The people that did show up there were engaged, interested, and asking questions to make sure that VDOT and the HOT lane company don't stick it to the citizens.  Plenty were opposed or skeptical of the project and VDOT and the HOT lane company seemed to have been hard pressed through their presentation.

Were you there?  Because I don't see how anyone could have taken that event as a campaign event.  Smyth maybe said 20 words to introduce the speakers and then spent the rest of the time fielding residents' questions.  The atmosphere there didn't contain even an iota of support for Linda.

On the other hand, the Hall campaign made a point of campaigning outside and inside the event.  Is it even legal to pass out campaign literature during an official government event?

Of course, that is why we pass out literature at Back to School night.

I will be interested in how Hall expects to unite the party should he prevail in the primary.

Since you seem to be close to the pulse of Linda's campaign, was the "classy slick mailer" for this seminar sent to every resident in Providence?  The mailer certainly had the markings of a piece of campaign literature disguised as an "innocent" mailer inviting people to attend a seminar.  What was the cost of this mailer to the Fairfax County taxpayers? 

That is the question that should be asked.  Not is it even legal to pass out campaign literature during an official government event?

Maybe others would like to hear an answer about how much did the mailer cost taxpayers to print and mail?
 

Then lets shift to the original question....is there any way to find out how much the fancy mailer cost the good folks of Fairfax County.  It is very possible that the Hot Lanes folks paid for it.

Holy cow, the strategic advantage of having rebuttal on the opening and closing statements and every single question is enormous! Despite this disadvantage and the obvious effect such a farce could have on one's concentration, Charlie Hall showed himself to be a thoughtful candidate worthy of the office he is seeking.

The Connection Newspapers cosponsored this event yet were prohibited by the LWV from participating in any way except as members of the audience. They should be embarrassed at having their name associated with such a prejudiced proceeding.

For the first time in a long time, I was ashamed to be a Democrat tonight. There is no way that anyone who believes in the ideals of the Democratic Party would allow such an injustice to be carried out.

Providence Democratic Committee co-chair Linda Byrne was there. Why did she tolerate this travesty? What about Linda Smyth? Is she REALLY a democrat?

Then as I witnessed the worst managed debate I have ever seen, I knew this debate was controlled by someone whose view of fair play for guiding the speakers was even much narrower.

But lets think about it.  Charlie Hall showed class, character, and that he has the traits that would make a good Supervisor.  His was a class act.  All Smyth needed to do was to ask the moderator to alternate.  Nope, she just stood there and smiled. 

My Vote is:  Hall in.  Smyth out.

But the citizens? They get three minutes and no chance for rebuttal unless offered by the Board. I have never seen this courtesy extended to anyone unless their position is favorable to that of the Board's. More times than I can count, a citizen has completed their testimony and a Supervisor launches into an attack on them. If that person tries to rebut or correct a mischaracterization, they are sternly told that they have no rebuttal and they are to sit down. Several times citizens have been threatened with being removed from the chamber by the police. This has happened even when that person was not misbehaving.

This Board has bent, warped and even broken rules to insure that the forum is prejudiced in their favor. That's what appears to have happened at this debate.

Citizens get 3 minutes to present their testimony with the expectatioin the Supervisors and Chair are listening. 

How many times have you watched a citizen testify their hearts out and a huge number of the Supervisors are missing or talking, even laughing with the supervisor sitting next to them?

It is also disappointing to see that Linda, who had to have realized what was happening, didn't take strong action to right this wrong.  The way it was working was to her advantage  - but she could've shown leadership by insisting that the right thing be done.  Didn't happen.

As for the moderator, I'm sure it's tempting to insert your own comments and feelings about issues, but it was completely out of place. 

