An Open Letter to Howard Dean

Exploratory Committee, Armor for Congress ^ | 16 September 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

This is going up on FreeRepublic just before it goes up on my main website. But all are invited to visit the site. Volunteers and contributions from FReepers are cordially invited and much needed -- especially volunteers.

John / Billybob

[Blood of Tyrants]

BB, the nine dwarves are stumping to the America hating Rats. Not a single one of them has laid out a single plan to make things better. It allows them to get money for their campaigns but will lead to a defeat not seen since Nixon horse-whipped McGovern in '72.

[xzins]

Oh, those Constitutions. They just get in the way, don't they? :>)

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Nice invective. I appreciate that. Are you publishing this letter in print any where, or is that too passe?

I like the idea of a cyber-saavy citizen running for congress. I like your previous post about the exploratory committee and the need for 1000 volunteers. I like the fact you did not run down the incumbant Republican and the fact you seemed very conversant with NC issues.

I like your positions on issues. If I lived in NC I would support you more. For now, you have my prayers.

F.S.

[Verginius Rufus]

Of course, Andrew Johnson was never elected President...he just happened to be Vice President when Lincoln was killed.

[Congressman Billybob]

Johnson WAS elected Vice President, receiving the same number of Electoral College votes as Lincoln did. He was not like Nelson Rockefeller, who became Vice President without being elected. Nor was he like Gerald Ford, who became Vice President and then President without ever winning any national election.

John / Billybob

[dirtboy]

This is going up on FreeRepublic just before it goes up on my main website.

I would take out the "shorty" bit and come up with something else to call him. It doesn't really score any points to make fun of his limited physical stature. Maybe "wingnut" or "liar" would be better here.

[Congressman Billybob]

Do you, also, object to the fact that the people of California (like about one-third of all states) chose to put the recall mechanism in their constitution? If so, have you ever, in any way, objected to the recall at any time?

BTW, I did not mention in this article that the Democrat mantra that it could "happen to the next governor, and any governor" is a separate lie. History shows that this widely available citizens' check and balance has been employed only twice in national history against a Governor of a state. That suggests strongly that recall, like impeachment, is very rarely used and only in extraordinary circumstances.

John / Billybob

[alwaysconservative]

You might also want to point out that if the Dimbulbs HAD voted for conviction on the impeachment, we would in all likelihood had President Gore today, since removing x42 would have given us Gore, who would have run as an incumbent in 2000. Even the Dimbulbs didn't want that, apparently! LOL! The main point is that conviction on impeachment wouldn't have reversed ANYTHING, of course, but you'd never guess from their talking points.

[alwaysconservative]

Don't forget that it was tried against Reagan, what, two or three times? They're just mad that we've succeeded where they've failed.

[mrtysmm]

Wonderful post! Seems you've pegged him to a tee. The lying from these guys comes so naturally, and I don't really fault them for it since the truth just exposes the frauds they really are.

[Congressman Billybob]

You are missing the historical part of the picture. Elections happen (for Governor) every four years. Those who want simply to change the Governor can do so in the next election.

Recalls are used for malfeasance in office, not just political change. The fact that such mechanisms that exist in one-third of the states, but have only been used against Governors only two times in a century, answers your question. If recall were merely a matter of political change, you would see them happening almost as often as elections.

You don't see anything approaching that. The people of California, Nebraska, etc., have demonstrated their understanding that recall is a very specific process that should be employed very, very seldom.

In short, as I have said, Howard Dean is a liar about this. So is Bill Clinton, who said just yesterday in California that "if a Republican is elected, there will be a recall against him, too." Clinton, too, is proved a liar by the simple facts of history.

There were three ATTEMPTED recalls against Governor Ronald Reagan. None came close to getting the necessary signatures to proceed to a vote. It only takes a handful of people with a few dollars and a phone and a copy machine to START the process. But it takes the decision of millions of Californians to turn that into a REAL ELECTION.

A lot of arguments can be made in theory. But most theories founder on the rocks of reality. The only person who can make the argument that recall = a standard political election is someone who is totally ignorant of the history of recalls at the state and local level.

BTW, there are dozens of recall elections every year, mostly at the local level. These are below the radar of the national press. But I've looked into them. Mostly they are the removal by the people of a local Sheriff or County Official who seems involved with corruption or is totally incompetent.

Because the petition requirements are much higher than the maximum levels permitted under the Constitution for simple elections, it takes the highest level of citizen outrage -- a true citizens' revolt -- to get any of these things on the ballot.

Recalls generally require 12% petitions (California) or even higher. Some of my cases in the US Supreme Court have mailed down the point that a petition requirement higher than 5% is unconstitutional for a candidate for President. That, too, is part of the history that liars like Bill Clinton, Gray Davis, and their assorted sycophants are deliberately ignoring.

No, a recall is nothing like an ordinary election. And the last time I checked, it is the sovereign people of each jurisdiction who have the right to put recall into their constitutions, or not to put it there. Writing and ratification of constitutions is also part of the "democratic process" as it exists in the United States.

I repeat -- those who say that recalls are simply reversing elections, are either totally ignorant of the recall process, or are liars.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

This recall in California is BY FAR the most expensive recall effort ever conducted in the United States. But then, every referendum issue in California costs more money than the same issue in a referendum anywhere else in the nation. This is simply a reflected measure of the size of California compared to all other states.

Most recalls, as I noted, are local. Faced with a warchest of a few hundred dollars and a fair number of angry citizens, and the Sheriff of Whatever County can find himself being recalled from office. Like political races tehmselves, the smallest districts can have the results depend on shoe leather rather than money. But as the District size grows, the need for money in the campaign rises exponetially.

Is that helpful?

John / Billybob

[eleni121]

Shorty is as shorty does. "Nikita" Dean comes up as short as they come.

[Congressman Billybob]

I wasn't talking about the elections either. I was talking about the process of gathering signatures to get the recall or the referendum on the ballot.

In a town with 1,000 voters and a 12% requirement, you can talk to your neighbors, spend nary a dime, and get the signatures if enough people are cheesed off. In a state with 8 million voters in the last election, you MUST have money for staff, money for printing, money for communications.

Previous efforts to get signatures in any jurisdiction will give you a good idea of how much money and how many staff (volunteer or otherwise) are needed to get the signatures this time. Take an average of prior signature efforts for any subject, because the more fired up people there are, the easier it gets. Less means harder and more expensive.

I suppose I've been involved in about 100 petition campaigns. It boils down to a formula based on targets and district size. The results are a mini-max. Exceed the maximum and your issue will make the ballot. Fall below the minimum, and your issue will surely fail. In between those two, it's a crap shoot.

John / Billybob