October 7, 2006

11th hour Huff conditions cancel RI Sheriff's forum

A candidates forum for Rock Island County Sheriff scheduled to be held tomorrow at the Martin Luther King Center in Rock Island is being cancelled due to last minute conditions submitted by candidate Mike Huff.

Details from the D/A:

The forum was scheduled to take place at the Martin Luther King Center, Rock Island, and was to be hosted by Churches United Witness Committee.
The forum was canceled Thursday due to a last-minute guideline request from Mr. Huff, a Democrat and sergeant at the sheriff's department, that the Witness Committee felt couldn't be accommodated in time for the debate.

Rev. McAdams said the guidelines suggested by Mr. Huff were along the lines of having questions submitted ahead of time and being pre-approved by the candidates and Witness Committee.

Mr. Huff also suggested having a "time keeper" to guarantee equal time to both candidates, and giving each candidate time to read a pre-approved opening and closing statement.

"We got these requests Thursday morning with a Thursday evening deadline," Rev. McAdams said. "Time did not permit the going over, double checking, and signing (of approval) from each candidate. As far as the Witness Committee is concerned, it was canceled on mutual agreement because of a lack of time for mutual consent."
Mr. Schwigen, a Republican and lieutenant in the sheriff's department, said he was ready to debate Mr. Huff, anytime, anywhere, and was not comfortable with the idea that Mr. Huff had submitted guidelines for the forum.

"I personally think it's inappropriate for any kind of candidate to submit any kind of guidelines for a forum," he said. As of Thursday night, Mr. Schwigen was in possession of the requested guidelines but had not looked at them. Calls to Mr. Schiwgen went unanswered Friday night.

"I told Rev. McAdams that if he approved of the guidelines, then I approved of the guidelines."

Calls to Mr. Huff for comment went unanswered Thursday and Friday night.


At 10/07/2006 9:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder why Mr. Schwigen was uncomfortable with the idea of submitting some guidelines? I think this is relatively routine in a forum or debate like this.

Does Mr. Schwigen not have anything to say to the people besides his slander on Mr. Huff? We need the issues people not the B.S.. I give Mr. Schwigen a strike against him for that.

At 10/07/2006 9:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 9:33

Either you didn't read the post very well, are really confused, or are one of the people who enjoy purposely acting idiotic to twist things around.

Obviously Schwigen had no problems with any conditions and had agreed to debate Huff without questions being submitted for approval by Huff in advance.

It was Huff who issued a set of conditions, and did so at such a late date that it made it impossible to take them back and forth and do all the negotiations, etc. to get them agreed upon.

Huff simply decided that he wanted the debate controlled and wanted questions submitted in advance so he and his campaign could brainstorm on what his answers should be.

Schwigen didn't care and just wanted to debate.

It's more unusual that candidates like Schwigen are willing to go into debates without ANY conditions at all.

It's common for candidates to negotiate conditions, but obivously, when you submit them only a day or two before the event, or if they're complex and difficult, it will essentially make the debate impossible to stage.

But clearly, you're confused if you think Schwigen was the one insisting that conditions be met beforehand.

At 10/07/2006 11:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not what I said. You must be misunderstanding things here. Schwigen was quoted in the paper stating he had problems with any possing conditions at that kind of event. Did the paper lie. Or is he. I'm not saying it was all his fault. The paper said it was a mutual agreement to cancel.

At 10/07/2006 11:29 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...


I see what you're saying now.

There usually are conditions set for debates, though usually at higher level races.

I can see why Schwigen would feel that no one should set conditions, as maybe he thinks that would mean that it's completely open and unrestricted.

But some conditions have to be set, if for no other reason than ensuring fairness and organization. It can't be a free-for-all.

But I find expecting questions to be submitted ahead of time not very admirable.

I mean, if you're already rehearsed, what's the point? You might as well walk to the podium and read the questions and answers yourself.

When it's all rehearsed and scripted ahead of time, it's nothing but a charade.

At 10/07/2006 6:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 10/07/2006 7:15 PM, Blogger A_A_D said...

Neither candidate seems to evoke a lot of confidence in this voter's mind, with the way the two sides have taken shots at each other.

Am I alone in wishing we had better potential choices for the top Law Enforcement Officer in Rock Island County?

I am seeing this contest as just another argument for a vigorous and viable third party!

At 10/07/2006 8:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, why do you think Mr. Schwigen has only went negative in this race? Honestly, why? Why does he not talk himself up? I don't understand this. Please help me out to understand.

At 10/08/2006 11:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both parties in Illinois have erected ridiculously high barriers to any third party candidacys.

The signature requirements to get on the ballot are nearly impossible for any independent candidate to ever achieve.

