Senate candidates, audience blast Alloway for forum absence

Rich Alloway did not appear at Thursday's political forum conducted by the Citizens for Responsible Government.

[Bert]

Alloway's timidness and reluctance to face voters signals that he is not ready for the job of Senator from the 33rd District. One would think Alloway's mentor and the luminaries he points to as major supporters would counsel him that it is a long-standing tradition in American politics to debate competitors in front of those who'd possibly vote for you given that you convince them you are best qualified for the office. Hiding behind e-mail is not a confidence builder, candidate Alloway.

[Who cares]

It seems to me that Mr.Curley was acting very immature himself with all the gestures and signs he was displaying. I'm not an Alloway supporter but it doesn't appear to me that Mr.Curley would make much of a Senator either.

[Anon]

Curley seems to be getting a bit overboard with his side show. I understand his points, but let's hear some more about issues too. I'm very disappointed with Alloway so far. He has dodged every opportunity to state his positions on issues. I'm not sure he's ready to step into a position like the senate. If he's unable to debate and discuss issues during the campaign, how is he going to perform in Harrisburg?

[George Naugle]

Why should Mr. Alloway show up? He is the annointed one, hand picked for the job by those who know what is best for us, and he has more money to spend on ads than all of the other candidates combined. We are not part of the ruling class and he is, I guess.

[3rdMarDiv]

Come on folks! What's Mr. Richie going to do if
he is not elected. Let's ask Mr. Coy or Mr. Punt. I'm sure one of these gentlemen could find him a job with the Gaming Commission, with per diem, car, retirement, expense account etc. Those
that are chosen will be annointed one way or the other.

The entire system smells like a sewer plant.

We the sheep await our shearing!

Vote - 2008

[anon]

I only hope Mr. Curley's performance costs him a few votes as well.

[pywacket]

I think it's pretty clear that Jim Taylor
is the best candidate.

[Max]

Curley's antics were to direct unfavorable attention to Alloway while allowing himself the chance to offer less substance as to what his positions are. Yes, a schoolboy tactic. The voters in the 33rd District should avoid voting for Alloway just as he avoids participating in debates. Snub him. Certainly it appears that Punt encouraged Alloway to run and possibly painted a rosy picture that it would be a cake walk. Now reality is sinking in for candidate Alloway and Mr. Pay Raise.

[Cricket 23]

Cresswell commented on the problem of factories leaving the state and said there's a need to be careful to not hurt the manufacturers while closing the border. Still, she said, the government must enforce its own laws.

Comment:
The Bail Reform Act of 1984 created a powerful detention provision that authorizes a state of local police officer to arrest any alien other than a legal permanent resident for a federal “offense,” and to request a local magistrate to temporarily detain the alien for up to ten days without bail while awaiting transfer into federal custody, so long as the alien is found to be a “flight risk” or danger to any other person or the community.”

The authority to make arrest for federal offenses under 18 U.S.C. 3041 extends to state and local law enforcement officers.(U.S. v Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977) An illegal alien is an inherent flight risk.

Supreme Court Ruling Razes Artificial Fire Wall Between Local Law Enforcement and Immigration Enforcement (Muehler v. Mena) 9-0 Landmark Decision (Washington D.C.—April 1, 2005) In its March 22 ruling in the case of Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court removed barriers that prevent local law enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of individuals they suspect to be in the United States illegally. In this groundbreaking decision, the high Court rejected the claim of Ira Mena, a permanent resident of the U.S., that police had violated the Fourth Amendment while conducting a lawful search of her home.

The Fourth Amendment provides protection by establishing that persons be shielded against unreasonable search and seizure. Mena argued that by questioning her, and the illegal alien detainees about their immigration status during a lawful search, officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Mena further claimed that questions asked about her citizenship required officers to have had independent reasonable suspicion regarding the unlawfulness of her immigration status.

Calling a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “faulty,” the Supreme Court held that “mere police questioning [regarding one’s immigration status] does not constitute a seizure.” The Court continued its landmark ruling on this issue by stating that “the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date of birth, or immigration status.”

“Whatever legal fig leaf many police departments have been using to justify policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration authorities, has been stripped away by this landmark Supreme Court decision,”

“If local police are barred from cooperating with federal authorities in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws it is purely a political decision on the part of local politicians and police chiefs. There is no legal barrier to local police inquiring about a person’s immigration status and then acting upon the information they gather.”

[cricket23]

"Cresswell commented on the problem of factories leaving the state and said there's a need to be careful to not hurt the manufacturers while closing the border. Still, she said, the government must enforce its own laws."

Quote:
The Bail Reform Act of 1984 created a powerful detention provision that authorizes a state of local police officer to arrest any alien other than a legal permanent resident for a federal “offense,� and to request a local magistrate to temporarily detain the alien for up to ten days without bail while awaiting transfer into federal custody, so long as the alien is found to be a “flight risk� or danger to any other person or the community.�

The authority to make arrest for federal offenses under 18 U.S.C. 3041 extends to state and local law enforcement officers.(U.S. v Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977) An illegal alien is an inherent flight risk.

Supreme Court Ruling Razes Artificial Fire Wall Between Local Law Enforcement and Immigration Enforcement (Muehler v. Mena) 9-0 Landmark Decision (Washington D.C.—April 1, 2005) In its March 22 ruling in the case of Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court removed barriers that prevent local law enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of individuals they suspect to be in the United States illegally. In this groundbreaking decision, the high Court rejected the claim of Ira Mena, a permanent resident of the U.S., that police had violated the Fourth Amendment while conducting a lawful search of her home.

