At least when it comes to investigating fraud that benefits Democrats, so says the Philly Daily News:
[a] recent report in the New York Times illustrates how the charge of pervasive voter fraud in the United States is itself a fraud. Not only are the number of actual cases small - just 86 convictions as of last year - it's becoming obvious that the charges provided cover for attempts to keep people from voting - that is, if they were poor or minority and likely to vote Democratic.
Obvious my ass. But I get it. Some of the nation's top politicians, including 2004 presidential loser John Kerry, have implied that GOP voter fraud cost Democrats the presidency in the last two presidential elections. But proof? Proof, schmoof!
That's why, under past policy, federal prosecutors were supposed to go after only schemes involving plans to illegally affect the outcome an election.
Oh, terrific! In other words, fraud is OK -- until it "affects the outcome of an election"! What is obviously overlooked is that how does anyone really know when fraud WILL affect an election? Isn't that why much of the fraud occurs in the first place? Did we know that in Florida 2000 going in? OK, so after the fact things were looked at there. Fine. But the Daily News only sees problems in Florida regarding supposed felons being wrongly purged off voter rolls. The opposite was also true. Using Daily News "logic," this "shouldn't really matter since it really all ultimately 'balanced out.' "
Should we skip other fraud merely because it didn't play a role in the election's outcome? Don't'cha think people will continue to engage in such fraud if what they do isn't investigated and prosecuted? Cripes, what -- do we prosecute robbery only if it "really affects a company's bottom line"? You can imagine the city's cops informing you: "Ah, it's no big deal. Your insurance will cover most of the loss. The crook didn't get away with that much." Gee, thanks. But this is the attitude the Daily News takes.
As mentioned, the editorial predictably bemoans the "impression" that all the GOP wants to do is "intimidate" poor and minority voters by going after the fraud. It offers up, also predictably, a couple anecdotes of people who probably really did make an honest mistake, and were prosecuted for a crime. But this, coming from Philadelphia, where voter fraud is legendary, is just plain hilarious. Voter intimidation? Try being a GOP voter in certain areas in Philly and getting by 250 lb. union goons. Better yet, try voting with these goons in attendance ... in someone's private home. (Yes, private residences have housed polling places in Philly.) Nah, that's not intimidation. Or the number of voters in Philly that cast votes from the grave each election. Or have addresses of dilapidated condemned buildings. Nah, that's not fraud. Well, not in the eyes of the Daily News, at least. 'Cause it "didn't affect the outcome of an election." As far as we know, at least. And this isn't even delving into matters like ACORN attempts at voter fraud recently, elsewhere in the country.
Can you imagine a conservative-leaning editorial blasting Democratic lawyers for going after companies like Diebold -- and making the excuse that "The Diebold software only fails a small amount of time, is virtually hack-proof, and only sometimes suffers mechanical breakdowns? And, that there hasn't been any instance of a presumed failure/hacking 'resulting in affecting an election outcome' "? Liberals would rightly blast it.
We've been consistent here at Colossus that ALL forms of voter fraud -- and potential voter fraud -- should be investigated and dealt with. We advocate voting machines that have paper trails (paper ballots being the best), as well as proper placement of polling places with zero harrassment and intimidation.