Other than checking the blog comments and watching the Sunday shows, I've been trying to empty my head of the convention insanity. The two parties have put on their shows, made their cases, and blasted their opponents for being lying sacks of shit who want to destroy the country. Standard convention red meat. Yum-o!
So since I don't even want to think much about politics for another day, I want to know how I did covering the conventions. Now remember, I do tend to favor the conservative point of view, but what I went for was to try to look at the weeks of speeches with some measure of objectivity and in the context that they were addressed to a target audience. The GOP was targeting me while the Democrats were simply giving me more reasons to never vote for them. So with that in mind, here's the questions:
1. Which was the funnier schedule: Democrat, Republican, equally funny, or you have no sense of humor?
2. Was I pretty fair and accurate in covering the Democrats?
3. Was I pretty fair and accurate in covering the Republicans?
4. Other than my hard analysis of the candidate speeches (which was wholly (right) opinion), where did I go wrong?
5. What was the biggest asshat moment for either convention (remembering that the asshats are people trying to disrupt the convention)?
Your input, as varied and insane as it is, would be appreciated.
4 comments:
Definitely the Democratic schedule you made was much funnier!
I loved your coverage, although I watched very little of it myself to actually say how fair you were to each. But I have come to trust your judgment and enjoyed reading your take on both conventions.
The best part of it being over is no more moderating of comments!
It was all very well done. Except for the snarky Democratic sked.
And I, too, am glad moderation is over.
On to November!
Beth: No comment moderation means I just have to check in now and then.
Shaw: I'm going to assume that means you have no sense of humor when it comes to Barry & Co.
War's on!
Post a Comment