A real Democrat would have stepped up to the plate and done something about this to ensure a quality debate and conversation. It's clear Smyth hates being accountable and can't stand talking to us little people about the issues that are on our minds. But then again, she's simply way too busy ... and she's only a PART-TIME supervisor, as all supervisors are, so I find her no-time-for-another-debate laughable. How about after the June 4 supervisors meeting, say at 7 p.m., Smyth and Hall get together and have a debate with a real moderator. Where's the Washington Post to do these kinds of things? Aren't they interested in local politics?

How can we let her continue to despise bloggers, ignore democracy and refuse to hold conversations/debates?

Is this what our troops have fought for around the world for generations?

HA! 

There is no way one can look at the plain English of the rules and come up with that interpretation. 

And, let's say that we do believe that Linda was all along under the impression those were the rules (that one candidate would always go first and the other one would always be able to issue a rebuttal), why would she ever agree to participate in such an undemocratic farse?

Either way, it's a loser.

Pluh-leese.  Talk about adding insult to injury.

It's not like this is the first debate the LWV has ever had.  I have attended at least one other and am under the impression there have been more than two in the history of the organization.  They should have the procedures fairly down pat by now.

The bottom line?  The Classiest Act of the Night Award goes to Charlie Hall, and that's the guy we need as our Supervisor -- not the more-of-the-same crowd.  Period.

You devote columns of this diary to blasting the format, but you don't utter a word about the content of the debate.  You get your panties in a bunch because Linda Smyth has not yet appeared on Raising Kaine because she is devoting attention to the voters of Providence instead of the blogosphere.

I thought campaigns were about issues.  You have to admit they covered a lot of ground and a lot of issues during this debate, despite the weird format.

We also saw a clear distinction between the two candidates. Mr. Hall had many concerns and many questions, but no specific and detailed answers.  He appears to be a nice enough person and a dedicated amateur activist, but his grasp of the nuances and particulars of the complicated issues facing our county of 1.1 million people left a bit to be desired.  He has some learning to do.

On the other hand, Supervisor Smyth showed the audience that she does understand the complex and intertwined issues impacting Fairfax County and its citizens.  She cited 158 meetings she hosted or participated in throughout the Providence District and the county over the last year alone.

Supervisor Smyth proved herself to be a public policy expert and cited issue and issue where she took the lead in guiding the county in the right direction on smarth growth, transportation, open space, affordable housing, and other matters directly impacting residents across Fairfax.

Mr. Hall cites his knowledge of the high-density development along Arlington's metro on Wilson Boulevard.  How many of those high-rise units are affordable and rent for less than $1,000 a month.  Not many, I suspect.  Mr. Hall didn't tell us.

I hope Raising Kaine will run the video shot of the debate in its entirety. 

That way your readers will see quite clearly that we have an incumbent Democratic supervisor who has a firm understanding of the issues facing Fairfax and a lot of solid solutions.  They will also see that we have another candidate in training who, with a few years of seasoning and participation in Fairfax County civic affairs, may then be ready for prime time.

I don't speak for Linda Smyth, but maybe if Raising Kaine plays fair, Supervisor Smyth may agree to do a live blog or a diary with you.  Right now, you look like nothing more than a mouthpiece for a challenger who really didn't do so well at the debate.

As far as the coverage of the debate content itself, I'm waiting for the debate video to go up on YouTube or wherever the Fairfax County Public Access people put it.  That's not in my bailiwick at all, and of course I can't do anything to their video...not sure what on earth you're talking about there.

If RK is not taking responsibility for running the debate video then RK should stand up for the rights of bloggers and demand that we have the debate running on RK.  By the way, if bloggers were banned from the debate what were you and Tribett doing there?  And then if bloggers were banned from covering the debate, why are we blogging about it here? 

Last time I checked, we are a free speech country!

