Let’s talk about this Stein-driven recount

stein-recount-i

Stein’s fund-raising goals keep changing ($2.5M, $4.5M, $7M?).  She’s raised almost twice the amount of money in a couple of days that she raised during her entire presidential campaign.  She’s only targeting three states, all of which Clinton wasn’t supposed to have lost but which she did lose.  She has yet to mention that states Clinton won, like NH (Clinton only by by 2687 votes), NV (Clinton won by less than 30,000 votes), and Maine (Clinton only won by about 20,000 votes) might also be worthy of that Stein “election purity” test.  And yet, we’re expected to believe that she’s acting alone, that this is about “democracy,” that her motives are pure and she’s uninterested in money, political sway, publicity or anything but the purity of the American vote? Stein officially filed for a recount in Wisconsin (read the Petition here) – and now, as the plot thickens, the Clinton campaign has decided they’re going to “participate” in that recount effort, despite the White House’s firm assertion that it “did not observe any increased level of malicious cyber-activity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on election day,” that they believe “our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective” and that Americans should follow the “will of the people” (and, as an aside, it appears that Clinton’s ass-kissing of President Obama is history, now that his influence didn’t hand her the reins of power).  

stein-recount-ii

We’ve watched, since the election, the Clinton loyalists refuse to accept the results of a democratic election.  We’ve watched them whine, wail, protest, curl up with coloring books and blankies and pacifiers and grief therapists.  We’ve noted the fact that Clinton cultists believe their votes should be supreme to the votes of the people who, you know, actually elected Donald Trump.  I expected more hand-wringing and garment-rending and gnashing of teeth, pretty much endlessly.  But this transparent effort by Stein and the Clinton camp to literally re-visit the scene of the “crime” they believe was committed against them is simply un-American.  After all, when Trump said in a debate he might not automatically accept the results of the election, Clinton deemed it “horrifying” and went on to lecture that that’s “not the way our democracy works . . . we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them . . . I, for one, am appalled that someone . . . would take that kind of position.”  Call me crazy, but this latest maneuver by Stein, with the Clinton camp’s participation – given Clinton’s horror at someone not automatically accepting an election’s outcome – is more than a little confusing.  And more than a little disgusting.

stein-recount-iii

 

A few pollsters got together and decided, with absolutely zero evidence, that because Clinton lost those rust belt states, someone must have rigged it (probably the Russians, which seem to be their go-to excuse for all their failures).  Or Comey.  Or, you know, fake news. Something.  The Clinton campaign’s counsel, Marc Elias, said there’s no evidence of sabotage but they feel compelled to tag along, you know, just in case.  J Alex Halderman, who was one of the first to point to possible irregularities, and who supported Stein’s Wisconsin petition with an affidavit, said there’s no real evidence of rigging:

 

Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.

So what’s the end game, here, aside from trying to wrest the election from Trump?  No, if this were about democracy, we’d be rolling the recount efforts back to the primary, a time we know that Clinton’s cronies at the DNC had their thumb on the scale for Clinton against Bernie, or examining the states, like NH, where the margin was slimmest.  No, the point is, Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate and pretty much a terrible human being who more than half the country didn’t trust, someone who thought hob-nobbing with celebrities replaced actually engaging with what she clearly thought of as the unwashed masses, who spouted party lines without passion or sincerity, and who people, simply, didn’t like.  

Stein is trying valiantly to convince us this is just about election purity, that there’s nothing self-serving about this equation:

We want to know what our vote is, and that our votes are being counted. This is not a partisan effort but we need to have confidence, too.

Epic fail.  She’s now placed herself squarely into “partisan hack” status.  

I used to mumble, “Go away, Hillary.”  I now add, “And take Stein with you . . . .”