At 10/08/2006 11:46 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

The comment above at 18:03 was deleted due to particularly nasty and unsupported accusations by a Huff supporter against Schwigen.

The commenter wrote at length defending Huff and trying to smear Schwigen, essentially saying that Huff was right to want guidlines, that Schwigen could have OKed them, and that without time limits it would have lead to chaos.

First of all, no one would object to time limits for both and other such organizational rules. That's not the point.

The comment also argued in favor of pre-submitted questions. They said the questions would be submitted by people at the debate.

Either this commenter was involved in the situation or just speculating, because there was nothing written about questions being screened at the event. There was nothing in the article cited about when the questions would be submitted, only that it be in advance.

But the really disgusting personal attack against Schwigen contained in the comment disqualified it from being published.

This proves that the candidate themselves, or those close to them, are really dragging things as low as can be. It's literally sickening to witness such nasty personal attacks being used in this way.

AAD is true in that many people could be excused if they're so disgusted by the whole thing that they don't vote for either.

At 10/08/2006 11:50 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 20:24

Your supposed "question" is really a statement of course.

And why you'd want to ask me for someone's motives is unknown.

From what I've read, BOTH candidates and their supporters have been amazingly vicious and nasty. It's like watching a particularly bad episode of the Jerry Springer show.

Really unfortunate and disgusting.

At 10/08/2006 12:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you think it's ok for Schwigen to go on TV and in the paper and attack Huff, but people that don't like Schwigen can't bring up things about Schwigen on a blog? Seems like a double standard. I believe that people have two faces, a private and a public face. You have to know both sides of a person to truly understand who they are. If Schwigen has things in his past that people may not like, then that is his problem to deal with it. Not for others to cover for him.

At 10/08/2006 12:33 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon above,

You make my case for me.

If you want to drag things down into the gutter and fight a disgusting campaign that has little to nothing to do with a person's abililty to do their jobs, then fine.

But if you think that gossip and rumors about someone's personal life are the way to go, I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree.

Without repeating the nasty crap that the commenter wrote, I'll assure you that it would have been irresponsible and reckless to print it.

And I think it's just as reckless and irresponsible, not to mention desperate, for anyone to try to use it in a political campaign. That applies to either side.

At 10/08/2006 12:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Schwegen first says guidelines are inappropriate. Then said they are ok if Mr. McAdams wants them. But he hadn’t looked at them. Without rules the event would likely go out of control and not address the issues at hand. All debates have agreed to rules. The group organizing the event is responsible for sending the contract to each candidate. Usually objections are negotiated. Sometimes candidates have deal breakers and the event does not go forward. I have debated on several occasions. All had agreed to rules, or I did not participate. Type in “debate rules” on the Internet and you will see I'M correct. The most difficult debate is one that is structured around the issues. It keeps everyone from going negative and taking shots. The responses would have to be issue based. The best way to avoid answering a question is to take a shot at your opponent! Mr. Huff was attempting to achieve the harder or the two options. It would be easy to be slanderous back and forth and never deal with the issues. For example: If a candidate began to answer a question, without rules, the audience and the other candidate could shout “liar,” and with no rules, it would be acceptable. That would not get to the issues. For those of you who are putting up a self-serving comment, think about what you are saying. Is it logical?

At 10/08/2006 12:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that would be the same nasty desperate attempt made by Schwigen who started the mud slinging to begin with. If certain things in Schwigen's life don't have anything to do with his ability to do the job, then why does Schwigen bring up something about Huff 23 years ago? I don't see how that is relevant either. A schwigen supporter also mentioned on a blog about seeing personal information about Huff with the city of Silvis. Again, how is that relevant to do the job? You seemd to be pro Grchan in the primary and now seem to be pro Schwigen. I guess that makes sense, because Schwigen is a crucial part of that troublesome administration. It's very biased and one-sided to allow things to be put on the blog about Huff, but not about Schwigen. I don't see how it's gossip and rumors to mention something that anyone is able to look up on public record through the court house and make their own conclusion about. Other elections within the govt. have been getting press time about some candidates having scandulous relationships and their sexual orientation being brought up. How is that important for their office they are running for? Isn't that personal business and not job related? I see no difference.

At 10/08/2006 1:27 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

First of all, you're part of the problem with your insistance on dragging things down into the muck.

Don't you have anything legitmate to campaign on?

I'm not biased at all in this race. I don't know either of the candidates and haven't made any judgements about which would make a better sheriff. Frankly, from the way the campaign has gone, I don't think much of either.

But you're yammering about what someone said on some other blog and that has nothing to do with me or TID. You think because someone published some crap somewhere else that you should be able to do so here? It doesn't work that way.

What Huff or Schwigen did in relation to their jobs IS relevant, as is something that could be clearly related to a person's ability to do the job.

