The Guardian has been freeped; Glenn Reynolds; Voter Suppression.

[JanMichael]

Here is the story/thread/comments, that I'm refering to.

My question is this: Why publish Glenn Reynold's crap in the first place? It's not like he's a journalist, interesting or person of interest, so why publish that crap?

Also: There's a comment near the end of the thread that accuses Dems of being as intent on voter fraud as the well documented Republicans have been this year.

It links to some reich-winger who lists these purported infractions. Yes, I can imagine that there are a few examples that might have merit, this is a big country, shit happens. BUT is it reasonable to suggest that the Dems are even REMOTELY as bad as the Repukes are this year??

Paul Krugman, bless him, has laid out their national plots here.(The link goes to the "unofficial" PK site not the article. Go to "columns" on the left of the screen and then click on "Block the Vote") Yes there are even more but the Sproul catch is probably the most bloody obvious. He's a major Republican, Christian Coalition, player, period.

Toss in CONTINUED systematic purging of Dem, African American, voters in Florida and, well, there's no argumant in my rather biased opinion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Because he's reasonably articulate

and having an idea of what the opposing arguments are can be good.

Remember, The Guardian's first aim is to inform its British print readers. If the only American writers they used were liberal, the readers would have no idea why anyone is contemplating voting for Bush at all.

[JanMichael]

2. You think so? While he can put words together to form a sentance...

...I don't particulary think of him as a Journalist. As you can probably see by reading his "articles" they are thinly veiled propoganda. Either way the specific article that I linked was hardly original or creative. It was simply a smear.

Beyond that though the comments were still choc-full-o-nuts, I mean Freeps.