Also, Mr. Hall and his supporters have been dragging Ms. Smyth's name through the mud these few days.  And if Mr. Hall cannot stand up for himself at a debate put on by little old ladies, then how on earth can he POSSIBLY stand up for the residents of Providence District to the big bad DEVELOPER wolf?  And why did you expect Ms. Smyth to stand up for Mr. Hall when he cuts her throat at every chance?  Welcome to the real world Mr. Feld not one behind a computer where people can say anything they want without taking accountability and double talk and not even referencing their own research!  Now if that is not a double standard, I don't know what is ...

For the record, I have lost tremendous respect for RK bloggers, especially those who have posted blogs on this matter.  I have lost even more respect for the League as the FIRST blog posted on this debate contained a contract for the debate ... no where in that contract does it say anything about "alternate questions or responses" [see blog posted by Lowell].  Yet, the moderator was very flippant about changing the rules at the debate.  The moderator should have owned up by saying "ohhh! the rules we made for this debate was screwy to begin so let me change it."  I doubt Ms. Smyth or Mr. Hall would have been able to do anything about it other than walk away.  But after the moderator screamed at the crowd, do you really expect Ms. Smyth to get into a cat fight to DEFEND Mr. Hall's honor?  good grief people ... Do you realize how we would have hung her from the thickest hook on RK if that were to have taken place?  We would have accused her for 'controling the audience' or 'for influencing the moderator.'

And for the record, Saddam actually killed some people and was an international criminal.  I am deeply troubled that RK and NLS lead bloggers are not able to distinguish between the magnitude of Saddam's hanging and the Providence Supervisor's debate coverage.  Neither Mr. Hall, Ms. Smyth or the League deserve such comparision.  Be grateful that we live in a democracy where banned bloggers can still attend the banned event AND cover that same event they were banned from.  A democracy where we can boo in the audience, clap for our leaders, sit with non voters to listen to a primary debate, disagree with each other and walk away if we don't like something.  We live in AMERICA!

I have been reading the RK faithfully for about six months now.  This topic made me really excited to the point where I started blogging for the first time on RK.  The unfair spin on Ms. Smyth's character and second guessing her motives for not wanting to blog is incredibly nausating.  She just won't blog ... no comment ... even an old beat would have printed "Ms. Smyth was not available for a comment" and the story moves on.  Move on RK.  You have already slandered Ms. Smyth often and deep enough.  Just let her be instead of using her as meat for yellow journalism.  You have Mr. Hall's campaign posted all over the blog and so Mr. Hall has won over RK.  Enough?

Ms. Smyth must have some common sense after all if she is staying away from some half dozen nuts on RK talking about this, including me.  We have gone over the top on this.  But for me, she has already knocked on my door and asked me for my vote.  As for Mr. Hall, he seems to be a very nice man with good intentions in doing real things that seem to matter to him.  I greeted him today but he looked right over my head and went to greet some people he seemed to know.  He is well spoken and will be very good in whatever he wants to do with his public life sometime in the future.  He was surrounded by many supporters who seemed to be very proud of him. 

I was so excited to come home and blog about issues raised in the debate, like the tunnel and education, until I came across all this blogging mess ...

RK - You have convinced me to vote for Ms. Smyth on June 12 and I have also signed up to volunteer for her campaign.  Don't forget that negative campaigning lost Allen the election ... how short is our political memory.

I thank RK for allowing me to be a guest here for the last week and I will not be blogging here again - yes, I know ... no loss for RK.  I sure feel sorry that this website is linked to the good Governor's name. 

RM

*"then RK should stand up for the rights of bloggers and demand that we have the debate running on RK:"  Again, I have no idea what you're talking about; RK and NLS invited both candidates on their Blog Talk Radio show, but only Charlie Hall agreed.  Linda Smyth said she was "too busy" through June 12, same thing as with another debate.

*"By the way, if bloggers were banned from the debate what were you and Tribett doing there?":  We weren't barred from ATTENDING the debate, obviously, just from covering it as "credentialed" reporters could.  There were specific restrictions placed on bloggers that were NOT placed on "credentialed" reporters.  Why?

