Kos Poll

Markos Moulitsas and Co. have shelled out the big bucks for an independent Maine Senate race poll. And while I wish I could say that the results are shocking or provocative, they're about what you would expect:

If 2008 election for U.S. Senate were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Tom Allen, the Democrat, and Susan Collins, the Republican?

Collins (R) 56
Allen (D) 33

Kos adds:

Allen needs to push Collins below 50 percent within the next 4-6 months for this race to become top-tier. He's got the material to work with.

I think that's about right.

On the one hand, Rep. Allen certainly has his work cut out for him. He's going to need not just to get the word out about his own strengths, but change Mainers minds about a (relatively) popular legislator.

On the other hand, the race doesn't look like the slam dunk that Sen. Collins' backers might have expected it would be fifteen months ago. She's still the favorite, but to win she'll need to hold off a strong, serious challenge.

In other words, things are just about where you'd anticipate they'd be.

Question for ME Reporters

How does Sen. Collins feel about granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies that illegally shared customer records with the executive branch without a warrant?

Just wondering.

Dutson's Triumph

Just before we left town last week, we noticed Collins campaign consultant Lance Dutson complaining about Google's rejection of a few keyword ads that violated its policy toward trademarks.

Eight days later, it's worth taking a moment to examine how the Collins camp used that relatively mundane occurrence--something experienced by just about anyone who uses the Google's AdWords platform regularly--to kick up a right-wing media frenzy.

First, give Dutson et. al. credit: They understood that the rejection of Moveon.org-related keyword ads by Google feeds into--or could be portrayed to feed into--a pair of paranoid right-wing narratives that, while false, loom large in the Republican imagination:

1. That even though Republicans have been in control of all three branches of government for six of the last seven years, conservatives remain under the yoke of a corrupt, liberal-dominated establishment that won't give them a fair shake.

2. That (relatedly) secret, nefarious liberal alliances are plotting against them, conspiring to suppress their voices and undermine their interests.

As I say, these are both canards. But in certain circles, they're widely-believed canards.

So it couldn't have been hard for Dutson to place the story with Robert Cox, a right-wing blogger who, if I read him correctly, thinks that George W. Bush is basically a modern-day Abraham Lincoln.

And it couldn't have been hard for Cox to get the story into Examiner.com, an outlet owned by Discovery Institute-funding, Media Research Council-supporting, George W. Bush-admiring Philip Anschutz. From there, of course, it was just a hop, skip and a jump to Fox News.

That the legitimate media didn't take the bait is refreshing. But I doubt that was really even the Collins camp's hope. Instead, they were aiming (and succeeded) in portraying their candidate--who's never been a darling of the far-right--as under attack by the same evil forces that have it in for Rush Limbaugh, Vice President Dick Cheney, etc.

And you know what they say about enemies of enemies.

Whether this will work as a fundraising strategy is unclear. But it seems like a pretty savvy gambit to me.

Of course the downside, at least from a public interest perspective, is that the fake flap has nothing to do with the, y'know, issues.

Consider: Dutson has so far published eight separate blog posts about Google, but I only count one mention of the word "Iraq" on his entire front page.

Sen. Collins' own blog contains two mentions of Moveon.org, but her entire site contains not one mention of habeas corpus.

I guess this is the kind of campaign you run when your candidate is desperate not to talk about the issues. But it's not particularly edifying. And as things heat up--and the need to divert attention from the issues grows more intense--it ain't gonna be pretty.

Catching Up

We were away for the last few days, and there are a couple issues we'd like to get caught up on. But first an observation about the third quarter fundraising numbers.

While Sen. Collins retains a decisive lead--in both receipts and cash on hand--it seems clearer than ever that this race will not be decided by money.

Rep. Allen may not achieve one-to-one parity, but because he's also an incumbent--and because he'll likely be getting a fundraising hand from prominent blogs--he'll have no trouble bringing in plenty of money--more than enough to compete.

That sets the stage for a balanced race focused on the issues, at least if that's what both candidates want. Which is fantastic.

Of course, Sen. Collins and her team have demonstrated yet again in the last week that they're looking to discuss nearly anything but the issues facing Mainers.

More on that in the next day or two.

Q3 $$$ Totals

The AP delivers the goods:

Republican Sen. Susan Collins reported Monday she raised more than $1 million for her re-election campaign from July through September, bringing her total contributions to date to $3.6 million, with $3.1 million in cash on hand.

The campaign of Democratic challenger Tom Allen, the sixth-term congressman from Portland, reported receipts of $666,096 for the quarter, raising his total contributions for this election cycle to $2.2 million. Allen reported having $2.1 million on hand.

Moveon Again

Well, you knew it was coming: Sen. Collins is now using the Petraeus ad flap as part of a fundraising pitch.

It's entirely fair game, although one of the Collins camp's central charges is misleading: That "MoveOn.org has contributed more money to her opponent than all of the presidential candidates combined, $250,000 already."

Phrasing it that way conjures up images of a (nefarious) left-wing behemoth dumping a giant check on Rep. Allen.

But that hasn't happened--at least as far as I know. Instead, hundreds (thousands?) of individuals have responded to Moveon.org solicitations by making mostly small dollar donations to Allen's campaign.

So they're the ones doing the giving. Moveon is just using their megaphone--and their web platform--to draw attention to the race.

It's a subtle distinction, especially if you don't follow these types of things closely. But it's an important one. And it's why the National Republican Senatorial Committee, for example, has been careful to characterize the donations as "conduit donations" and to describe them as having been given "through"--rather than "by"--Moveon.org.

In any case, Lance Dutson and the Collins camp are making no such distinctions.

Speaking of Dutson, he's shocked and scandalized about Google's rejection of a few keyword ads that he tried to buy for Sen. Collins.

The story has been bouncing around the right-wing blogs all day, often with intimations that it amounts to some kind of conspiracy. (Paranoid, anyone?)

But as someone extremely familiar with Google AdWords from my real job, I think I can safely say that what Dutson encountered is pretty typical: Google rejects ads all the time, for a host of reasons--and often without the kind of consistency you might expect.

It's an inevitable upshot of managing a giant advertising platform in a litigious society.

In any case, the idea that a huge corporation--with hundreds of thousands of advertisers and billions in revenue--has singled out Dutson or Sen. Collins for unfavorable treatment isn't just silly. It's bonkers.

"Little Interest" in Oversight?

Steve Benen brings us a snippet from an article on Iraq oversight in today's (subscription-only) Roll Call:

The day news broke that the Iraqi government was revoking the license of Blackwater USA over a questionable Baghdad shootout that killed 17 civilians, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) announced plans for hearings to probe the State Department’s reliance on private security contractors.

On that same day--Sept. 17--Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) announced two firefighting grants for the towns of Bolton and Willington in his home state.

Though the two committees have similar investigative powers and mandates to uncover waste, fraud and abuse of government funds, Waxman has held eight hearings on Iraq and contracting abuses this year, while Lieberman has held only one on reconstruction challenges in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

And though Waxman rarely has missed an opportunity to fire off angry letters to the administration over potential waste, fraud, abuse and misconduct among government contractors, Lieberman--along with his predecessor and current ranking member, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)--has shown relatively little interest in tackling those issues.

But at least she's never missed a vote!

BDN On Habeas

Bangor Daily News editorializes in favor of habeas corpus. And give the editorial board credit for detailing the junior senator's embarrassing record on the issue:

The 2006 Military Commissions Act was intended to assure the end of habeas corpus for "enemy combatants," by setting up military commissions at Guanatanmo to hear detainees cases rather than using the federal court system. Before the final vote, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., tried to remove a section prohibiting any federal court from hearing habeas corpus appeals. But his amendment lost, 48 to 51. Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins voted no. Sen. Olympia Snowe, absent for a family funeral, did not vote. Sen. Collins voted for the unchanged bill, as did Sen. Specter, although he called the measure unconsitutional [sic]. Sen. Snowe again did not vote.

