Alan Colmes, Media Matters, etc., are insisting that David Freddoso is wrong in his book for saying that Obama had his rivals thrown out on technicalities. They point to reports that some signers didn’t live in the right district to vote in that race, and allegations that some signatures were forged.

Why are these people incapable of recognizing that some of the challenges were more valid than others? Look, if you don’t live in the proper voting district, throw that signature out. And if there’s evidence that a signature is forged, throw those out, too. I don’t know anyone who’s objecting to either of those criteria, or contending that those constitute “technicalities.” It’s the signatures that were thrown out for being in print instead of cursive, and the woman whose signature was deemed invalid because she signed under her married name and was still registered to vote under her maiden name, that seem strikingly ticky-tack for a party that believes requiring a voter to show ID at the polls means America is becoming a racist police state.

It’s swell to see folks like Colmes and MMFA jumping on the stop-voter-fraud bandwagon, retroactively. This would also appear to invalidate Democrats’ usual “there’s no such thing as voter fraud, thus there’s no need for voter ID laws” argument. I just wish they could muster a fraction of enthusiasm for stopping voter fraud in the elections to come.

(Hat tip, Jon Henke.)