We all understand the demise of print media is upon us and that internet based publishing is the future for the survivors, but trying to push blogs on a bunch of amateur candidates without warning was not a smart move. These are county candidates and probably half of them don't compute (clever huh?) and the half that do have noticed the incredible immaturity of many of the bloggers and don't want to be part of it or even associated with it.

Asking the questions, printing the answers in the paper and displaying all that on the website would have been enough. You approached it in such a way as to get the response you wanted in order to become part of the story. Newsflash - no one cares about your "tough questions" or your hurt feelings.

And 40,000 readers? That would mean the 10,000 Citizens that don't go directly from driveway to trash can and make it into the house are read by mom, dad, kids and dog. If you want to brag about circulation you need to be a subscription-based newspaper, be audited and give out the correct number of people who have paid to receive your product.

50,000 visitors to your website? You imply that they are voters or at least interested in what these candidates have to say. Again, I cite the immaturity of the bloggers and suggest they are probably kids or non-registered voters or if they are registered - Democrats - and no one in any of those 3 groups is going to decide who wins an election in this county.

All of which gets back to the original point - web-based publications may be your hope for the future, but I don't think you are approaching it correctly by beating the candidates over the head about their non-participation.

They make a very good point... if folks want to know their views or ask questions, then come to a forum that's sponsored around the county.

I would never advise a candidate to respond to an on-line question forum such as the Citizen has sponsored. As the Sheriff candidates pointed out, too many wild and outragious comments from the peanut gallery.

It's definitely not a good idea.

Surely, all eleven have a canned pitch addressing WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHERE, WHEN, and HOW MUCH IT IS GOING TO COST. If they don't, they do not deserve to be a candidate. If they do, what do they fear sharing their pitch with the masses, and responding to questions from the media? I only hope that we are not teaching the degree of political correctness to our kids that will cause their 'lunch to be eaten' when they try to compete in the global economy. This 'tone' thing blows my mind. Being civil is great -- dodging questions only raises more questions. For Pete's sake, these are adults -- not five year olds playing their first soccer game!

Just wonder where the Fayette County Republican Party comes down on this, since all of the candidates state that they are republicans?

Would also be interesting to know how many of these candidates would make a different decision at 6 PM, July 1, if they had their decisions to boycott to make over again.

All of the candidates may be super folks. Must admit that I do not know them personally. But, their dodging relevant questions, and being provided a platform to share their positions with the masses -- then refusing to do so due to the 'tone' of the questions -- will flat cause this voter to look at them a lot differently in the future. We need strong folks; with strong convictions; with strong plans; and a strong backbone to tackle the stronger challenges our society faces.

This episode also suggest that maybe -- just maybe -- we may have been too easy on candidates in the past for not asking tougher questions. Think that many will agree that we have paid a big time price for not having asked tougher questions!!

Could it be that situations of this nature throughout the country are some of the major causes of problems the republican party has encountered in recent years?