Sens. Specter and Pat Leahy, D-Vt., raised the issue again last month, introducing a bill to restore habeas corpus. The vote of 56 to 43 lacked the necessary 60 votes needed to block a filibuster. Sen. Collins voted against cutting off debate. Sen. Snowe, with five other Republicans, voted with the Democrats to allow a vote on the bill.

So let us ask again:

What does Sen. Collins understand about human freedom and dignity that she thinks the Founders overlooked?

As we've said in the past, this issue isn't about conservatives versus liberals. It's about conservatives and liberals versus reactionaries.

It's about the rule of law versus creeping lawlessness.

UPDATE: BDN rightly focuses in on the contrast between Sen. Collins' votes and the actions of Sen. Snowe (R-ME) and Sen. Specter (R-PA).

But it might also have been worth noting (space permitting) that Rep. Allen voted against the Military Commissions Act and, unlike Collins, supports the Specter amendment.

Knowing The Shot

Bill Nemitz explores the Collins camp's nasty, disingenuous attack on Rep. Allen for votes he missed while attending a funeral here.

He makes a point that's obvious but worth underscoring:

Before you publicly hammer someone with the question, "Where were you?" you'd best find out the answer in advance.

Or, as Ricky Roma put it in Glengarry Glen Ross:

Never open your mouth until you know what the shot is.

Change of Address

News reader users take note: Our feed has moved to

http://feeds.feedburner.com/collins_watch

The old address automatically forwards posts to the new one. So feed subscribers shouldn't have to take any action. At least that's what we've been assured.

But if you run into trouble, try redirecting your reader to the above url.

(If this all sounds like gobbledygook, ignore it. And don't feel bad: This stuff is over our heads too.)

Sullivan on Torture

Andrew Sullivan makes a prediction:

The way in which conservative lawyers, and conservative intellectuals, and conservative journalists aided and abetted these war crimes [relating to America's ban on torture]...the way in which Republicans and Democrats in the Congress pathetically refused to stand up to these violations of American honor and decency in any serious way...these will go down in history as some of the most shameful decisions these people ever made.

(Sen. Collins voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act. Rep. Allen didn't.)

In The Papers

Didn't realize that MaineToday.com had a political blog. But it does. And Susan Cover has picked up the Allen funeral story.

(Unfortunately, she doesn't dig any deeper.)

In other news, Sen. Collins is calling the President's veto of S-CHIP "a tremendous mistake."

They Release Statements

According to a press release from Valerie Martin, Rep. Allen's campaign manager:

Two of Monday's missed votes named post offices in other states. The third honored a National Guard unit from another state.

If this is true (and as far as I know, the Maine GOP hasn't produced any information to the contrary) then the Collins campaign is indeed guilty of launching a cheap shot attack on Allen.

Look: It's important for legislators to show up. But the job of a representative is to advance the interests of his or her constituents--not to a pursue perfect attendance record as an end in itself.

If Sen. Collins thinks attendance matters above all else she should say that. If she thinks this election should turn on the fate of legislation naming out-of-state post offices, she ought to explain why.

Apology?

As the incisive Senate Guru notes, Maine GOP chair Mark Ellis' press release update--the one acknowledging that Rep. Allen was at a family funeral in Bangor during three House votes Ellis accused him of skipping--contains nothing resembling an apology.

(How did I miss that?)

So important questions remain: Does Ellis believe Allen abrogated his obligation to his constituents by attending the funeral? Does Sen. Collins--whose campaign took the lead in disseminating the original attack--think an apology is in order?

Or does she concur with Ellis that Allen's absence--for a family funeral--indicates that the six-term Democrat "seems to have lost interest in showing up to work."

And does anyone in the Maine press corp find any of this salient enough to be worth a couple hundred words?

Oops

From the Collins campaign, via its internet guru Lance Dutson, we get wind of this Maine GOP press release:

Congressman Tom Allen missed each of the three votes the House of Representatives held yesterday, bringing his missed votes total to 132...

Maine Republican Party Chairman Mark Ellis said, "Congressman Allen really seems to have lost interest in showing up to work. At the very least, he should tell his constituents why he is choosing to leave them unrepresented in Congress less than a year after he was reelected. For these and the many other days that Tom has skipped votes, Mainers deserve to know the answer to the question: Where was Tom?"

Later amended as follows:

“It has come to our attention that Congressman Tom Allen was in Bangor on Monday attending the funeral of a family member. Without question, the most difficult times in our lives are those in which we grieve for the loss of family or friends. Our thoughts are with Congressman Allen and his family during this difficult time,” said Maine Republican Party Chairman Mark Ellis.

Look, I'm agnostic on the Collins camp's "missed votes" allegation, at least until I see some hard data: If Allen missed close-call votes on important issues, then he certainly deserves to be taken to task.

On the other hand, if what we're talking about is mostly near-unanimous resolutions, procedural votes and the occasional post office naming, then it's a silly, distracting charge.

So it's time for Collins and her Maine GOP allies to show their cards here, and tell us why these particular votes were so important.

Otherwise, they wind up looking petty or callous. Or--as they do in this case--both.

UPDATE: I seem to have picked nearly the same headline as Kos, who I think may have beaten me to the punch by an hour or two.

That'll teach me not to leave the house...

The Freedom Agenda

The more I think about Sen. Collins' habeas votes, the more convinced I become that they'll come back to bite her during the campaign. And not just because the more recent vote exposed a widening rift between the junior senator and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

Allow me to explain.

For those who are a little fuzzy on their high school civics, habeas corpus is the right to challenge one's imprisonment in a court of law.

Or to put it even more plainly: When the government knocks on your door and takes you away, habeas is what entitles you to tell a judge "Wait a second. They got the wrong guy."

So we're talking about something pretty basic here. And while I'm no expert, it seems safe to call habeas a foundational principle of Western law and culture--the kind of basic minimum standard that helps us tell the difference between societies that respect individual autonomy and those that don't.

So Collins' votes against habeas are a stark reminder of which side she's been on these last few years in the battle between the rule of law and creeping autocracy.

They're a clear example--in the way the Iraq war, with its various nuances and complexities, isn't--that when it's mattered, Sen. Collins has helped advance the slow march toward lawlessness and national disrepute rather than confronting it.

And there's nothing "moderate" or "centrist" about that.

But more than that: There's nothing "conservative" about stripping people of core legal rights, or about refusing an opportunity to undo the wrong one year later.

The truth is, stripping habeas was a radical, reactionary step, undertaken by people who think that the Magna Carta and the US Constitution got things fundamentally wrong.

And in standing with the Bushes and Cheneys and Gonzaleses of the world--rather than the Arlen Specters and Colin Powells and Olympia Snowes--Sen. Collins enabled, supported and participated in their radical agenda.

That she did this without (at least to my knowledge) so much as issuing an explanatory press release underscores the junior senator's stunning disrespect for basic human freedoms.

It's a remarkable turn of events, and one I wish the Maine press would explore--or at least touch on. In any case, it's a topic I'll be returning to as the campaign unfolds.

Layers of Meaning?

Given the opportunity to host a Washington D.C. film screening (at the invitation of The Week magazine), Sen. Collins--together with her friend Rep. Jane Harman--selected THELMA AND LOUISE.

An interesting choice, to be sure. Make of it what you will.

They Write Letters

As the kids say, read the whole thing:

The Washington Post story published in the Sept. 20 Portland Press Herald erroneously reported that Sen. Susan Collins voted against cloture on a bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter allowing terrorism detainees the right of habeas corpus.

