Collins' "Plan"

It's worth restating: To the extent that Sen. Collins has a "plan" for Iraq, her plan is to leave President Bush in charge of our mission there.

So the Portland Press Herald obscures more than it clarifies when it reports:

Most of the 20 people who were questioned during swings through six towns in Cumberland and Sagadahoc counties disapproved of Allen's call for an exit deadline...More of those interviewed liked Collins' plan than Allen's approach.

This tells us almost nothing.

The obvious truth missing from this survey is that neither Collins nor Rep. Allen is going to be commander-in-chief any time soon. Given that fact, neither will have an opportunity to implement the plans they're setting out.

So to focus on the specifics of their views for Iraq's is like asking Gov. Schwarzenegger (R-CA) how he proposes to rectify the Minneapolis bridge collapse: It's a misplaced question.

Unless Allen and Collins both decide to run for President, the particular contours of their Iraq plans are, sadly, beside the point. And focusing on which plan is "better" distracts attention from the real issue confronting voters.

Namely: To what extent is each candidate interested in legislatively mandating a shift in our approach in Iraq, even if the President disagrees?

And on that score, both candidates have been clear (even if the junior senator has occasionally tried to muddy the waters).

Rep. Allen thinks the President has driven our country into a ditch one too many times. He thinks it's time to pry the keys to our Iraq policy out of George W. Bush's hands.

Sen. Collins, on the other hands, thinks the President deserves one more chance. She wants to give him a stern warning and send him back on the road.

That's the key distinction. In the context of a senate race, the rest is just theatre.