Cocco Forgets How Dems Always Scream About Voter Fraud When They Lose

Marie Cocco is one of those writers who is so filled with hatred for Bush - and Republicans in general - that she is unable to write any column that isn't filled with some sort of invective. This also blinds her to the facts most times, and her recent column (published with pleasure in the Fish Wrapper) on voter fraud is a prime example.

Here is an example from the column that illustrates my point.

The operative phrase is ``election fraud,'' though in Republican parlance it is usually called ``voter fraud.'' Republicans claim, loudly and regularly, that an army of ineligible voters -- illegal immigrants, convicted felons, dead people -- has been invading American polling places, diminishing the value of honest voters' sacred ballots. They make the charge in states where the administration of elections is highly competent, and in states where it is grossly incompetent. It is, of course, leveled solely against Democrats and their supporters.

The charges are almost invariably debunked -- by courts, by prosecutors, by state elections officials and by local newspapers that probe beyond partisan screeching and get down to the facts.

Funny, the truth seems to be that if you switch the words "Republican" and "Democrat" in the above quote, you get the truth. For instance, as I documented, take the case of Christine Jennings. She lost the race for the U.S House in Florida's 13th District by 369 votes, but instead of being graceful about it, she sued, alleging there was a "pervasive malfunctioning" of touch-screen voting machines in the election. The Florida Secretary of State found no evidence of malfunction, and a judge ruled against her when she wanted to examine the code of the voting machines. Even Dianne Feinstein wanted to get in on the action (do you think she would have done that if Jennings has lost? I doubt it).

Here's something to think about; how many times do you still hear people claim that George Bush "stole" the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore (even though three separate studies, including those done by the New York Times and Miami Herald, showed that if the votes had been recounted again, Bush still would have won)? How much screaming did you hear from the Democrats in 2004 when they lost again, even though it was by a larger margin than 2000?

And even before the 2006 elections, the Democrat's cheering section (aka the MainStream Media) were preparing for more charges of voter fraud.

Cocco also decides to obscure other facts when she mentions the Wahington governor's race.

Take the 2004 Washington state gubernatorial election, which appears to figure in the dismissal of former U.S. Attorney John McKay. When the skintight race flipped to Democrat Christine Gregoire after a recount, Republicans cried foul. But after six months of legal investigation and a two-week trial, a county court judge rejected every Republican claim. Though he said there were improper votes cast, the judge also declared he'd found no evidence of fraud. The Republicans didn't appeal.

Yes, Marie, it's called taking the high road, something Democrats are incredibly unfamiliar with. She also forgot to mention that it was the second recount, not the first (it was amazing how many "lost votes" kept turning up during the recounts, and how they all mysteriously seemd to favor Gregoire).

Since I started this blog a few months ago, I have read many of Cocco's columns, and I must say that this is typical of her tripe (she reminds me a lot of Maureen Dowd of the New York Times). Like most of the liberal columnists that the Fish Wrapper publishes, though, this is to be expected.

User login







Syndicate

Syndicate content