Unlike Sen. Olympia Snowe, Sen. Collins shamefully voted in effect to deny detainees this historic right, which dates to 1215 and the Magna Carta. She ignored the plain language of the Constitution, which allows suspension of this right only "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Sen. Patrick Leahy made clear the bill's significance by saying: "Casting aside the time-honored protection of habeas corpus makes us more vulnerable as a nation because it leads us away from our core American values and calls into question our historic role as a defender of human rights around the world."

Characterizing the fight against terrorism as a "war," with its implications for presidential powers not otherwise allowed by the Constitution, is at the root of this country's current constitutional crisis.

A "war" against ill-defined enemies and of indefinite length provides a pretext for un-American abuses of the kind regularly employed by dictators.

The "war" argument was central to the opposition to this bill, as enunciated by Sen. Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama: "This is purely a matter of congressional policy and national policy on how we want to conduct warfare now and in the future."

I urge Mainers not to re-elect Sen. Collins, who blatantly rejects our basic constitutional values.

Meredith N. Springer

Peaks Island

The Unnameable

For the second time in recent months, the word "Iraq" does not appear in Sen. Collins' eNewsletter.

But readers do learn that:

Senator Susan Collins recently attended the Lewiston MAINEiacs home opener at the Colisée in Lewiston.

and that:

Senator Collins recently visited the Gulf of Maine Research Institute in Portland where she met with approximately 50 elementary and middle school students from Nobleboro Central School, Hope Elementary School, and Oxford Hill Christian Academy.

Exclusive: Tom Allen Interview

We spend nearly all our time here at Collins Watch focusing on Maine's junior senator. And for good reason--it's what we're all about.

But with the 2008 race coming into focus, we thought it would be worth shifting our attention, at least briefly, to her Democratic opponent, Congressman Tom Allen.

So we reached out to his campaign, which graciously set up an interview. On Monday, we sat down with Allen, who has represented Maine's first district since 1996.

Our discussion lasted about an hour, covering topics ranging from Iraq to Sen. Collins' perfect voting record to Moveon.org.

Here's what we learned.

On Iraq: Allen told us without hesitation that, "setting a deadline is the best way" to move forward.

When asked about Sen. Collins' continued unwillingness to support a withdrawal timetable--in the context of her repeated calls for a change in mission--he said, "the bottom line is, Susan wants to maintain an open-ended commitment in Iraq. And that's the President's policy."

"Changing the mission," he argued, "is just relabelling the mission."

He rejected, specifically, Collins' contention that redefining our military aim in Iraq as "counter-terrorism" would result in a changed role for US forces ("fighting terrorism is what we're doing now") or that it would necessarily cause a troop draw down.

And he characterized the limited troop reduction that Collins seems to be contemplating as a potential "worst of both worlds" scenario because the US presence would remain large enough to be seen by Iraqis as an occupying force, and yet the American military would have a tougher time policing Baghdad because of reduced troop levels.

He also dismissed the charge that he and other Democrats are arguing for an "abrupt" or "precipitous" withdrawal, countering that "nobody who understands the mechanics of pulling troops out safely" is calling for a lightning-fast process, and that a safe, orderly redeployment of troops and equipment would take about a year.

Allen conceded that the next step for withdrawal timeline supporters isn't clear. He speculated that the House might take up the Webb amendment, but acknowledged that the failure of Levin-Reed in the Senate means that progress toward a revamped Iraq policy has stalled for now.

On fighting for Maine's interests: "Susan Collins has supported the entire Bush economic agenda--she's voted for every tax cut. The result is less money in Maine for healthcare, environmental protection, headstart" and other programs. "When you give billions to the wealthiest, there's a lot less for domestic priorities."

Predicting that Democrats would hold or expand their congressional majorities, he argued that seniority--one of the reasons Collins has used to justify breaking her promise to serve only two terms--is less helpful for the state than having a senator who is a member of the majority party.

On the subject of Collins' pledge, Allen called Collins' newfound appreciation for the importance of seniority politically expedient but "not credible" given her decade of experience on Capitol Hill as a staffer for former Senator William Cohen.

On habeas corpus: "It is fundamental to a free society that if the government locks you up, you have the right to an attorney and a right to a hearing before a judicial officer. [Collins] disagrees...Civil rights issues are a major point of difference between us."

On Supreme Court vacancies: "I want very intelligent people, but also wise men and women--people who've had the right kind of life experience." He also cautioned against nominees "married to a particular ideology" and those with an expansive view of executive branch power.

On Justice Alito: "Alito had a record as an ideological partisan that stretched back for years. So it's no surprise that he's been a key vote in enhancing executive power" or that he's voted to uphold a ban on late term abortions and to make it harder to challenge workplace discrimination.

On Mukasey: Allen said he'd like to hear more about the President's nominee for Attorney General, and that his record "bears some close examination" given this story in yesterday's New York Times.

On Sen. Collins' perfect voting record: "Not important. I think there are seven people in the House this year who haven't missed a vote. If you have the kind of record I do, which is a 98 percent voting record over a decade, what's important is what you vote for, what you fight for, not the difference between 98[%] and 100[%]."

"If she missed the vote on the 2003 tax cut," Allen quipped,"the country would have been better off."

Moveon.org and the Petraeus Ad: "I don't think it was a wise ad," Allen told us. "I disagree with it." He later called it "over the top."

At the same time, he maintained that, "the people who attack Moveon.org attack it because of its politics" and that "there's nothing wrong with essentially small dollar contributions from large numbers of American citizens."

Allen distanced himself from the Senate resolution condemning the organization, asserting, "you won't see me criticizing a conservative group that raises money from conservative American citizens."

Watch This Space

As Atrios and others have noted, Sen. Collins said this in March:

"My vote against this rapid withdrawal does not mean that I support an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq," Collins said in a statement issued after the vote.

If Bush's strategy in Iraq does not show "significant results" by fall, "then Congress should consider all options including a redefinition of our mission and a gradual but significant withdrawal of our troops next year."

Well, it's now officially fall.

And Sen. Collins is still rejecting all legislative attempts to mandate the very "gradual but significant withdrawal" she promised she would consider.

Surprised? I'll confess that I am, at least a bit: A few months back, I was almost sure that Collins would have pivoted on Iraq by now.

Meanwhile, we're gearing up for a busy Monday here at Collins Watch: We hope to serve up some exciting content--and maybe even break a little news--in the next day or two.

So tune in early and often.

Still No Hits

According to Google, the word Bush is still nowhere to be found on SusanCollins.com.

Susan's Selective Memory

Over at Susan's blog the junior senator recaps what she calls a "busy week in Washington." And indeed it was.

And yet somehow, her 545 word post manages to skip both the failure of the Webb amendment and her unconscionable--and much-discussed--vote against restoring habeas corpus.

I wonder why she'd skip right over the week's two most important events...

WaPo: Collins Visibly Angry

Don't miss this juicy anecdote in today's Washington Post (via Turn Maine Blue) about the disconnect between Maine's senators.

Sen. Collins was apparently none too happy about having to stand alone in opposition to reinstalling the right of habeas corpus.

Snowe apparently did not inform her leadership of the switch, according to aides and senators familiar with the decision. Therefore, Collins never got the message, leaving her all alone.

Collins, who is facing a potentially tough reelection battle next fall against Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine), an antiwar liberal [sic], was visibly angry, according to eyewitnesses in the chamber's press gallery. She paced around the floor, confronting several members of the leadership.

So: Is this how she decides how to vote?

I mean, we're talking about a core modern legal principle for crying out loud, and Sen. Collins is worried about blending in with the crowd?

BDN Double Standard?

Yesterday, we commented at some length about BDN's decision to cloak objective, verifiable facts in the language of "he said/she said."

Specifically, Tom Groening's article on Sen. Collins' decision to break her two-term pledge seemed carefully constructed to avoid blurting out the obvious and undisputed truth that Collins is in the process of breaking a promise to voters.