*"And then if bloggers were banned from covering the debate, why are we blogging about it here?":  Same response.  We were not "banned from covering the debate," not sure why you thought that.

*"Mr. Hall and his supporters have been dragging Ms. Smyth's name through the mud these few days:"  Oh, puh-leeze.  This is a political contest and both sides have been going after the other's record, their willingness to engage with voters, etc.  The only serious criticism of Linda Smyth here at RK has related to her unwillingness to participate in public forums and her apparent acceptance of biased and/or exclusionary policies by the LWV.

*"do you really expect Ms. Smyth to get into a cat fight to DEFEND Mr. Hall's honor":  Wow, this is so wrong it's hard to even know where to begin.  It wasn't about Mr. Hall's "honor," it was about having a FAIR DEBATE!  And yes, BOTH candidates should have told the moderator that the written rules, that EVERYONE agreed to beforehand, should be adhered to.  Charlie Hall passed the moderator a note, Linda Smyth did not protest at all.  That gave her the huge advantage of going second the entire debate, which is absurd and unheard of at a political debate.  If Linda Smyth won't stand up to a debate moderator, how's she going to stand up to powerful interests for the citizens of Providence district?!?

*"You have already slandered Ms. Smyth often and deep enough:"  That's a strong charge, and utterly ridiculous.  I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is that there's no "slander" as long as what is said is true.  You're arguing that it's "slander" to question why someone won't debate, won't come on a show, won't stand up to an unfair moderator?  That's a pretty low bar...so much for the first amendment!

*"We have gone over the top on this."  If you don't like the discussion here, or at NLS, don't read it.  You believe that the blogs have "gone over the top on this" race simply by giving it the good deal of attention it deserves?  OK, well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think it's dead wrong.

*"You have convinced me to vote for Ms. Smyth on June 12 and I have also signed up to volunteer for her campaign."  Yeah, whatever.  It's very obvious that you have been and continue to be a strong Smyth supporter.  That's fine, but don't try to pretend otherwise.

I look forward to your posts on RK.  Often, readers come away from RK and have learned something new.  You clearly set the tone for the majority of quality postings at RK.

Your coverage of the Providence race, however, is a study in contrasts.  You have not provided links to provide information about the candidates' records (Hall as the Providence District Council chair and Smyth on the board).  The only exception seems to be that you linked to one Washingtonpost.com blog from 2005 where Hall and his coterie discussed development.

There was no nuance to the information presented on either side.  You did not even press Charlie while you had him on the blog radio show to clarify specifics of his platform.  He talks about being able to push developers harder, but how is he actually going to do that?  How is he going to actually start lunch times for students later than they start now?  On both sides, I haven't gotten a sense of a "there" there other than Hall is the underdog and Smyth is aloof.

Also, let's clear up something right now:  bloggers are not reporters or journalists.  Bloggers are something better, in my opinion, but let's not kid ourselves: bloggers are not credentialed, don't have a lock on objectivity, and in many cases probably never should.  In terms of lack of objectivity, Ben's comment on your radio show about formerly being Becky Cate's campaign manager and not being a fan of Smyth is about all the proof that one needs.

But, where you have let down the RK community, in this rare case, is that you didn't elevate the debate.  You lead by example in your other posts, and the comments sections of those reflect that.  The comments accompanying posts on the Providence race, when they diverged from the perception of Smyth's lack of accessibility, have been mainly ad hominem attacks.  I missed reading the investigative and well researched material I have seen in your other posts.  Frankly, the lack of that level of writing indicates you were already decided on the issue of who should be the next supervisor.

You are one of the more thoughtful bloggers out there and an effective activist as well.  This blog is a genuine testament to our democracy.  It supports the wonderful messy process that underpins the openness we all should demand.  But, you have been just wrong in your approach to "covering" this race.  I hope that you can take the time after this primary has concluded to review what you have written and ask yourself why you did not dig into the issues more.  In this regard, I believe you have failed your community.

