from Holman in return for the dirty campaign he ran against Frank Cori four years ago. What goes around comes around, Jimbo
October 30, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Someone should ask Jim Goodman why he is challenging members of organizations that have not supported him & why he is calling people to see why their family members have contributed to Holman’s campaign. Reeks of intimidation.
November 2, 2009 at 7:14 pm
I’m all the way for Mr. Goodman!
Forget that Holman chick.