Well today, BDN runs a story on Rep. Allen and Moveon.org--also by Tom Groening. And yet, would you believe that this time there's no hedging and no attribution to the opposing campaign?

This despite the fact that the Maine GOP has been pushing the Moveon.org narrative for some time.

So why is BDN reporting out attacks on Rep. Allen in neutral, objective language while portraying demonstrable facts about the junior senator as mere allegations?

Here at Collins Watch, we'd like to think that Groening took our commentary about the first article to heart, and changed his ways.

But somehow, I'm not convinced that's what's going on here.

Habeas Watch

I missed this, but Maine Democrats caught it: Yesterday, Sen. Collins voted against reinstalling habeas corpus, the ancient right to challenge one's detention in court.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) voted in favor of the habeas provision.

Reporting on The Pledge

Give the Bangor Daily News credit for paying attention, this early in the race, to Sen. Collins pledge to serve no more than two-terms. (We discussed the pledge here.)

That said, Tom Groening's reporting leaves a lot to be desired.

Start with the headline: "Democrats say Collins broke two-term pledge."

Well, did she or didn't she? Why the suspense?

Unfortunately, the article itself is similarly non-committal:

Sen. Collins, according to Democratic Party spokeswoman Carol Andrews, made the pledge to serve just two terms while running for the seat in 1996. Collins announced the two-term pledge on April 1, 1996, while signing a document supporting a constitutional amendment limiting terms for members of Congress.

While seeking re-election in 2002, Collins reaffirmed her pledge to serve two terms in a letter to a constituent, according to Andrews.

The Collins campaign does not deny she made the pledges.

(Emphasis added.)

So let's review. A Democratic spokeswoman makes a couple of charges. Sen. Collins doesn't deny them. But the reporter still thinks it's necessary to couch the information as "according to Democratic Party spokeswoman..."

Why not, y'know, do some actual reporting and find out whether the charges are true so that you can give readers the unmediated, straight scoop? (Hint: The fact that the Collins camp hasn't refuted them is telling.)

Look, BDN isn't the only journalistic organization guilty of this kind of lazy reporting. But when I read a newspaper, I don't want to just hear what some party hack said happened. I want to know what actually happened.

Especially in a situation like this, where verifying the facts is so easy.

The truth is, Sen. Collins, by running for a third term, has broken her pledge. Period. Full stop.

Enough with the hedging.

This Is Leadership?

Sen. Collins is nominally in favor of the Webb amendment.

And yet, when she's asked about its chances of passage, does she work to rally support for the measure? Does she use the opportunity to underscore the dangers of stretching our military too thin?

Of course not.

"Senator Warner’s voice carries a lot of weight with the caucus and I think his decision to oppose Senator Webb’s amendment may very well stem the tide of support," said Ms. Collins.

I think this speaks volumes.

They Write Op-Eds

Quoth Congressman Allen:

The young service men and women from Maine that I met...were sent to Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, and they did it swiftly and decisively. We need to end their mission, not re-label it.

Hoodwinking NPR

This isn't the first time NPR has given readers and listeners the mistaken impression that Sen. Collins supports a bill that would mandate a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Granted, the junior senator has worked hard to conceal that even now, she's unwilling to support legislation that would rein the President in.

But a national news organization like NPR shouldn't allow itself to get hoodwinked so easily.

Photographic Proof

Contrary to what you might think from looking at Sen. Collins' relaunched site, the junior senator and President Bush have in fact been in the same room at the same time.

(Unless one of these is a cardboard cut-out.)

Susan's Blog

Check it out.

Her whole website appears to have relaunched.

UPDATE: Lots of nice snapshots in the photo gallery. But I can't seem to find any of the junior senator with her good friend President George W. Bush.

In fact, a Google search of the site turns out nary a reference to our President.

Hmm...

The Funeral Police

I don't blame Congressman Allen's campaign for drawing attention to the dual roles played by two Collins aides. It's worth pushing the junior senator to explain the arrangement.

That said, I can't get too worked up about senate staffers working on their boss's campaign. To me, it seems inevitable in the age of the permanent campaign.

But Collins Chief of Staff (and campaign manager) Steve Abbott's reaction is something to behold:

Abbott countered that Allen, the six-term 1st Congressional District representative, is improperly sending his office staff to events in the 2nd Congressional District. Abbott suggested it was a way for Allen to increase his visibility in the 2nd District.

Abbott listed dates and events, including military funerals and business announcements from May through July, and the names of the Allen staffers who attended.

You read that right.

Abbott is calling Allen out because his staffers have been seen at the funerals of Maine soldiers who happened to live outside his district.

Now, call me old fashioned, but sending a staffer to the funeral of a local soldier sounds a lot like common courtesy--something the Collins camp has been making a fetish of lately.

And yet, there's Steve Abbott, not only disclosing that he's been tracking the movements of Allen staffers, but also that he thinks their presence at soldier funerals smacks of impropriety rather than, say, decency or respectfulness.

What was that about the importance of civility?

At the risk of stating the obvious, it behooves anyone in Congress or thinking of running to err on the side of maximum respect for American soldiers, and particularly the fallen.

Not because it's politically expedient. But because, ultimately, everyone in Congress bears some responsibility for the fate of those soldiers.

If Sen. Collins--and even Steve Abbott--had exercised that responsibility a bit more responsibly over the last few years, maybe we wouldn't be where we are today.

Collins Questions Petraeus

And Crocker. Not that she gets much of an answer.



Via TPMmuckraker.

Q & A

As The Left Coaster intimates, it will be interesting to see how Sen. Collins performs on Tuesday at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with Gen. David Petraeus.

Will she ask tough questions, pushing the general off of his talking points? Or will she stick to generalities and empty bromides?

Clearly, the hearing presents the junior senator a golden opportunity to demonstrate to constituents that she takes their concerns about our Iraq strategy seriously. And being tough on Petraeus costs her nothing.

But how best to mask her demonstrated unseriousness on the Iraq question? Among her options: She could draw attention to the fact that the surge has failed on its own terms; push Gen. Petraeus to clarify his comments about his America's long term presence in Iraq; or demand that he explain what "winning" in Iraq means and what it's likely to cost.

In any case, we'll be watching.

UPDATE: If Collins really wants to surprise us, she'll ask Petraeus about this.

Lynx Politics

John Richardson pens a long, nuanced piece for the Kennebec Journal about the shifting endangered species-status of the Canada lynx, and a meeting Maine's senators set up between an interior department deputy assistant secretary and timber company representatives, at which staffers for the senators were present.

Naturally, a PAC associated with the company has made contributions to both senators (as well as Rep. Allen and Rep. Michaud) over the years.

So: Was setting up the meeting a gift to special interests? An unremarkable example of constituent services? A favor to the governor?

Richardson doesn't offer any easy answers--he does a good job of following a complicated set of facts where they lead him. And I'd like to give his piece another read before floating any theories.

But it's fair to say his report provides more evidence, if any was needed, that the line between good government and backroom shenanigans isn't always as bright as some of us would like it to be.

In the meantime, Maine press: More thoughtful, well-researched political reporting like this, please?

Woodward Recuses Himself

From the Bangor Daily News:

Two editors at the Bangor Daily News with close ties to candidates vying for a U.S. Senate seat in the 2008 election have recused themselves from dealing with any aspect of the paper’s coverage of the campaign for the duration of the race.

Executive editor Mark Woodward and assignment editor Tim Allen took the action this week after conferring with fellow editors about apparent conflicts of interest the two have...

"Although my wife and I have only the same stake in the outcome of this election as any other Maine voters, and nothing more, the appearance of having a conflict can be damaging to the integrity and credibility of the newspaper," Woodward said. "Our newspaper's role in the campaign is to report the news, not be part of it. For Tim and me to step out of the news process in this campaign is only common sense."

