IT'S OVER – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  The GOP convention is over.  On balance, I'd say the party put on a good show.  Not perfect, by any means, and restricted in its impact by the fact that the big-three networks only broadcast an hour a night.

But both Republican candidates, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, gave solid acceptance speeches, and the human qualities of both were on display.  The most important objective of the convention, to introduce Mitt Romney to the American people in a positive, vote-getting manner, was met.  He wasn't spectacular.  As a speechmaker, Romney doesn't match Obama, when Obama is properly scripted.  But Romney gave the best speech of his campaigning life last night, and I think enough viewers will be impressed to change the early dynamics of the campaign.

There is substantial criticism this morning that the GOP didn't maximize its one hour of convention coverage.  Yes, it's true that the hour before that, seen only by cable viewers, was extremely compelling, with people who have known Mitt Romney giving testimonials to his goodness.  It's also true that Clint Eastwood's impromptu performance at the start of the maximum-viewing hour could have been better, although I think the average American probably liked it for its unscripted quality.  And yes, Marco Rubio's introduction of Romney was too long, but it was superb Rubio and I suspect many Americans were thinking what I was thinking about this man's future.  In a way, his speech paralleled Barack Obama's at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Press behavior, which was a bit mature at the start of the convention, deteriorated toward the end, with the usual bias on display, especially by Andrea Mitchell at NBC.  Once a respected State Department correspondent, Mitchell is now practically a spokeswoman for the Obama administration.  And The New York Times, in this morning's edition, wrote a disgraceful editorial essentially calling Romney a liar and dismissing every single thing he said.  There was no attempt at depth, balance, or any of the good stuff of traditional journalism.  The Times's editorial page has become a tabloid-style disgrace.

I'm afraid we're going to see the same press bias this year as we saw in 2008, maybe even worse.  But Obama has now been president for four years, so I wonder whether the bias will be as effective.  Although the mainstream media has to do, however, is influence five percent of the vote to swing the election, and that is a relatively easy task.

We won't know the extent of press bias until we see the Democratic convention next week, and gauge press behavior.  I'm not looking forward to it.

August 31,  2012