You seem to feel a great injustice was done by the fact that Lowell (or Ben) didn't push Charlie on certain issues during the Blog Talk Radio debate. 

If something was missing you (or any Smyth supporter) could have called in and asked your own questions.  BTR would have been fair to Smyth supporters - Ben, a strong supporter of Greg Galligan, treated the Barker/Galligan debate fairly.  You would have been able to ask any question you wished, but you didn't.  Please don't blame Lowell and Ben for not asking your questions.

Furthermore, since the format was initially designed to be a debate, it would not be fair to simply grill Charlie on every detail of his positions while Linda got to sit it out.  The point of a debate is to highlight (or grill) both candidates.  If you're really looking for full open coverage on RK (or anywhere for that matter) you should press Linda to make herself more available.  You'd like RK to provide a complete picture yet one candidate has never made an appearance despite numerous requests.  Are you saying that if we grill Charlie when he's available, although Linda is not, it would be fair coverage? 

And the "perceived lack of availability"?  Linda declined an invitation to debate on BTR or live blog on RK.  Consider that many candidates and elected officials have made appearances on BTR and done live blogs all over the Virginia blogosphere.  BTR has hosted primary debates for a number of House of Delegates seats and for a Senate seat.  This is a  legitimate means of talking to the people which Linda has so far declined. 

And it's not just the blogs.  Last night she clearly stated that she would not participate in a debate offered by Virginia Little League due to a busy schedule.  As far as I know VLL doesn't have a horse in this race, so if she's worried that a BTR debate would be too biased (untrue - see above) then why not accept the VLL offer?  She's fighting for her job for the next four years and thinks a few hours of door knocking (or whatever is on her schedule) will get her message and positions out more than a public debate?

If you'd like to see more rounded coverage here, please help us convince Linda to join us for a live blog or BTR debate. 

The format was patently unfair and did not meet the agreed upon terms.  This was no debate.  The League and The Connection should be ashamed.

158 meetings, eh? But she only has time for one (1) (uno) debate? That's just wrong.

How many of those meetings has she actually hosted? I can go to a meeting and claim that's public outreach, but that's a fallacy.

You claim she's talking with residents of her district. Sure, the ones she agrees with and she won't hold more debates. It's called an election. She's not entitled to govern. She has to be held accountable for her past votes, no matter the issues.

You're an old school thinker, too, VaDem. You claim she's talking to her residents, but not the blogosphere. Hello? I live in Providence and here I am on a blog. Yes, the blogosphere includes the Providence District, but again, she wants to hide behind a wall of control.

She's not a real Democrat.

And I love how you say Hall is an amateur and doesn't know the nuance of policy like Smyth does. I'm thinking that Jim Webb didn't know all the nuance of policy versus Mr. Insider George Allen, but Sen. Webb seems to be doing just fine right now. Incumbents naturally know a little more than challengers, but it does not logically follow, as you suggest, that incumbents should automatically be re-elected based on this. That's what's wrong with our democracy today as 90+ percent of Congress is always re-elected.

What about the local races in the Springfield and Lee districts where no matter what, new supervisors will be elected because the current supervisors are stepping down. Are those candidates not qualified in your view?

Methinks you see the bogus-ness of your "argument" now.

Remember Linda has had close connection to the BOS for almost 8 years.  She should certainly have a good command of some facts.  I was impressed with the amount of information that Charlie was prepared to disuss.

For the environment, Linda talked about the integrated package....watershed, stormwater, etc.  I would have loved to hear how many trees have been destroyed because of her approving every land use application that marches across her desk.  Wouldn't that be an interesting number.

If you are really angry as to how shabby Charlie was treated tonight, volunteer to help him out.  If we don't get the word out, we will have four more years with Linda.
Just 4 hours of help to distribute fliers will be a huge help.  If each of us brings 5 people to polls on June 12, think about the landslide that Charlie will have.

