The following is an email sent to Senator Arlen Specter, (D?) PA, regarding a "guest opinion" I found over at Iowahawk. Upon further review, I have my doubts about who wrote the "guest opinion" attributed to Specter and Kathleen Sebelius. Regardless of authorship, I have no regrets about sending this to the party flipping, overburdened senator who's official website mentions the bulk of emails he receives ("tens of thousands") and who publically states that he does not have enough time to handle reading all the legislation he has to be familiar with.


Mr. Arlen Specter,

Now I know you're going to want to stop reading after you read the next sentence but in the midst of what I know is a very busy schedule, please continue. I just read your "Crisis of Confidence" guest column and after reading it three times, I have to say, I think it's time you left office.

I worked in the service industry for years, mostly restaurants and a couple bars. I had to take breaks from it, because it was too much to handle. I'd start putting myself above the customer. It was about me, not about my service. It ceased to be about the customer, or in your case, the constituent. If I didn't get a tip, I'd fill with a vitriolic hate that mirrored what I just read in your writing.

Mr. Specter, sir, it is NOT ABOUT YOU. Thank you for your hard work over the years, I'm sure you have done some good and I'm not saying you're incapable of continuing to do good, but you are in serious need of an attitude adjustment or a change of scenery.

I read your comments about "big voter," and I must say that I think I understand how hard it is to be trying your best only to have it not be good enough. But when I read your statement, "It's time for us to get out our pitchforks and tell the Outside-the-Beltway gang that we're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it any more. We are the little guy [...]", all I could think about was how you should to keep a diary instead of plastering your opinion all over the internet and God only knows where else.

You're not the little guy.

When I read your statement, "We are the people who get up every day, work hard, and play inside the rules [...]", It raised a little bit of respect for the hard work you, and other hard working representatives do. I do respect the idea of representative government but when you continued with, "[...] And if one of us accidentally plays outside one of those rules, then, by golly, the rest of us will make sure to modify that rule so he's still playing inside the rules." You lost me. That sir sounds like an abuse of power waiting to happen. It sounds like a variation on croneyism.

It also sounds like more legislation. If you don't have time to manage the legislation that you do have, should you really be making more to bend the rules to fit?

So far as my government classes have taught me, this country was founded with the idea of checks and balances on our government. One of those checks and balances is the voice of the people you're supposed to be representing.

I was a young man in 1994, but I know that republicans took over the majority in our representative bodies. Remember, back when you were a republican? I found your references to surviving "the horrors of November 1994" a little laughable. As laughable as your switching parties for reasons of electability (How much will your platform be changing?).

I barely even understand what you mean when you mention designing "important safety net protections, such as revolving doors, redistricting, earmarks, and franking privileges." From what I know revolving doors refer to jumping between the public and private sector, which according to my knowledge brings the Cheney/Halliburton fiasco to mind and is something I oppose. Redistricting seems like either a cheap ploy to maintain public office or a method of designing a constituency (the latter of those two isn't necessarily a bad thing if accurate representation is the result). I don't see how franking privilages (which I understand to have something to do with basically free postage for official representative business) has anything to do with staying in office. Earmarking was a hot button this last election season, and I'm not sure what you're referring to when you mention it. All of that aside, I am of the belief that being a representative shouldn't be seen as a career but instead as service.

Then you continued, "And we're tired of getting pushed around the town hall by the likes of you, Big Voter." Mr. Specter, respectfully, you are the voice of the voter and if the voter isn't happy with your actions, what recourse does he have? If you're too busy to read legislation, perhaps you're too busy to keep up with your "tens of thousands of emails," perhaps "big voter" is feeling silenced and unheard; without other options. A town hall shouldn't be a photo op, it should be a place for interaction between representative and represented, if you're properly representing your constituents, it might be both.

In the end, I do agree with you on your conclusion that "democracy means that voters get the government they deserve." If the voting population of your district re-elects you, they do deserve you, but sir, if you don't deserve them perhaps you are in the wrong line of work.

Sincerely,
Samuel Robert Osborne
(just another voice in the cacophony)