As usual, Mr. Balentine has stretched credulity when describing Sen. Susan Collins (“Here’s Something: Boos and Bravos,” Nov. 5). In support of my assessment, he offers this rather weak testimonial: “Perfect attendance (Senate voting) may not seem like a big deal, but … . She’s there to serve, not to be served.” Really!

In reference to Collins’ “there to serve” ethics, Mr. Balentine states, “Her well-reasoned and thoughtful vote for embattled (Associate Justice) Brett Kavanaugh is a prime example.” How so? Her vote dismissed Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s claim regarding Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault! Dr. Ford presented unambiguous testimony: Kavanaugh participated in said violation while his friend watched. Interestingly, Kavanaugh’s tenure as an associate justice on the Supreme Court has been marked by dubious decisions.

Letter-writer Connie Sage Conner also questions Collins’ mantra of “there to serve” when “Susan Collins voted Oct. 20 to join (fellow Republicans) in blocking debate on the Freedom to Vote Act. … Collins is in lock-step with Republicans to weaken – or destroy – our basic democratic values” (“Kudos to Angus King, shame on Susan Collins,” Nov. 5).

And Collins’ reason for not voting? She claimed the (Freedom to Vote Act) “is a vast federal takeover of state elections.” Actually, the Brennan Center for Justice has demonstrated the Act … “would create a baseline national standard for voting access … and expanding opportunities for all Americans to cast their ballots.”

Mr. Balentine, “Maybe truthful and serious writing is not your ‘thing’” (Letter: “Writing might not be Balentine’s ‘thing,’” Nov. 5). Why? You are totally confused concerning Collins’ voting record: It’s not “just” that you voted, but rather “what” you voted for or against that is most important. Collins continues voting for the wrong things!

Lastly, you made a serious error in assigning your “Boos and Bravos.” Why? Janet Mills must receive a “Bravo” and Susan Collins a “Boo.”

John M. Mishler
Harpswell