Collins on Petraeus

Well, not Petraeus exactly. But the junior senator did talk to NPR about Iraq:

"I draw a distinction between a timeline and a deadline," Collins said. "I am for a timeline for changing our mission...What I've opposed is a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, a hard deadline that is unrelated to what is happening on the ground."

Fair enough.

At least she's fessing up to her unwillingness to rein in the President.

Incidentally, can someone tell me who these nefarious "precipitous withdrawal" advocates are? It's not at all clear--unless Collins and other Republicans think twelve months qualifies as "precipitous."

If they think that, I really wish they'd mention it to the American people.

Allen on Petraeus

He says:

The withdrawal of one brigade does not begin to do what needs to be done and is unacceptable. To get out of Iraq, we need to set a binding deadline for withdrawal. We must stop talking about if we bring our troops home but how and when.

Sen. Collins, your thoughts?

Craig Watch

Radio silence, still, from camp Collins on the Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) situation, which now seems likely to drag on quite a bit longer.

The junior senator has disowned a contribution from Craig's PAC--a conspicuous and rather extreme step. But she has yet to explain the move, or tell Mainers whether she wants Craig to resign.

Was That So Hard?

Judging from this article and this editorial, The Bangor Daily News seems to have arrived at a reasonable response to the conflict-of-interest that exists given Executive Editor Mark Woodward's ties to Sen. Collins.

Reading the two pieces, one learns:

--Woodward is not involved in formulating the paper's editorial positions.

--Woodward "has asked five newsroom editors to investigate the conflict-of-interest issue, and report on whether any changes are needed."

--Editorial page editor Todd Benoit believes that, "A newspaper has a responsibility to build in safeguards against conflicts, and one way it does this is to announce their potential. Another...is for editors to recuse themselves from covering certain stories to deflect even the potential of a potential conflict of interest.

So that's good to know.

It must be said that Benoit's column--which manages to sound haughty and defensive at the same time--knocks down a number of straw men and makes a number of dubious points on the way to basically the right conclusion. (Hint: "Our spouses have to work somewhere" isn't a terribly persuasive defense.)

So let's hope this isn't all just lip service.

But it's Labor Day Weekend--why nitpick? This is definitely a step in the right direction.

Saying No To Craig

Sen. Collins has apparently decided to return a $2500 contribution from the PAC run by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID).

The Boston Herald article doesn't explain her reasoning. But I'd sure be curious to know what it is, given that the junior senator hasn't had any reservations about taking $10,000 from the Northern Lights PAC operated by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).

You know, the Sen. Stevens who's currently under scrutiny in a public corruption probe.

Here's the paperwork for the PAC's $10,000 contribution to Collins, which was broken down into three separate donations.

The Stevens PAC last gave to Collins on March 14 of this year.

Collins: What Conflict?

Eric Kleefeld at Election Central has followed up on the Bangor Daily News conflict-of-interest story, and he adds new details:

Senator Collins' press secretary, Jen Burita, tells us us that a 2008 loss by Collins wouldn't actually affect Bridget Woodward's employment as a district caseworker for the Senator. "Bridget is going to be retiring in September," Burita said. Thus, there is no direct financial conflict of interest on the part of the Woodward couple.

And interestingly, Burita brought it to our attention that family connections run both ways at the Bangor Daily News. In fact, Congressman Allen's cousin Tim is the news editor there. Given the nature of small-state politics, Burita explained, there are bound to be people at any major newspaper who have personal connections to both camps.

Interesting.

Also worth noting is that, like Collins Watch, Kleefeld has been unable to get a comment from Bangor Daily News Executive Editor Mark Woodward himself.

It's worth noting because the issue here isn't, of course, the campaign's behavior. (Though Burita's response is pretty lame.) It's the newspaper's failure to make the kinds of disclosures that readers deserve.

So the fact that Congressman Allen has a cousin who works at the paper doesn't even things out. It just underscores the absence of transparency.

(Though, obviously, a candidate's cousin working as a section editor is very different from a former staffer working as editor-in-chief.)

The fact that Woodward is apparently unwilling even to discuss the subject suggests, at best, that he doesn't understand the seriousness of the issue. And it risks leaving the impression that he's got something to hide.

Abbott Is Busy

Another point about that PPH blog-themed piece: It's the first place where I've seen Steve Abbott identified as both "Collins' chief of staff" and "campaign manager."

Is this kosher? My hunch is that it must be, as long as he does all campaign-related work outside of the normal senate schedule.

But how unusual is it for a senator's chief of staff to do double-duty as campaign manager in a hotly-contested race? A year before election day?

If you know, drop us a line.

False and Balanced

The latest blog-themed piece in the Maine press--this one courtesy of Justin Ellis at the Portland Press Herald--is no worse than the other articles on the subject.

But Ellis and his editors are guilty of the same sin committed in previous reports: He creates a false balance that masks the truth. Here's his opening line:

A comment on Daily Kos says Maine's Republican Sen. Susan Collins wants another terrorist attack on American soil, while the Maine Web Report says Democratic Rep. Tom Allen is in bed with hateful left-wing extremists.

Seems like everyone's even, right?

In reality, of course, it's silly to juxtapose an anonymous comment on a giant community site with the considered commentary of the Collins campaign's official internet strategist.

But that's what Ellis does in his first paragraph.

Upon close scrutiny of the article, it becomes apparent that Ellis and his editors know that it's a false balance--and even that they want their readers to know this.

But they've decided to cloak the truth in the neutral-seeming, on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand reporting style that's so popular in political reporting these days. And so Ellis' real take on the situation is only apparent if you give the piece an especially close read.

On a related note, I'd like to make a point I'm surprised hasn't been made elsewhere: It's pretty obvious, now, that Dutson is working, with the Collins camp's approval, to make this election about the supporters of the candidates rather than the candidates positions on the issues.

It will be interesting to see whether, and to what extent, the Allen camp engages him on that level. But my hunch is that they'll be smart enough not to take the bait.

More Woodward

No word back from Bangor Daily News Executive Editor Mark Woodward about his ties to Sen. Collins.

(Also, no mention of Woodward's ties in today's BDN article about the Maine senate race--which focuses on, of all things, the role of the blogs!)

In any event, this old press release from the University of Maine would seem to confirm Woodward's history as a D.C.-based Collins staffer.

Woodward and Woodward

Yesterday, we learned that Bridget Woodward--wife of Bangor Daily News Executive Editor Mark Woodward--is (or recently was) on the staff of Sen. Collins.

But further sleuthing here at Collins Watch has raised a question of equal, if not greater interest: Was Woodward himself Sen. Collins' press secretary in the mid-1990s?

Apparently so, according to an old column posted on the website of one-time Maine senate candidate Jean Hay Bright.

I have no reason to doubt Bright, but I've left a message on Woodward's voice mail, in an effort to confirm the details.

So, what role does Woodward have in formulating BDN's pro-Collins editorial stances? What, if any, disclosure does the paper provide readers about his past work for the junior senator? About his wife's current role in Collins' office?

If we hear back, we'll let you know.

They Get Letters

Charles Picard writes to the Kennebec Journal:

Maine has proven that we can be a leader several times. We do not need to "track" our political opponents simply because other states do it. We are better than that, at least I thought we were. Let us once again lead the nation and ban "tracking."

And while we're at it, maybe we could ban all those pesky journalists from the campaign trail, too?

All In The Family

I had no idea that the wife of Mark Woodward--executive editor of the tracking-averse Bangor Daily News--happens to be, of all things, an aide to Sen. Collins.

Small world.

For corroboration of the Daily Kos report, see this article, and this staff listing.

On the fly, it's difficult to determine whether Woodward is still on the Collins payroll. But we'll see what we can find out.

