When I collected signatures for both local recalls, people would tell me they categorically oppose all recalls because they are undemocratic, easily manipulated by monied special interests and wealthy individuals, disruptive to the government, and expensive to the Registrar of Voters.

I sometimes explained the history of recalls in the US goes back over a century to the Progressive Era. Maybe I'd add that every time the CA legislature considered repealing the right of recall; their polling told them it would fail overwhelmingly with the voters.

I'd point out that the vast majority of recalls fail and that the minimum number of signatures required to get a recall on the ballot is extremely high.

I agree that, like everything else in politics, it's money, money, money.
I don't get the disruptive idea. It's rare to see an officeholder campaign against a recall anywhere as much as they campaigned to win office. Is it disruptive in other ways? Sure, if a recall looks likely, the elected official's staff might start bailing, other elected officials won't take it as seriously, etc.

Expensive, yes, depending on several factors. However, all of this is relative to the fiscal cost of an official who one believes continues to make very costly errors.

Today, I heard a new response with a lot fewer words:

Did you agree with President Trump's two impeachments by the US Senate?

If yes, think of recalls as a type of impeachment done directly by the voters that combines the indictment with the conviction.