People are asking me why I haven't written about the Kloppenburg op-ed in yesterday's Journal Sentinel.

The answer is: I found it mind-crushingly dull. But okay. I'll point out one thing:

The recount process in Wisconsin is unfolding as prescribed by Wisconsin law. 

What? Where is the agency here? Kloppenburg chose to invoke a procedure that was available to her under Wisconsin law. It wasn't forced by the law itself. The recount didn't "unfold" like a flower. Kloppenburg asked for it. She didn't have to. Take responsibility for your decisions.

... When the [Journal Sentinel] Editorial Board says the recount is a "mere preamble to the court challenge," it is wrong on the facts and wrong to prejudge my intentions.

But she's here now, talking to us, consuming our precious time. She could admit she's going to take this into court or assure us that she won't drag us through another stage of her futile quest for judicial power, but she claims not to have decided yet.

Wisconsin law specifically anticipates that there may be court challenges to the recount, but those challenges can only happen after the recount is done. The recount is not "merely" a preamble to anything: It is a process that proceeds in prescribed ways when an election is this close.

Oh, so the disembodied process proceeds as it was prescribed. No, it proceeds because you chose to put it in motion, and another choice looms in the future. Why are you pretending that you don't know what you are going to do?

"Wisconsin law specifically anticipates that there may be court challenges..." See what I mean by mind-crushingly dull? Or... if you think about it long enough, maybe it will cease to be dull and become infuriating.