Quote of The Day

Somehow on Saturday I missed this letter from University of Maine political science professor Amy Fried, published in the Bangor Daily News:

Filming should demonstrate respect for personal space and time, but I find it baffling that a newspaper, protected under the Constitution because of its critical role in informing citizens, would object to a campaign filming a public official in public and claim that it "does not reflect Maine values."

(Via Daily Kos.)

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.

The Blog Wars

I confess that I find it all a bit tedious. But I'd be remiss if I didn't direction your attention to the ongoing proxy war between liberal bloggers and Lance Dutson of the Collins camp over anonymous blog comments, name-calling and (to a lesser extent) tracking.

There are a lot of people who would like this election to be about something other than the junior senator's record--and the record of her opponent. I'm not one of them.

Maine Papers: Recording Collins Unfair

In today's editions, both the error-prone Portland Press Herald and the Bangor Daily News chastise those dastardly, mean Democrats for the unsavory, sneaky and downright despicable tactic of...recording Sen. Collins in public.

In explaining the practice of tracking, the PPH editorial notes:

It is meant to capture the opposing candidate off-guard, saying something that he or she probably wouldn't blurt out if given time to think.

Shocking but true: Maine Democrats want to take Collins' unscripted, public comments and, y'know, hold her accountable for them! As part of a political campaign!

What will they think of next? Buying time on television and then running advertisements that point out their candidate's strengths and Collins' weaknesses? Because that would really be over the line.

In all seriousness, these editorials--while ridiculous and out-of-touch--are also a bit disturbing.

Here we have two news gathering organizations telling readers that the unscripted public comments of their elected officials aren't fair game in a political campaign.

Whether these papers are willing to condemn tracking-type activities by their own reporters is an open (and interesting) question.

But what is clear is that both papers have contempt for political activists who want to sift out the tired, canned rhetoric to find out what elected officials are really saying and thinking. Even if they pursue the truth politely and at a safe distance--and only at public events.

The contempt both papers have for this kind of activism is palpable. And it's not very flattering.

More On Tracking

As Maine Democrats notes, Sen. Collins hasn't exactly been a privacy rights absolutist.

So it is a bit rich of her camp to take such umbrage at the videotaping of her public appearances.

And one more point: The only political campaign I ever worked on--way back in 1994--used tracking. And I'm pretty sure our guy was followed around as well.

So the notion that this is a new practice--and, implicitly, that it represents some sort of "escalation"--is just plain wrong.

Tracking The Trackers

When I saw this headline--"Collins says 'tracker' got in her face"--I figured some overzealous Allen campaign operative had crossed the line, invading the junior senator's personal space during a public event.

But when you read the article, it quickly becomes clear that nothing anywhere near objectionable occurred.

Because (shame, Press Herald) the article doesn't deliver what its headline promises: There isn't any allegation that anyone "got in [Collins'] face."

All that's alleged, by Collins' Chief of Staff Steve Abbott, is that the very presence of a video tracker "demean[s] the political process" and that the Democratic party tracker got "too close" to Collins when she was talking to constituents.

Abbott never defines "too close"--but, tellingly, elsewhere he criticizes the tracker for standing "five feet away." The tracker maintains that he stayed out of Collins' personal space.

Look, I'm sympathetic to the notion that pols deserve not privacy in public, but a freedom from the kind of close-range hectoring that can border on harassment. (I'm not a fan of trying to shout down politicians during speeches, for example.)

But this isn't that. What we're talking about, instead, is the documenting of a public event.

The Collins camp is free to try to spin the very act of recording her discussions with voters as some kind of invasion. And I can understand why the junior senator might not want her public comments recorded.

But that doesn't mean her political opponents should go along with her attempt to keep Mainers in the dark about her thinking on the most pressing issues of the day.

UPDATE: Over at Maine Web Report, Collins operative Lance Dutson goes to hilarious lengths to try to make the Democratic party tracker's behavior seem ominous. But the proof is in the photo Dutson runs, which shows the tracker a good, safe distance from the junior senator.

Take a peek—-if only for the humor value.

Let me be clear: If bands of radical left, foul-mouthed, extremist hatemongers start stalking the junior senator--in public or private--I'll be sure to call them out. But at least for the moment, Dutson's paranoia isn't warranted.

PH Gets It Right

I've been critical of the Portland Pres Herald more than once.

So it's worth giving the paper credit for the strong piece it ran on Friday, which generated a good deal of blog interest: Reporter John Cheves drew attention to the gap between Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-ME) views on Iraq and those of Sen. Collins.

What distinguished the article--and made it illuminating--was Cheves' willingness to cut through the spin to focus on the key distinction between Snowe's and Collins' views: That only one of the senators supports a deadline for troop withdrawal. (Hint: It's not Sen. Collins.)

But I'd like to make another observation.

Namely, I've been struck by how little we've heard from the junior senator on Iraq lately.

Even as she's held fast to a view rejected by her constituents and Maine's senior senator, she's made virtually no effort to lay out her assessment of the Iraq landscape, no effort to enumerate the principles that are guiding her decision-making, etc.

There've been no extended televised interviews that I'm aware of; no constituent letters or opinion articles; and the only town hall-style Q & A I've heard about seems to have been straight out of Karl Rove's playbook.

So, why has Collins been as close to silent on Iraq as she can get away with without being seen as ducking the issue?

Well, there are a couple of reasons.

First, speaking up hasn't been a great strategy as of late for the junior senator.

Remember this quote about Sen. Joe Biden's plan (D-DE) to devolve power in Iraq from the federal government to local officials?

"It’s essentially giving federal approval to ethnic cleansing," Collins said. "On the other hand, nothing seems to be working."

So it pays to keep your mouth shut when the alternative is offering up statements like that one.

But there is, of course, another reason to stay quiet: The less she says now, the more wiggle room it preserves for later.

And I suspect this is the key reason Collins has had so little to say about Iraq.

But if that's the case--if Senator Collins is willing to sit on the sidelines of a roiling national debate as Americans and Iraqis die because it advances her political interests--her crass calculation is yet another reason that she should be bounced out of office next November.

Free Money

Jim Cyr, a Republican, has an offer:

10 bucks to anyone who can explain how someone serves as John McCain’s campaign co-chair, and claims to have deep philosophical kinship with Joe Lieberman, yet, on what’s our most vital national issue by far, can stubbornly peddle a position diametrically opposed to the one held by [them].

The explanation, of course, is that while Sen. Collins has "peddled" an anti-surge position, she hasn't lifted a finger to effect a change in policy.

So, yes, she's abandoned Sen. McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Lieberman (CFL-CT). But only rhetorically.

Devils, Details, Etc.

Apparently, Sen. Collins now backs "binding legislation that would order Bush to restrict the mission of U.S. troops to counterterrorism, training Iraqis and protecting U.S. assets."

It depends on the details, but it sounds like this at least might be step in the right direction for the junior senator.

That said, President Bush has demonstrated repeatedly that he's working with a very expansive definition of "counterterrorism." So mark me down me as far from convinced that this counts as progress.

Allen: Collins Will Pivot on Iraq

Via Senate Guru, we learn that MyDD has an interview with Rep. Allen.

And it's a douzy.

Among the choice tidbits:

Jonathan Singer: With Susan Collins being such a moderate and being right down the middle and being so popular, how do you have the audacity to go up against her?

Tom Allen: Well, because it isn't true. The story just isn't true. I explain to people up in Maine that Susan and Olympia have had very soft press coverage for the last decade. I just run through my differences with her, with Susan.

Basically she's been for the President's policy in Iraq from the beginning. She voted for the war. I voted against it. I've been a steady critic trying to change the policy for four and a half years.