Four more years with Supervisor Smyth who wins environmental awards from the National Association of Counties?  Awful.

Four more years with Supervisor Smyth who has been a leading member of the most progressive board in Fairfax history?  Bah!  Humbug!

Oh, but if Charlie Hall gets elected to the Board by attacking the Democratic majority on the Board, then he will be able to just snap his fingers and make the rest of the Board agree with him!!

And all those people who favor transit-oriented development around Metro and want a supervisor who goes to their homeowners' association meetings EVERY time and listens to them -- well, Charlie can just snap his fingers again and make all of THEM agree with him too!! After all, Charlie has been talking to the blogs for like, weeks now, and they the bloggers apparently agree with him!

Charlie's got all the answers!  Snap, snap!

Can you imagine, your very FIRST time in a public, televised debate, never having before been a candidate and previously just whistling in the wind testifying into the wee hours at the Government Center?  And THEN being blind-sided by a rule change that makes you go FIRST for an entire HOUR?

It's like signing up for a sack race at the carnival and then being the only one stuffed head-first down the sack.

Under the circumstances, this was a tribute to Charlie's mastery of the issues, his ability to think FAST on his feet, and his grace and dignity, and even humor, under sour circumstances.

And guess what?  The 80-some-odd questions posed by the audience that were not presented to the candidates tonight are going to be sent to both campaigns.  Charlie, as part of his commitment to listening and being responsive to citizens, is going to post them and answer them on his website!

And Charlie IS going to attend the second Candidates' Forum being sponsored next week by three Vienna sports groups and two community groups.  Since they no longer have to wait to hear from Linda (she refused tonight when cornered), the plans will now be finalized without her.  Charlie wants to hear what these citizens have to say!

During the debate, Linda said she AGREED to the debate rules of letting Charlie speak and her respond every single time.

That's not a debate; that's a Linda-Smyth-rebuts-her-challenger forum. 

The voters must hold her accountable for having agreed to such an undemocratic format--and she should be ashamed for her role in thwarting the democratic process.

It says to me she is afraid to be held accountable for her and the Board's actions and will rig the process so she doesn't have to.

That's not the kind of leader I want.

Charlie was the real winner tonight.

A few observations:
--Linda Smyth had the chance to belie her reputation as smug and disdainful of the public. She blew it. She had the chance to step up and say "Of course we need to alternate answers", but instead she saw a chance to take unfair advantage and she took it. Speaks volumes, to me.

--From what I've read here at RK about how the terms of the "debate" were set up and then what I saw of how it was conducted, the LWV has been badly manipulated and their image badly tarnished. The moderator even prompted Smyth as to what she should answer on the one "follow-up" question about affordable housing. (And, just so you know, Smyth personally oversaw a special exception that allowed the conversion of 400 apartments in Penderbrook to condos, so when I saw on her literature from last night that she is claiming credit for saving 300 units elsewhere, my reaction is that she is still down at least 100).

--One question seemed to be trying to establish the candidates' Democratic bona fides. What I heard was Smyth said she has been a member of the party since 2003--that would be the year she first ran for supervisor, right? Charlie Hall explained that as a WashPost employee he couldn't participate in party politics, but once he left that job in 2005 he joined the Prov Dist Democrats. So Smith joins just the year she runs for election, and Hall joins two years before he becomes a candidate. Then, she challenges him on when he stopped working for the Post. Huh?

Okay, I guess if this gets too long no one will read it. But the Providence District Democrats should be looking at these two candidates and seriously asking themselves, who is the one we want as our public face? If I were them, I'd be cutting Smyth loose and courting Charlie Hall.

I think another debate would be useful and hope that both candidates will come out and do one.  I hope that Linda Smyth will reconsider and find the room on her schedule.  Also, one of the deferred questions that the moderator did not get to was about sports, I believe.  What better place than a Little League sponsored debate for that one to be asked and answered?