Wow "scoop" i wonder how you will vote in November.

Typo correction in the Christie paragraph above: "18,000" and "26,000" worlds should read "1,800" and "2,600" words.

A great deal of talking about "me and I" by most all of the speakers last night. There was a great deal of continued spewing of false propaganda that has been fact checked numerous times. Even their mantra about (I built that) fell flat as it too is snip it of part of a larger statement from a speech the President made.

Do you notice how Santorum talks about his grandfather and not his own parents? The reason he doesn't brag about his parent work is because they worked for the VA hospital in Butler, PA.... That's right, his parents were government employees. - Also, the Santorum's did not repay the PA school district for the funds they illegally used, I believe it was the PA Department of Education that repaid the funds.

What we didn't hear from Ann, was anything about compassion. What did he do and what did he give up, if anything during her time of need with poor health issues?

What we did hear from Ann was how the happiest times of their lives is when a door served as a desk and an ironing board was the dining room table. If that is the case, why so many expensive houses.

Ann made a nice attempt at portraying themselves as having been just like the average middle class American family, but really think about that for a moment... wouldn't a door function as both a kitchen table (note she said dining room table) and a desk. Has the woman ever looked ant an ironing board!

Christie, fact check his whoppers!

Part I.

This is really a hackneyed column. For someone whose profile lists broadcaster and author, how about mixing in a little research of your own to accompany the talking points provided by MSNBC (we must have been watching at the same time when they quickly rolled out the “Abigail Adams Scholarship,” “they all talked about themselves too much,” “Christie never smiled” talking points).

Your superficial description of the speeches as “bizarre” and self congratulatory, reveal your inadequacies as a commentator (objective or otherwise). Your column tries to promote a narrative that no one has anything good to say about Governor Romney, so much so that even his wife cannot say anything particularly remarkable about him. Part of the puzzling nature of the evening, which you fail to recognize, is that nights one and two of the convention had to be combined and there was bound to be some mixing of messages and loss of continuity.

Regarding Ann Romney’s speech, I don’t think voters are really looking to the spouse of a candidate to make bold policy pronouncements or defend the record of their spouse’s time in office? [continued]

The stated goal of Mrs. Romney’s speech was to “humanize” a candidate that polls indicate has had difficulty connecting with voters. Time will tell whether the speech was successful, but it won’t rise or fall on its depth.

I’m more concerned about your general inattention to facts. Instead of questioning former Senator Santorum on a legitimate point – his statement about the President waiving the welfare work requirement is certainly worth discussing – you charge him with “illegally” using taxpayer money to home school his children. False. While the Penn Hills School District disputed the residency of the Senator’s children, and therefore whether the district should be on the hook for cyber charter payments, it was hardly illegal. Moreover, Santorum wasn’t forced to repay the district; the state returned funds to Penn Hills School District that it had withheld to pay the cyber charter. Two things are also worth noting; 1) the Penn Hills School Board member who lead the charge against the Senator was the Democratic party chairwoman for the area, and 2) the Santorums continued to home school their children after they withdrew from the charter school, thus making the statement in his speech completely valid. [continued]

Today’s highly scripted conventions are designed to tell a story: about the party, about the candidate, and about the opponent. Much of last night was devoted to telling the story of the successes of others in the party as a way of making the case that the party’s nominee is better equipped to be President.

Here you take Governor Christie to task for his “mean-spirited” speech that was “95% about himself.” Anyone who has read newspaper accounts or seen YouTube videos of some of the Governor’s interactions would respectfully disagree with that characterization. As for it being all about himself, I would argue that that’s what convention keynote addresses have become. I appreciate you correcting the number of words in the speech, but you should have done a little more editing. [continued]

Contrary to your claim that he mentioned Romney only once in his speech, Christie mentioned Romney’s name seven times, during a speech of approximately 2630 words. His first mention of the Governor was at approximately word 1769, about 2/3 of the way through a speech that touched on his biography, accomplishments as Governor, and some of the party’s principles. It compares rather well in form to then-Senate candidate Barack Obama’s keynote address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. His 2336 word speech mentioned Senator Kerry 13 times. His first mention of Senator Kerry was at approximately word 1034, about 44% of the way through a speech that was biographical, but did not reference elected office accomplishments. In case you were wondering, Governor Christie’s speech included 39 “I”s while President Obama’s speech had 31 “I”s.

There was a lot to discuss about last night’s speeches; I’m just sorry the reality did not match the story-line you wanted to convey. As you say, “I can hardly wait to hear” your account from tonight.

I think Anne Romney did an excellent job in her speech as far as it went.
It wasn't meant to be a policy speech or an explanation of Mitt's wealth or career.
It wasn't meant to be anything more than an attempt to connect the Romney's to the rest of America and show her strong love and appreciation of Mitt.
I would say she did a pretty good job of that...
Her's was the best of the night BY FAR!!
I didn't feel Chris Christie's speech was nearly as good though.They hyped him so much,and though it was a decent speech, it surely wasn't a great one.
I don't think he was a commanding presence, said anything really compelling nor was he very inspiring...not nearly what the GOP had hoped for.
Today I kept hearing people saying "Christie had the whole convention on their feet"...but that was because near the end of his speech he explicitly told everyone to stand up
Conventions are orchestrated stage plays, every once in awhile there is a stirring moment that transcends the normal scripted procession and becomes a memorable, sometimes even a truly stirring moment of history.
Barrack Obama had one of those moments at the 2006 convention which is a large part of the reason he's President today.
Maybe Ryan or Romney will have one of those moments tonight...I doubt either will be historic since neither one of them seems to be that powerful a speaker but you never know...people probably said that about Obama in 2006, I guess we'll see tonight

Who are we supposed to believe? Ann Romney who says what matters is 'love' or keynote speaker Chris Christie who says that his mother told him 'love doesn't matter...it's respect'. Conflicting messages from the two most important speakers.

Obama '12. Simple as that folks

"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers." - Romney Pollster Neil Newhouse.

Party Convenitons are pep rallys for the party faithful. I have followed these events from the days of Ike Eisenhower and even attended Conventions. As genetic Republican of the Barbara Bush brand, I do not agree with all the participants but I am proud to be a part of a process the includes a wide range of views. I am buoyed up by the passion, patriotism, and the personal commitment of all the participants. This is democracy in action.

The Democrats will be doing their thing very soon. However, it would be poor party manners for me to make snarky comments about their speakers. Let the voters decide. I remember catching the energy of a young African American Congressman from Chicago.....who is now our President. I did not and will not vote for him but am proud of a country that makes this opportunity available.
In the days ahead it is important to have good manners and civility. We are more victims of poltical apathy. The media gives us views of a wide range of opinion. It is entertaining and educational. Snarky cheap shots from the left and right are not appreciated. Mind your manners. God Bless America. And please vote!

I have enjoyed the Phoenix Patch until today. Such harsh one sided remarks are
revolting. What will you write about next week during the DNC in Chicago?
Leave politics to the TV, Radio & Paper. We can turn them off.l

Snide remarks do not make a column. The amateurish "writer" could have saved a lot of time by merely stating, "I hate Republicans", and left it at that.