She voted for every single one of the President's tax cuts for the rich, including the '03 tax cut, which Olympia did not vote for. She voted for the energy bill, which moved $14 billion to oil companies. [She voted] for the Medicare Part D, which moved tens of billions in excess profits to pharma.

She voted for the military commissions bill, the torture bill and Sam Alito. Doesn't sound like someone who's independent or moderate or down the middle to me.

And:

Allen: An election year conversion after almost five years of war is going to help me more than her. Because it indicates once again that she is essentially admitting that she is wrong. I've already told many people in Maine, including the press, that she will change her position.

I know I'm right on that. She's going to change her position. She's going to be for a deadline at some point in the fall after General Petraeus makes this report, whatever that report is. And we just portray it for what it is. It's a political calculation on her part that frankly doesn't change her record.

The "Pretty Please, Mr. President" Act of 2007

Nowhere in Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-NE) Bangor Daily News column does he defend, explore or even mention the fact that the legislation he's proposed with Sen. Collins amounts to a series of waivable recommendations--that the bill has been crafted to give the President wide latitude to ignore its provisions.

It's hard to understand why a senior Democratic pol would pen an op-Ed to give political cover to a member of the opposition party. But since Nelson was going to all the trouble, he could at least have made sure that the final result was something other than an exercise in disingenuousness.

Missed opportunity, I guess.

Seriousness Watch

Via Congress Daily:

House and Senate lawmakers and their aides will continue behind-the-scenes negotiations this week on legislation implementing unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, after failing to wrap up work last week...

Another wrinkle to completing the legislation emerged late last week because conferees approved an amendment to the bill that would require the Homeland Security Department to ensure, within five years, that most cargo is scanned before it is shipped to the United States. The amendment only makes an exception for shipments of cargo and equipment for the U.S. military.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ranking member Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she would not sign a final conference report if the provision remains, indicating that she will try this week to alter or delete the cargo-scanning language from the bill.

Hmm.

What does Sen. Collins have against cargo scanning? Anyone?

Is the idea that the war in Iraq has made us so much safer that defensive measures to protect the homeland aren't even necessary?

Muddle Watch

The Collins camp's efforts at obfuscation are bearing fruit: Maine's Channel 8 News mislabelled the junior senator as an Iraq timeline supporter on this morning's telecast.

A retraction is allegedly forthcoming.

The "Partisanship" Pander

Kevin Wack has an illuminating article in the Portland Press Herald about the junior senator's predicament on Iraq.

A key passage:

When Sen. Susan Collins rose to address the Capitol chamber shortly after 11 p.m. Tuesday, she urged her Senate colleagues to find a middle ground between President Bush's Iraq policy and a Democratic-sponsored plan for withdrawal.

"We have got to put aside such a fractious political approach to such a grave crisis," the Maine Republican said. "We need to work together in a bipartisan way."

Such conciliatory rhetoric has served Collins well in the past...But today's polarizing war debate--along with President Bush's unpopularity and Collins' upcoming campaign against Democratic Rep. Tom Allen--is testing the limits of the approach's effectiveness...

"The problem for Collins is that most voters tend to see this issue in black and white," said Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report in Washington. "And she's trying to highlight the shades of gray. And so that is problematic."

A couple of points are in order.

First, the notion that partisanship is at the core of our Iraq problem--or has anything to do with our Iraq problem--is dead wrong. And frankly, it's obscene.

The mess in Iraq was caused by incompetence, arrogance, stubbornness and poor judgment. Any discussion that doesn't start with this premise isn't worth having, because it isn't based in reality.

Further, the idea that there exists some middle-of-the-road, bipartisan consensus that would go anywhere near solving our Iraq problem is laughable.

Because we're not talking about reforming social security here. We're not talking about tweaking the tax rates.

We're talking about a major shift in our defense policy and, more broadly, foreign policy--and in an area of the world where we face serious problems and bad options.

In a nutshell: Some people fervently believe we can still "win" in Iraq--whatever that means. Others believe, just as passionately, that we've become part of the problem in the country.

Now, if there exists a bipartisan middle ground between these views, I wish Sen. Collins would tell us what it is.

Which leads to a second, related issue.

I think Jennifer Duffy is right when she says, "The problem for Collins is that most voters tend to see this issue in black and white."

But I'd put it a bit differently.

The problem isn't that voters see the issue in black and white. The problem, for Collins, is that the issue is black and white--at least in one important sense--and that voters have recognized this, despite the junior senator's efforts at obfuscation.

Which is to say: Either you think the President should have a more or less free hand in formulating Iraq policy or you believe he needs to be reined in.

Most voters believe the latter. What Sen. Collins believes is anyone's guess.

But what she wants us to think she believes (at least for the moment) is that there exists some gray area between forcing the President's hand and leaving him alone to do as he chooses.

It's an absurd position--and the fruit of an almost transparent, finger-in-the-wind political calculation.

And ultimately, I don't think it will wash.

The Senior Senator

Bill Nemitz doesn't break any new ground in his Friday column, but he touches on an issue that's been puzzling me:

Snowe, Hagel and Smith broke ranks for an obvious reason: They plan to support the Levin-Reed plan if it ever comes up for an actual vote.

Not so for Collins...

It's but one example of the widening gap between Collins and Snowe--who's not running for anything in 2008--on how best to proceed in Iraq.

Snowe, in her floor speech Tuesday evening, could not have been clearer: "We can no longer afford to place American servicemen and women in harm's way to instill a peace that the Iraqis seem unwilling to seek for themselves."

And Collins? Not so clear...

Collins has co-authored a proposal with Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

That measure "would immediately require the President to change the mission of our troops away from combat and toward counter-terrorism operations, border security, and training Iraqi forces," Collins said in her news release.

What it wouldn't do...is set a hard date by which the president must complete said change. The plan's March 30 date for "redeployment," Collins spokesman Kevin Kelley said, is more "a goal" than a hard deadline.

Here's the thing.

When I first began to focus on Collins and the 2008 race, I had no idea when she'd pivot on Iraq. But I figured she would be one of the first Republican senators to get behind a plan that would force the President's hand.

And yet, here we are, approaching August--with a slew of Republicans ready to rein in the President, and two weeks ago after a Collins reversal seemed imminent--and the junior senator still hasn't managed to cut the cord.

Even when fellow "moderate" Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) has given her all the political cover in the world to make that very move.

There are only two possible explanations: Either Collins is so fearful of crossing the Bush administration that she's basically frozen up, or--more frightening--she truly believes that the President should have a free hand when it comes to Iraq policy.

Both alternatives are chilling, admittedly. But one of them, or some combination, must be the truth.

Mislede

The Portland Press Herald muddies the waters again.

The headline? "Collins sides with Democrats on war vote."

The substance (four paragraphs down)? "She opposes the [Democratic] legislation...[Collins spokesman Kevin] Kelley said.

It's understandable that the Collins camp would want to obfuscate their candidate's position on Iraq. But does the Press Herald have to play along?

Habeas Shmabeas?

Firedoglake lists Sen. Collins as on-the-fence on habeas restoration.

So where exactly is the junior senator on the issue? And why is it that we so often have to wait till the last minute to find out how Collins will vote on the most pressing matters facing the Senate?

(Hint: If you answered, "because of her decisive nature and commitment to principle," then you haven't been paying close enough attention for the last eleven years.)

The Fog of Logic

The Portland Press Herald runs a confused and confusing editorial that expresses these three sentiments:

1. "There's no question that what we're doing now [in Iraq] is failing."

2. "The president seems unwilling to change course."

3. "The need to get the Bush administration to reverse course is clear."

And yet--here's the kicker--the editorial is largely sympathetic to the junior senator's refusal to support any legislative attempts to force the President's hand.

I know these things are often written by committee. But if anyone can square that circle, I'd like to know.

Collins Wants Bush's Help

Via The Politico:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) hesitated. She abandoned her thought mid-sentence and sighed.