But you (I assume it's you since you've gotten so hot immediately after I refused to print your slanderous smear) want to drag personal information into this which has absolutely NO relationship to a person's qualification to be sheriff.

Huff pulling loaded guns on fellow officers, yeah, that's relevant to his ability to do the job. It might not be any big deal, but that's up to voters.

But your attempt to drag what you did into this is slimy and I have no idea why you'd be so insistent on dragging things down to that level.

Personally, I think efforts to spread this sort of slime reflect very badly on Huff, the guy you support.

As far as Schwigen slinging mud, I'm not defending anyone if they are dragging personal stuff into a damned sheriff's race, for God's sake. But I'm not aware of anyone making such disgusting personal accusations against Huff.

Someone's past personal life sure the hell doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the sort of sheriff they'd be, unless it involves violence or something like that, which your smear attempt did not.

And not only that, but you expect me to print this scurrilous crap without one speck of proof.

Get real.

I won't print vicious and unsupported personal smear attempts from anyone about anyone.

Sorry. And I'm sorry that you seem to think it would be ok to do so.

At 10/08/2006 5:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

dope i agree i see all the negative stuff coming from huffs people out on the streets shcwiegen brought up that fact that huff pulled his gun on another officer that isnt negative that should come out in a race for the top cop i will never vote for huff i hope shwigen wins just because of that fact alone

At 10/08/2006 6:48 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

The commenter who insists on trying to argue that details of someone's private life should be brought into this race just won't "get it" and wrote in again, this time urging me to look up court records and dig around in newspaper archives to see for myself.

No, I'm not going to go digging around trying to unearth details about someone's personal life that has NOTHING to do with being a sheriff. What can't you understand??

Salacious rumors such as this person wants so badly to spread have no relevance to what a sheriff does. They run a cop shop and jail. The sheriff doesn't write laws that govern the way we live, or our personal lives.

Why you are frantic to inject this sort of garbage is beyond me. I'd be ashamed if I were the commenter who wants so badly to spread dirt. But something tells me they don't shame easily.

It seems that some people want to win this race a little too much. When people are willing to stoop to this level to try to get a position it raises red flags, at least to me.

To do so shows a certain lack of standards and integrity, and after all, that's far more important in a sheriff than the dirt they're trying to peddle.

At 10/08/2006 9:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard Huff wanted to be able to carry his gun into the debate in case Shwing tripped him (Huff) up with one of those fancy questions.

Anyone that is considering voting for Huff should drive by his home. Then you will realize what kind of sheriff he would be!

At 10/09/2006 7:18 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

The mud-slinging in this race is enough to turn anyone off.

I don't think voters will want to either drive by Huff's house or go to the courthouse and sift through marriage records.

I truly wish that these two parties and their rabid cliques would just go fight it out somewhere else and go away.

It's ugly, it's disgusting, and it proves both of them to be more interested in carrying out some stupid personal feud in public.

Running for sheriff is NOT the way to settle some cat fight.

If there were some way to vote for "none of the above" I think that would win.

At 10/09/2006 9:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You had no problem stirring up false rumors about Sen. Mike Jacobs in the Democrat Primary, why the change of heart now?

Did you come to realise that what you did to "Tina and her family" was wrong? Or do you still cling to your slaicious theory that Jacobs paid her to do massage and not research as he stated in his campaign report. Well Doper, which is it going to be?

At 10/09/2006 12:05 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Really now.

Just what "false rumors" did I write? I'm not going to go around with you again, as you're an idiot who can't tell fact from fiction.

If you want to assume Jacobs paid for massages from his campaign funds, then that's your right. I never said so.

I've told you before that I'd pay $10,000 if you could come up with ONE "false rumor" I ever wrote in a post here about Jacobs and this masseuse.

And as I figured, you couldn't come up with anything. Not even for 10 grand.

So just give it up and run along. Unless of course, you want to keep the case of the senator and the masseuse alive for years, which it appears is your goal.

And no, I didn't do anything but report was was publicly available on Jacobs' campaign finance report and a publicly available website.

I did nothing but report facts. Sorry.

Come back again in a few months and keep the thing alive some more. You can make the same fales accusations, and I'll still offer you a quick pile of cash if you can come up with anything to back up your goofy accusation, and you'll still be unable to do so.

And maybe you could explain to us all just what "slaicious" is, or was, or means.

Frankly, you're nuts. But I'll keep humoring you if you insist.

At 10/09/2006 4:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think with all of the crap aside, Huff has come through with more viable things he wants to do to make the County better. Strictly looking at what they say they want to do and not paying any attention to the crap.

Other than stooping to Schwigen's level, which wasn't to attractive, Huff I think still remains the one for Rock Island County Sheriff.

