Vote caging

[bascule]

http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/pagenum/all/#page_start

 

In effect: direct mail voter registration checks with "do not forward" on the envelopes were used as part of a massively coordinated campaign (by the Republican party) to suppress voters, primarily those in college or the military (overseas, fighting) of their right to vote.

 

Is this what's really at the heart of the attorney scandal?

[Saryctos]

http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/pagenum/all/#page_start

 

In effect: direct mail voter registration checks with "do not forward" on the envelopes were used as part of a massively coordinated campaign (by the Republican party) to suppress voters, primarily those in college or the military (overseas, fighting) of their right to vote.

 

Is this what's really at the heart of the attorney scandal?

 

Why would republicans supress votes from the military?

[MolotovCocktail]

well, look at that, it might be a conspiracy?

[ecoli]

There's way too much conjecture and conjecture in that blog and not enough proof. It's hard for me to believe in conspiracy theory like this.

[bascule]

Why would republicans supress votes from the military?

 

In 20/20 hindsight, I'd say because the those who have spent considerable time in Iraq want us out of there.

 

There's way too much conjecture and conjecture in that blog and not enough proof. It's hard for me to believe in conspiracy theory like this.

 

*boggle*

 

You're calling Slate a "blog"?

 

Slate is an Internet-based news and culture magazine created by the (typically conservative) Washington Post (although Slate tends to be liberal-leaning) which has received considerable clout and acclaim among media watchdogs on both sides. In that regard it's comparable to (the more liberal) Salon.

 

Slate has been online since the popular reception of the Internet (circa 1996). You can't exactly write them off as just a "blog"

 

As far as I'm concerned, Slate is the most reputable Internet-based news magazine out there.

 

I expect that even Pangloss can respect the journalistic integrity of Slate.

[Pangloss]

Yes. Well, Slate is an opinion page, not a "news magazine" (I wouldn't compare it with, say, Time/Newsweek), but it is considered respectable and tends to follow traditional news organization ethical rules. That's what makes it valuable, as opposed to a typical blog site, which has almost no value.

 

That's interesting about its Post heritage; I wasn't aware of that. I do have to correct your categorization of the Washington Post as "typically conservative" -- that's not the generally accepted view (though you're welcome to disagree with that view). I know it's been a long time since Watergate but it hasn't changed THAT much.

 

As for Slate, I guess I can go along with "liberal-leaning" (it was, after all, Michael Kinsey's creation, wasn't it?). They host a column by Christopher Hitchens, after all (wow... I just mentioned Hitchens in the same paragraph as Kinsey). They take great pains to provide moderate and opposing viewpoints. It's what makes it a valuable source -- they're more interested in truth and accuracy than partisan ideology. But I'm preaching to the choir, of course.

[ecoli]

*boggle*

 

You're calling Slate a "blog"?

 

Slate is an Internet-based news and culture magazine created by the (typically conservative) Washington Post (although Slate tends to be liberal-leaning) which has received considerable clout and acclaim among media watchdogs on both sides. In that regard it's comparable to (the more liberal) Salon.

 

Slate has been online since the popular reception of the Internet (circa 1996). You can't exactly write them off as just a "blog"

 

As far as I'm concerned, Slate is the most reputable Internet-based news magazine out there.

 

I expect that even Pangloss can respect the journalistic integrity of Slate.

 

Sorry... it seemed like it by the way it was written.

 

for example...

 

"Still, Palast's vote-caging claims are hardly unbelievable. Republicans have been systematically trying to suppress minority votes for decades, most recently calling it pushback for rampant liberal voter fraud."

 

The author claims that Republicans have been doing this, but then only cites one example where one republican did something. That's hardly proof that "Rpublicans" of which there are millions of registered members, have been systematically doing this.

 

"it's not beyond imagining that eager young "loyal Bushies" aren't all that bothered by federal laws, especially if there's a way to bend rather than overtly break them. "

 

Here's another statement that I have a big problem with. Why is this not hard to imagine... the author doesn't seem to be too bothered with backing up this particularly strong statement. And look at the word choice... 'not beyond imagining.' To me, that says the author is fabricating some piece of information, saying that it could be true, and using that conjecture to back up a line of reasoning.

 

You wouldn't say, for example, "It's not hard to imagine that children would do anything to get candy. Therefore, there is a plot, lead by children, to steal candy from the Herhsey's factory."

 

Fine... the caging thing may or may not be true. And the author does provide reasonable doubt, but at least back up the claims that I presented. It'll sound less like a conspiracy theory blog and more like a piece of newsworthy literature.