Ball spent all of 2007 telling Shiawassee that we needed to raise taxes, but at the last minute, he voted against them.  Why?  Because DeRoche didn't let him vote for revenues.  (according to DeRoche, via MIRS)  If I recall correctly, Ball also voted in favor of the MESSA-busting bill, which was contrary to his oft-stated opinion on it.

Most of your readers here would appreciate those votes, and even though I do not, it's not those two votes that disgust me.  It's the practice of saying one thing but then doing another that disgusts me.  Not to mention, the fact that he doesn't have the courage of what he claims are his convictions.  This is why I have no respect at all for him.  

People who are really trying to make up their minds about Dick Ball should look at his voting record in its entirety.  He usually votes along GOP lines.  People think he's a moderate .. that's why he gets so many crossover Dem votes.  However, the fact is, he just can't pick a position.  He just parrots what is being said around him.  I'm sure he is good-hearted and means well, but if he ever had an independent thought he would probably spontaneously combust.

My 2 cents.  Thanks.  
~Christine

You are perhaps too young to "recall" the Milliken era, but we had a taste last year when he and Blanchard chaired the Governess's tax hike committee. Milliken also supported the 1983 Blanchard tax hike.

~~~~~~~~~~

I assume the Ball defender above is someone close to the man, perhaps one of his staffers. They might be interesting in Pat Toomey's piece in the WSJ yesterday, "In Defense of RINO Hunting." He concludes:

"A Republican majority is only as useful as the policies that majority produces. When those policies look a lot like Democratic ones, the base rightly questions why it should keep Republicans in power. As the party gears up for elections in the fall, it ought to look closely at the losses suffered under a political strategy devoid of principle. Otherwise, it can look forward to a bad case of déjà vu."

A resolution to express the sense of the House that recalls should be based on specific
misconduct, criminal activity, or abuse of office and should not be based on a single vote and to
denounce the effort to recall Speaker Andy Dillon.

 Laws shall be enacted to provide for the recall of all elective officers except judges of courts of record upon petition of electors equal in number to 25 percent of the number of persons voting in the last preceding election for the office of governor in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.

Of these, seven provide that the recall may only be used when specific criteria, such as some threshold of misconduct, are involved

Whereas, Observers of government have argued that the misuse of recalls can be detrimental
to sound decision making, as short-term expediency can trump well-reasoned approaches to solving
problems.

Article IV § 7 of the Michigan Constitution

 Each senator and representative must be a citizen of the United States, at least 21 years of age, and an elector of the district he represents. The removal of his domicile from the district shall be deemed a vacation of the office. No person who has been convicted of subversion or who has within the preceding 20 years been convicted of a felony involving a breach of public trust shall be eligible for either house of the legislature.

Article II § 2

 The legislature may by law exclude persons from voting because of mental incompetence or commitment to a jail or penal institution.

I'd say that Dillon (and those who supported the tax hike as a well-reasoned fix to the economy) should be ineligable based on their incompetence.

Let's move on..

The threat of recall for reasons other than some measure of misconduct undermines the
foundation of our democratic republic.

We elect men and women to exercise their judgment to the best of their abilities after fully considering all policy options. At each subsequent election, these men and women stand before voters and are fully accountable for their decisions;

Whereas, Many of the state's newspapers have expressed opposition to the misuse of recall,
including the Detroit News, Redford Observer, Northville Record, Grand Rapids Press, Canton
Eagle, Garden City Observer, Detroit Free Press, and Battle Creek Enquirer. Among these, the
Detroit News, on April 28, 2008, stated that the recent recall efforts in Michigan are ". . . working
against efforts to create a more cooperative and productive environment in the legislature." The
February 5, 2008, Grand Rapids Press said "Political recalls should be reserved for the most
egregious acts; not used as a retaliation for votes on a particular issue or as retribution against
political adversaries." Referring to the pending November general election, the Redford Observer
saw the proposed recall of the Speaker as basically meaningless and costly;

Whereas, Michigan's experience with recall seems to be a model of the potential for abuse at
all levels of government. It has been used to intimidate and harass and stop the advancement of
public policy. Over the past year, recall has been used to harm the legislative process, to thwart
honest debate, and to create partisan rancor

Whereas, The ongoing recall effort against the Speaker of the House is an example of an
abuse of this mechanism

Resolved by the House of Representatives, That it is the sense of the House that recalls
should be based on specific misconduct, criminal activity, or abuse of office and should not be based
on a single vote; and be it further

Resolved, That we stand together as a body to denounce the effort to recall Speaker Andy
Dillon.

"...please overcome my ignorance"  Uncle! You win.  One can't be expected to do the impossible.  

"...personal insight into his character."  Yes, people can agree to disagree.  Ball flips and flops and seems to be guilty of the same error as yourself - he's forgotten the rule of law and We The People.  His words are very telling when he says he is going to make a stand with his colleagues instead of standing with We The People and the law, but rather would seek to change the law based on convenience.

"If you knew Rep. Ball personally..."  Please quit taking personal.  I would likely find him a nice person. He is being discussed in the position of public servant.  Ya know, "We The People" and all that.  Further, he decided to run as a Republican public servant on top of that.  Don't feel pressured to understand.

Christine, I thought your statements had a lot of merit and were intended to be very fair minded and reasonable.  Some think you should not reason for yourself.  Humph, to them!

LookingforReagan, I disagree.  Looking at what the handful of mandates the fed gov is responsible for (see The Constitution), he has us covered.  I believe he has himself perfectly positioned for this election cycle.  That's an important position.

NoviDemocrat, with your broad brush (all the Republicons) it seems more important to be rude then to dialog. See my statements on triznik, above.

He then took up at least an hour of the legislature's time (more tax dollars) so that legislators could consider passing his opinion on an election by specifically having HR 358 "oppose the recall of Speaker Dillon".