It seems a lot of people were "live-blogging" last night during the Bush speech. I discovered it can be fun to compare the commentary by different people by reading it side by side. For example, try comparing Professor Bainbridge to Jeremy Blachman. Here's a sample (keep in mind the three hour time difference):
Professor Bainbridge 7:13 Bush really has improved as a public speaker. I no longer cringe when he opens his mouth. He'll never be Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, but he's grown considerably.Jeremy Blachman 10:14 – There’s something disconnected about his delivery, although he’s doing fine so far. It just really seems like he’s reading and not actually engaged in what he’s saying. "Nothing will hold us back" seems to be the common refrain so far. I think I’ve heard it twice.
and . . .
Professor Bainbridge: 7:39 "We must make a place for the unborn child." Yep.
Jeremy Blachman 10:38 – When Bush said something about unborn children, I didn’t see NBC show any pregnant people. Why not? Where’s the creative camera work??
Meanwhile, Professor Althouse's attempt at live-blogging the Bush speech involved an entire live-blogging dinner, in which everyone brought a computer. Unfortunately, the good professor's blogging was cut short by a "cognac-haze," once again proving she's my kind of law professor. (But shouldn't someone seize her computer before she hurts someone?)
Finally, for a change of pace, don't miss these two wonderfully written, introspective posts by Bekah and Scheherazade.
Looks like all your groupies took off early for the long weekend, Evan. I'm glad you reminded me to check out Schezzie's place today.
If I had been convention "blogging" -- a context in which the onomatopoeia is particularly appropriate, so I can drop the first two letters -- I would have remarked on the silliness of the chronic "trial lawyer" slurs. There was a lot of sophomoric cheerleading and clique-mongering going on: an insult to the intelligence of party members and those they hope to attract to their "big trench." [Gosh, I should save some of this good analysis for my own site.]
Posted by: David Giacalone | September 03, 2004 at 07:45 PM
Convention bloggers
Come to a grand old party:
And there's Zell to pay.
Posted by: Guest Who Posts | September 03, 2004 at 08:35 PM
David: Such analysis on your site would be very welcome. As for Bainbridge and Blachman, here's what they said about Bush's first and second mention of lawsuits:
What you don't get from live-blogging is the reaction from the audience. The full text of the Bush speech is here. The actual language upon which Bainbridge and Blachman were commenting--the first and second mentions--were these: "[W]e must protect small business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across America," and later, "As I have traveled our country, I have met too many good doctors, especially OB-GYNS, who are being forced out of practice because of the high cost of lawsuits. To make health care more affordable and accessible, we must pass medical liability reform now."
Posted by: Evan | September 03, 2004 at 08:41 PM
Of course, the most rabid "trial lawyer" baiters came before the President at the RNC. Cheney got lots of cheers throwing the epithet around, as did (especially) Sen. Frist.
Just who is this anonymous Grand Abnu Poster? A so-called haijin, I see. Does he think GOP is dead? Is GOP really GORP?
We got "Zell to pray," "Zell to prey," and "Zell to play."
Posted by: David Giacalone | September 03, 2004 at 10:14 PM
I can't seem to ping you, but hope you'll check out my post ATLA, Lincoln and Tort Reform and have a thoughtful (or frivolous) comment or two.
Posted by: David Giacalone | September 04, 2004 at 07:53 PM