Enough of the he said she said stuff. Huff wins with his ideas to better the department. Increased officer presence. Senior triad system. Advanced technology (in-car computers). More less lethal equipment to ensure officer and public safety. Attempting to make the department a little more self sustained finacially by housing more federal prisoners. More specialized training for deputies to ensure of our children's safety in schools. These are all good things. I believe that he truely wants to make a difference.

At 10/09/2006 8:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you didn't say Jacobs paid for massages out of his campaign fund, what did you say?

At 10/10/2006 5:41 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Glad you asked. I'm sure you've read it a thousand times, so obviously you know what I wrote. I'd suggest you go back and read it a few more times so it might sink in.

But to save you some time, what I said was:

Jacobs reported paying someone $2000 for "research" in his campaign finance disclosure report.

A simple Google search on the person in question's name popped up a website advertised her qualificatins and services as a masseuse in Moline.

I asked what kind of research she did.

That question has yet to be answered.

That's it. Not that tough to understand, really, though apparently you can't quite wrestle it to the ground.

At 10/10/2006 5:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you were any kind of man, you would apologize for suggesting Tina provided something other than "research" to Jacobs' and his campaign. The fact that you have yet to admit that Tina provided "research" as listed, and not "massage," to Jacobs' campaign tells us everything we need to know about your poor character

At 10/10/2006 5:42 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Ah... that's interesting. I think you've taken the situation and tried to turn it inside out and upside down (as usual) and blame the wrong party.

As everyone but you realizes apparently, I can't "admit" something I don't know, can I?

I can't "admit" that Tina provided research any more than I can "admit" she provided something else.

I don't know. That's why I asked what kind of research she did.

No one has, to this day, answered that question.

I think the people who have let the question hang unanswered all this time are the ones who owe an appology, if anyone.

Frankly, I find it unfortunate that you still feel the need to try to twist things around and keep this story fresh in reader's minds.

The facts are the facts as I've stated. Trying to say otherwise is a lie. And unfortunately, your constant attempt to lie is not only keeping the story alive, but it's revealing that you're beating a dead horse.

You're trying to accuse me of doing something I didn't do, asking me to appologize for something I've never done, and admit something is true when I have no idea if it is or not.

I can't do any of those things, obviously, nor will I.

But keep it up. I'll be happy to explain the error of your ways anytime.

At 10/11/2006 5:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to say, Huff definately has the nod from me. Again, looking through all of the b.s., Huff seems to have the better ideas for the sheriff's department. Schwigen doesn't seem to have any new ideas or changes. I think it is good to change things up from time to time. Things tend to get stale with the same old stuff.

I noticed reading that Schwigen did not plan on doing anything different really outside of what the sheriff's department is already doing. Huff seems to have some new good ideas to improve things. I guess also it helps that he is a democrat for me.

At 10/12/2006 5:28 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

What ideas does Huff have? I haven't heard and you don't mention any.

At 10/12/2006 9:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone knows that huff is run by Jacobs and Gianulis. It's time for a new direction!

At 10/12/2006 3:08 PM, Anonymous Old Timer said...

Huff worked against Mike Jacobs in the primary. Common knowledge.

At 10/12/2006 7:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

some of the things I have heard and read about are: Putting more deputies on the street through some department re-alignment. He has secured grant money already to place computers in the squad cars. He is going to start the senior citizen triad system. He is going to obtain more less lethal devices to further ensure the safety of deputies and the public. Also going to have more specialized training for deputies (the first responders) to further ensure our children's safety in the schools.

At 10/13/2006 12:09 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Old timer. Don't assume that's common knowledge.

And Anon 19:14, thanks.

I almost can't believe my eyes. After thousands of posts on the blogs and fighting off people insisting on trying to spread the most vicious personal smears and dirt, could it be possible that actual issues and proposals are appearing?

I'm rubbing my eyes. But I think someone has actually brought up what a candidate proposes to do if elected.

This is great. Thanks again.

At 10/13/2006 7:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Huff and Jacobs are as close as two people can be. Who is kidding who?

Huff takes direction and cues from Jacobs. It's sickening!

At 10/13/2006 10:18 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Just a reminder.

If candiates or campaigns want to post an announcement of a fundraiser or event, I'm glad to help out and publish it.

However, I've asked many times that such announcements be sent to me via e-mail and not in comments.

Comments aren't as visible as posts, for one thing, so if you want people to see details of your event, send it by e-mail and I'll put it up as a post.

And if a campaign can't contact me directly, then they must not really want their event announced to readers here.

Attempts to casually drop in event announcements in comments will not be published.

I can be reached by clicking on the contact link in red in the sidebar.

Or send to theinsidedope at gmail dot com.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home