The Fourth Amendment provides protection by establishing that persons be shielded against unreasonable search and seizure. Mena argued that by questioning her, and the illegal alien detainees about their immigration status during a lawful search, officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Mena further claimed that questions asked about her citizenship required officers to have had independent reasonable suspicion regarding the unlawfulness of her immigration status.

Calling a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “faulty,� the Supreme Court held that “mere police questioning [regarding one’s immigration status] does not constitute a seizure.� The Court continued its landmark ruling on this issue by stating that “the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date of birth, or immigration status.�

“Whatever legal fig leaf many police departments have been using to justify policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration authorities, has been stripped away by this landmark Supreme Court decision,�

“If local police are barred from cooperating with federal authorities in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws it is purely a political decision on the part of local politicians and police chiefs. There is no legal barrier to local police inquiring about a person’s immigration status and then acting upon the information they gather.�

[cricket23]

Sorry for the double post!

[Ann]

The forum was quite interesting, to say the least. Days ago, the rumor was that Alloway would not appear at this event. He obviously cannot answer questions off the cuff, and his lack of concern for those of us who really care about government waste exhibit his smugness. Were his prepared email questioned really answered by him or did someone else answer for him? Who's to say?

My thanks to the three candidates who were concerned enough about us voters to attend the forum. Although I am a Jim Taylor supporter, I have to admit there was a lot of validity in comments which Mr. Curley made. Money is being poured into this campaign by the powers that be in Harrisburg to make certain Alloway wins this election. Hopefully, the voters will look at each candidate and see who really represents their views, not the views of the special interest groups.

Has anyone noticed that no one has been appointed to fill Alloway's job as District Magistrate? Rumor also has it that Punt will get him reappointed to it in the event he loses. Isn't that peachy-keen? If this is true, we see how back room deals, etc. are involved in this election.

By the way, kudos to the P.O. for printing an unbiased article pertaining to last night's forum. It really did represent the feelings of the majority of those in attendance.

[Think about this]

This forum of 30 voters, yes 30, sounds like an old wild west stage show, with the audience yelling and gestures being made by the actors, Im sorry I meant to say "candidates". I'm not certain who I would vote for, but I can say that by reading this article, I have been turned off by these participants. I am not for political insiders, I will support a classy, responsible, mature adult with innovative ideas, that doesnt think they are going to go to Harrisburg and revamp everything in one year. They won't and they can't and all they will do is hurt the people of this area when they are alienated by their peers. The benefit of Alloway being an insider means that he will be able to bring projects and dollars.....call it "pork", "insider", "status quo" or whatever you want, but it works if you are connected. These candidates have a lot of ground to make up by April 22.

[RINO Hunter]

Bert wrote:

Alloway's timidness and reluctance to face voters signals that he is not ready for the job of Senator from the 33rd District. One would think Alloway's mentor and the luminaries he points to as major supporters would counsel him that it is a long-standing tradition in American politics to debate competitors in front of those who'd possibly vote for you given that you convince them you are best qualified for the office. Hiding behind e-mail is not a confidence builder, candidate Alloway.

I don't think it's timidness, it's arrogance that he's the presumed incumbant because he's been anointed by the leadership and Punt. I enjoyed the forum. Rich knows that he can't make too many of these types of appearances because after his implosion at the Lincoln Day Dinner, he'll lose more votes.

[RINO Hunter]

Anon wrote:

Curley seems to be getting a bit overboard with his side show. I understand his points, but let's hear some more about issues too. I'm very disappointed with Alloway so far. He has dodged every opportunity to state his positions on issues. I'm not sure he's ready to step into a position like the senate. If he's unable to debate and discuss issues during the campaign, how is he going to perform in Harrisburg?

Mr. Curley has done an outstanding job of campaigning. And jut by showing up, he's done a better job than Alloway.

[skeptic]

What's the surprise. As District Judge (a postion that pays over 60K of taxpayer money) Alloway was rarely in his office. Now he sees himself as Punt's handpicked successor, why should he put forth any effort or make any sacrifice. Voters must see the folly in electing an oppoirtunist like this. What are his qualifications? Do we need another lawyer to represent us?

[RINO Hunter]

Think about this wrote:

This forum of 30 voters, yes 30, sounds like an old wild west stage show, with the audience yelling and gestures being made by the actors, Im sorry I meant to say "candidates". I'm not certain who I would vote for, but I can say that by reading this article, I have been turned off by these participants. I am not for political insiders, I will support a classy, responsible, mature adult with innovative ideas, that doesnt think they are going to go to Harrisburg and revamp everything in one year. They won't and they can't and all they will do is hurt the people of this area when they are alienated by their peers. The benefit of Alloway being an insider means that he will be able to bring projects and dollars.....call it "pork", "insider", "status quo" or whatever you want, but it works if you are connected. These candidates have a lot of ground to make up by April 22.

So you like having your money taken by Harrisburg? Yeah, you are an educated voter...aren't you?

[Jim]

No way, Jose! Going with the hand-picked stooge because he may bring home "pork" that another person couldn't arrange is a weak argument. Getting the average person's vote requires that the candidate have some gravitas, be respected, and have the character and personal probity that makes the candidate the kind of person you want to represent you in Harrisburg. From what's being said in the preceeding comments about Alloway, he does not measure up.

[Remember]

Remember Shuster & Kauffman. Once they get 'appointed' by the gang in Harrisburg, you can not get them out of office. Do we need a third 'paid for by party'?

[ABC]

I have said it once and I will say it again, I have known Alloway for over 30 years and he will NOT get my vote. He is the most immature person I have ever met.