As the blogosphere has sucessfully knocked Dan Rather from his roost, it only seems fit that one be selected from among our own to replace him. But who here is so wily, so conniving, so despicable as to have the right stuff to be a television anchorman?

My vote goes to Glenn Reynnolds of Instapundit (the Puppy Blender). I know he's not perfect, but I think he's got what it takes.

Here are some pros and cons to having Evil Glenn replace Dan Rather:

Pro
More web traffic for the rest of us.
Con
Less puppies for the rest of us.
Pro
Dan Rather might give up TV and start a blog.
Con
He would probably embarrass the blogosphere with his shoddy journalism and mediocre forgeries.
Pro
Consistently choosing evil anchormen will reduce confusion among viewers.
Con
People who watch CBS are probably better off confused anyway.
Pro
Finally some sanity in front of the cameras.
Con
No more taking bets on when Rather is going to snap and kill someone.
Pro
More balanced coverage.
Con
May jeopardize Castro-CBS partnership.
Pro
People who like puppies would probably stop watching CBS and be more productive
Con
Little kids who live near CBS wondering where their puppies went
Pro
Dan Rather could gain some weight and grow a beard like other political rejects.
Con
He would be that much closer to being the unabomber.
Pro
Competing networks might join us in making up filthy lies about Glenn Reynolds.
Con
Most would probably be lame accusations about ties to Halliburton.