It was the question: Would she accept assistance from President Bush for her 2008 reelection campaign?

"Oh, jeez," Collins said. "I don't anticipate ... well, who knows? I really haven't focused on that, but my general view is, anyone who legally wants to help raise money ..."

(Emphasis added.)

In short, Collins' opinion about a Bush fundraiser in Maine?

Bring it on.

(An aside: Does the junior senator really want to go on the record expressing her willingness to accept fundraising help from literally anyone who can legally raise funds? Because my hunch is that David Duke is probably available.)

To be serious for a moment, I think her refusal to cut the cord with Bush--in spite of all her recent tsk-tsking--reveals more about her true attitudes toward the man than her campaign might have liked.

Department of Huh?

From Sen. Collins' op-Ed in The Boston Globe--co-authored by none other than Sen. Joe Lieberman (CFL-CT)--touting her work on the homeland security front:

Another important provision for inclusion in the final bill would encourage the general public to report suspicious activity.

Glad they're focusing on the really difficult stuff...

CapeDem has more.

They Write Editorials

Yesterday's Portland Press Herald, in an editorial on Iraq policy, offers a succinct summary of the current landscape:

For Snowe and Collins, the choices remain difficult.

Surely, they want to be supportive of a Republican president, and they don't want to alienate conservatives who believe pulling out of Iraq would be tantamount to surrender. But just as surely, they feel pulled in the other direction by the truth.

Collins Q2

Via My Two Sense we learn that Sen. Collins raised $1.26 million during the second quarter.

(That's more than Rep. Allen's $1.1 million total--but not much more.)

On the Air

The DSCC launches a new Collins ad, slated to run in Portland and Bangor.



Wouldn't call it elegant, exactly. But it does get the point across.

Thoughts?

It's Too Late

When you look at Sen. Collins' recent public comments, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that she's getting ready to pivot on Iraq.

It could take several weeks--although I wouldn't be surprised if it happened within days. But sooner than later, it seems likely that the junior senator will get behind a congressional measure that seeks to force a change in Iraq policy.

And those of us who've been calling for just such an about-face need to think about how to greet a Collins reversal.

Naturally, the first thing to say is that it would be welcome: Any effort to dislodge the current Iraq policy will be difficult, and those of us urging change need all the votes we can get.

But that, of course, isn't the whole story. It's not even half of the story.

Because the fact is that Sen. Collins' conversion, when it comes, will represent the opposite of leadership.

Instead of speaking up in 2004, 2005 or 2006, Collins will have waited until scores of her Republican colleagues have stated the obvious: That our Iraq policy is broken; that change is desperately needed, even if it needs to be forced down the President's throat.

And so instead of acknowledging these stark truths back when it might have saved lives, Collins has timed her conversion to blend into the woodwork.

Instead of risking something by getting out in front on the most important issue of the last several years, the junior senator has waited to crawl out of the President's pocket until the overwhelming risk was in not distancing herself.

As we said just over a month ago:

At a certain point, the weight of the evidence that the Bush administration was fundamentally dysfunctional...became overpowering.

And at that point, those supporting him on Iraq were no longer just guilty of wishful thinking. They were enabling--and participating in--a political, economic, diplomatic, humanitarian and human catastrophe of staggering proportions.

That was the time for people of good will to stand up...

That was when giving the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt became an act of political malpractice. And that was when senators and house members who failed to use their public platforms--and their votes--to confront the administration became guilty of moral cowardice.

Maine's junior senator is on the wrong side of those divides. When the stakes were high, when the crisis arrived, she failed the test.

Sen. Collins may be rethinking her position--and that's welcome news.

But it's too late to undo the damage that she and her silent colleagues caused over the last four years.

Way too late.

UPDATE: Looks like the pivoting has already begun.

The key thing to keep an eye on, in the coming weeks, is whether Collins is willing to show any flexibility.

Or is her amendment designed to fail, and to allow her to continue to stand with the President in opposition to those mean, partisan Democrats?

Allen Q2

Rep. Allen raised roughly $1.1 million in the second quarter, according to his campaign, from 9000 contributions averaging $122.

Obviously, it will be interesting to see how the junior senator's numbers stack up.

The Opposite of Leadership

As Senate Guru notes, Sen. Collins has penned a column for today's Lewiston Sun Journal on the subject of Iraq.

(Hmm. And no time for even a soundbite about the Libby commutation?)

Her take-away message?

At this point, Congress should consider all options.

And:

The time for partisan politics to determine the direction of our policy in Iraq is long over.

If Collins is more interested in forcing a change in policy than she is in skirting the tough questions via empty bromides--and by playing the tired "partisanship" card--she sure has a funny way of showing it.

Silence on Libby?

By July 3, Rep. Tom Allen had publicly condemned the Libby commutation, telling the Associated Press:

The words engraved over the door to the Supreme Court read 'Equal Justice Under Law.' The president's action yesterday amends that to 'unless you're Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.'

But five days later, I'm still unable to find a statement about Libby from the junior senator. (Anyone else find one?)

At a certain, one has to assume she doesn't have a problem with it.

Collins Comes Alive

Her 2008 campaign website is up.

The Education of Sen. Collins

First: Welcome, Daily Kos readers! And thanks to MissLaura for the link.

Senate Guru has an excellent post up at Turn Maine Blue detailing the junior senator's about-face on the importance of the Iraq issue to Maine voters.

But I would add the following point: Even as Collins escalates (slightly) her rhetoric on Iraq--bemoaning the failures of the current policy, expressing concern about the lack of progress, etc.--there's still no evidence that she's willing to act on these misgivings.

The question we must continue to ask is not whether Sen. Collins is capable of stringing together a few moderate-sounding, sensible-seeming sentences. It's whether she's willing to cast the kind of votes that will force a change in policy.

Quote of the Month

Many of you probably caught this while we were away. But in case it didn't make as big a stir as it should have, here's Sen. Collins, via Hot Air, talking to the Los Angeles Times about Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) plan to decentralize Iraq's government:

"It’s essentially giving federal approval to ethnic cleansing," Collins said. "On the other hand, nothing seems to be working."

Then again, this is what passes for serious foreign policy analysis in George W. Bush's America.

Brief Thoughts

The word "Iraq" cannot be found in Sen. Collins' eNewsletter dated June 22, 2007.

Will Iraq make the cut next time? We'll be watching.

Get Out of Jail Free

Where does Sen. Collins stand on the Libby commutation?

Just asking.

An Inconvenient Truth

It's good to be back. And it'll take us a while to get caught up.

But for starters, here's a piece from Wired News that caught our eye:

Much of this apparatus, including the recently revealed NSA eavesdropping and phone record-mining programs, has no oversight...

Senators have abdicated their Constitutional duty to provide checks and balances on the executive branch...

Today, Senator Susan Collins, a moderate [sic] Republican with a fairly strong privacy record, met with Gen. Michael Hayden, the former head of the NSA who has been nominated to lead the CIA.

The best Collins could muster after her meeting with the man who ran a program the Administration says Congress has no right to oversee was that she was "pleased he was nominated," but "the administration must be more forthright with Congress about these programs so we can exercise our oversight responsibilities. These surveillance programs should also be subject to the confines of law to ensure oversight and judicial review."

(Emphasis added.)

These programs "should" be subject to the law? Ya think?

I'm all for careful, measured discussion, but we're not talking about a scuffle over the highway bill here. We're talking about an out-of-control administration hellbent on breaking the law--and in a way that violates the fundamental rights of Americans.

And yet Senator Collins is basically asking the administration to stop acting like a dictatorship, pretty please.

Would it be so hard for the junior senator to muster up some stronger language? Would it be a such a stretch for her to convey the impression that she views executive branch lawbreaking as a deeply serious problem, and not a mere inconvenience?