Here's a question for the Pro-Recall Scammers: Even Pollard says you've got nothing: so why are you doing this?

Look, we all know you fakers have your panties in a bunch over the Benton hiring.  But even at your meeting, or was it at Pollard's re-election announcement?  I get mixed up about that...

Your OWN guy, Royce "No Choice" Pollard, stated:

“we do not have at this time a valid reason for a recall, but I’m sure there is one somewhere” and “We just need to find it” from former mayor Pollard.

So.

You people and that despicable rag of a newspaper have whipped the ignorant into a frenzy.  Those morons have made outlandish claims of violating the law, violating rules, violating the laws of physics.  I get that.

No proof is offered, you understand; but the fake allegations, as fake as the allegations against Commissioners Mielke and Madore at the start of your putsch attempt; are just that: fake.

It appears to me that the only one to benefit from this is that gas bag Pollard in what is likely to be the start of his effort to become mayor again, since he seems to have a list of names, addresses and emails.

Tell me:  What's the point of all of this?

Are you so gullible that a slimeball like Brancaccio only has to whistle and you people jump through his imaginary hoops, every hour on the hour while he laughs at your stupidity?

There's no legally sufficient reason to recall them.  Pollard admitted as much during the meeting. The end.

So what's the point of this hissy fit?

The Commissioners appointed the guy they wanted.  Stuart's idiotic response to that changed nothing.

Stuart's and Brancaccio's moronic effort to cause the peasants to storm the Bastille of the County Administration building was a waste of time, effort and energy.  It might have made them FEEL better, but what, precisely, did it accomplish?

Nothing.

NOW all you people are worked up about a Home Rule Charter.  You think that 5 commissioners would fix all your problems.

It won't, of course: Stuart being on the wrong end of a bunch of 4-1 votes doesn't help you: Anyone running in opposition to the CRC scam at this point will win against anyone supporting it, county wide.

That means that Stuart's gone... he just hasn't packed yet (See democrat Commissioner Marc Boldt) and he will be replaced by a Republican.

And that ought to drive you people insane.

But what's MORE insane is the inanity of this sudden shift in position on the very idea that there should be a vote on the county charter.

In fact, here's a few notes from the past:

From the Democratian, who hated the idea out of their fear that a county-wide CRC vote. (May 28, 2011)

The democratian's "demonstrated need" scam. .
In today's effort at self-flagellating moralizing, the democratian once again tells us how stupid it is to bring local government to heel.

Cheers: To county commissioners for putting an end to the home rule charter process this year.Inspecting methods of government is always a good idea, but there was no demonstrated need to elect a slate of freeholders to, in essence, draft a county charter that would replace the current system. A series of meetings produced no discernible public interest in the process outside of the same handful of activists who have promoted a county charter for years, only to lose at the polls. Better to save the staff time and the estimated $100,000 it would cost to sponsor an election.

Here's the local democrat party's take, lifted from their own newsletter. (May, 2011)

Proposed changes in county charter could be awful

Clark County’s government structure is somewhat antique and outdated. A system invented to manage road construction and not much else in the way of governance clanks along clumsily in a high-speed era of complex and varied civic action.

Streamlining and modernizing the machine appeals to the progressive psyche, but the folks who have convinced the Board of Clark County Commissioners to consider adopting a new county charter have other agenda priorities.

They hope to give rural interests dominance over urban values. They suppose they can make it harder for county government to raise and spend money on social problems and infrastructure capital.

They are far away from achieving their goals, but inattention from thoughtful citizens could ease their path.

Without much evident public support, the charter-change advocates have persuaded the county commissioners to start the ball rolling toward charter change for the third time in recent history. In January the board formally adopted a resolution to consider a move from the present form of government to something different.

Different how? That depends entirely on a panel of elected freeholders and how ably they can sell their program.

So far the county commissioners have ordained that, should the charter process go forward, each of the three commissioner districts will be represented by five freeholders who would be elected at the Nov. 8 general election. Any registered voter would be qualified to seek election to the board of freeholders. Upon their election the freeholders would establish a schedule of hearings and meetings for the consideration of what might be included in a new county charter. Upon a majority vote by the freeholders, the Board of Clark County Commissioners would be obliged by tradition if not certainly by law to lay the proposed charter before the electorate. 

 And again from the democratian: (March 19, 2011).

