Huh?

By: Lowell
Published On: 5/27/2007 10:25:32 PM

Can anyone explain to me what this letter means?  How could the LWV debate moderator of the Hall-Smyth debate the other day actually have "intended for the order of answering the questions to remain the same throughout the questions segment?"  In the end, while I appreciate Ms. Zachry's apology, I still can't understand what she's saying here.  In addition, Ms. Zachry doesn't address another troubling aspect of her debate performance, namely leading Linda Smyth in several answers.  Obviously, that's not appropriate for a moderator, and the audience reacted accordingly.

P.S.  By the way, all this talk about the LWV moderator is obscuring the main issue here; namely, why didn't Linda Smyth step in and correct the moderator when it became clear that she had made a big mistake?  Instead, it actually appeared that Smyth was ENCOURAGING the unfair behavior to continue.  The bottom line here is that Linda Smyth and Charlie Hall are on the ballot June 12, not the LWV of Fairfax or Ms. Zachry.

Comments



HUH! (voter4change - 5/28/2007 1:36:07 AM)
Lowell, I agree with you.  Why on earth would Linda Smyth not have said, "I have no problem with alternating?"  To do so would have shown a positive character trait vs "how can I get the advantage over Charlie Hall."

How long do you think RK will have to wait before Smyth comments? 

Lets continue to push forward for Charlie Hall.  Everyone reading RK needs to blog, e-mail, call their friends urging them to Vote on June 12 for Charlie Hall.  What if 500 voters showed up and voted for Charlie with this message, "RK told me to do it!"  Thanks RK.