In Our View: Solutions … No Problems
County commissioners once again ponder reforming local government
Tuesday, March 19, 2013

When a wild goose chase clearly defines itself before it even begins, responsible travelers will decline to embark on the journey. Such is the case before Clark County commissioners as they ponder another expedition into the well-known futility of changing county government to a home rule charter. 

Another apt metaphor for this crusade is a solution in search of a problem. Voters have rejected a proposed home rule charter three times in 20 years, most recently in 2002. This micro-introspection of a macro-bureaucracy became so yawn-inducing in 2011 that county commissioners declined to even pull out the stethoscope. Seven public meetings were attended by a grand total of 113 people. (The level of interest might have been even lower than such a paltry number denotes, because there's no way of knowing how many people attended multiple meetings). In response, county commissioners correctly declined to pursue the matter further. 

We'll see if the new board of county commissioners is equally perceptive. They could consider the matter this week. 

Granted, all forms of government should be subject to frequent review, as a healthy method of being held accountable. But on this repair job, we're having a hard time finding what's broken. 

Reforming county government could include any of a dozen or more changes, none of which have been accompanied by any measurable public demand. This lack of motivation might explain why only six of 39 counties in Washington have adopted home rule charters. As Erik Hidle explained in a Saturday Columbian story, potential changes could include giving residents referendum powers on county issues, changing some elected offices to appointed jobs, increasing the number of commissioners and making office nonpartisan. 

Faint flickers of approval can be expressed on some of these notions. Expanding from three to five county commissioners could be supported by pointing out that the most important decisions in our community would no longer be made by just two people. Then again, with current annual salaries exceeding six digits per commissioner, plus their myriad employment benefits, our county can't really afford such a change. 

We also like the idea of making some county offices nonpartisan. For example, how well a leader can enforce the law or supervise elections should never depend on whether he or she is a Republican or Democrat. But, again, this hasn't seemed to be much of a problem. 

Back in 2011, activists also proposed electing commissioners by districts. Currently, they are voted on by districts in the primary, but subject to countywide election in the fall. In this way, keeping a county commissioner accountable to the whole county is a good idea. Electing them by district would create fiefdoms, with each commissioner ignoring the needs of two-thirds the county and committed to serve only one-third of local voters. 

Two years ago, the county spent about $5,000 on staff time at public meetings for this issue. Putting the matter before the voters could cost $100,000 more. The process itself is appropriately complex. Freeholders would need to be elected, then they would conduct an extensive series of meetings and make recommendations to county commissioners, who might or might not put it all before the voters. 

Clark County commissioners have enough to do already. When a figurative phone booth might hold all the activists, the cause probably has not risen to the level of a public mandate.

Utter nonsense, of course, as I pointed out in my response.

But NOW, all of that will be forgotten.  Because of THEIR "agenda," these idiots suddenly think it's a great idea.

Here's the thing: I agree.  But that's because they're dead wrong.

Their efforts to weaken GOP control of the county commission are likely to blow up in their face.

Instead of having 2 GOP commissioners and one leftist, they're likely to have 5 GOP commissioners.

And how cool would that be?

The anger is already starting to fade, particularly as these useful tools begin to understand they've been had.

They're coming to figure out the vast difference between "Don't like" and "illegal."  "Don't like" isn't enough to get this stupidity past a judge, particularly when you're going up against a man with Madore's resources.

Unfortunately, many of the more ignorant frequently confuse "motion" with "action."

Locally, the GOP is confusing it when it comes to falsely believing that our disgrace of a congresswoman opposes any aspect of the CRC, since Kiewit has bought her like she works at Cadillac Ranch.

And now the mob, so carefully whipped together by Stuart, Brancaccio, Pollard and the auslander Pridemore, who doesn't live here any more as he's Mark Browning his own pension by getting a democrat plumb with the Department of Licensing in Olympia, simply don't know what they're talking about or what they're doing.

But then, fringe-left partisan hatred can do that to a group.

So here's your opportunity, if you dare take it: anyone out there who can justify any effort to continue to try this recall scam gets the run of my blog.

If you can defend this idiocy, and respond to my simple efforts to rip your position to shreds, I will present your position paper unedited, but certainly not uncommented on.

I, for one, believe there will be no response.  Because, after all, when you've got nothing to work with except childish, playground anger... what position CAN you defend?