Bangor By Dawn

We've been complaining for some time now about Sen. Collins' lack of engagement with adult Mainers, and about the absence of citizen forums on her schedule: As far as we can tell, it's been more than a year--and possibly much longer--since she's stood before Maine voters, taking questions in a free, public forum.

(All the while, she regularly finds time to address middle school audiences.)

Well, hold onto your hat: It looks like the junior senator is now ready to meet the masses. Or at least those who make it to the Bangor Public Library on May 19 at 7:30am.

A rare opportunity at an odd hour: We've put in an e-mail to event's sponsor--Bangor Foreign Policy Forum--asking about the timing, and seeking to confirm that the junior senator will indeed answer questions.

(Worth noting, though, that several of the events on the organization's calendar start at that hour.)

What questions would you ask Sen. Collins?

HRC Endorses Collins

No, not Hillary Rodham Clinton:

The Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered citizens, announced on Monday that it will support 10 senators for re-election, including Senator Susan Collins.

[...]

Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, said that Collins has been supportive of issues important to gay and lesbian voters, including support of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. The bill, which passed the House last year, would ban discrimination against gay and lesbian employees in the workplace.

This isn't surprising, but it's still frustrating.

To her credit, Sen. Collins does have a solid record on gay and lesbian issues. It's one of a (very) few areas where her rhetoric about bucking the GOP holds up to reality.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this is an area where the junior senator and Rep. Allen have nearly identical positions and vote profiles. (Though I haven't done the research to confirm this.)

But here's the thing: In a closely divided country with a closely divided Senate, a vote for Sen. Collins is a vote for Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for Majority Leader. And advancing the cause of gay rights isn't exactly high on his agenda.

Come to think of it, it's not on his agenda at all.

So if you're a one-issue voter interested in protecting and defending the rights of gays and lesbians, it's a no brainer: You vote for Rep. Allen, who has essentially the same views as Collins but will support a Democratic leadership team much more receptive to the concerns of gays and lesbians.

There are a number of (understandable) agendas at work in Human Rights Campaign's decision to back Collins--the desire to reward good behavior, respect for the power of incumbency, an interest in positioning itself as an organization whose appeal transcends partisan divisions, etc.

But voters face a much simpler calculation.

Fourth And Goal

The KJ runs a pro-Collins letter from Elizabeth St. Laurent--the fourth Collins-boosting letter the paper has run from St. Laurent over the last twelve months.

I was torn about whether the letter was even worth flagging. But notice how it slips in the pro-Collins language as if it were an afterthought; as if it were an incidental point, rather than the letter's entire purpose for being.

Of course, there's no way for me to know what's in St.Laurent's head. But as far as I can tell, these four letters--all heaping praise on the junior senator--are the only four she's had published in the KJ over the last year.

So you tell me.

BDN Falls For It

As if on cue, the Bangor Daily News applauds Sen. Collins for sponsoring legislation--to the best of my knowledge, as yet unwritten--which would require the government of Iraq to take on some reconstruction and fuel costs.

Forget the fact that the entire US outlay for Iraq reconstruction represents less than two percent of what we will soon have spent in that country. Forget the fact that we burn through an equivalent amount of money every fifty days at the occupation's current force strength.

Still, the junior senator is spinning this as an important policy change.

Look: There's nothing wrong with having Iraq pay for our fuel. I'm all for it.

But it would be a tiny drop in an enormous bucket; an almost purely symbolic effort that sidesteps the central issue.

To wit: If Sen. Collins was really interested in grappling with the Iraq war's ever-rising financial toll, she would abandon her support for an indefinite occupation; she'd write legislation forcing the President to reduce our commitment there; and at a bare minimum, she'd prod her good friend Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to hold daily hearings on corruption in Iraq war contracting.

Of course, she's done none of these things.

So, please, let's see this new proposal for what it is: A lawmaker, caught on the wrong side of history and her constituents, scrambling for political cover.

It's that simple.

$1.4 Billion

Last week, the Maine Democratic party put out a press release alleging a total Iraq war cost to Maine taxpayers of $1.4 billion.

It's a number I hadn't seen before. And I'm always suspicious about statistics that purport to break down government costs, especially when they come from partisan sources: Crunching budget numbers requires making assumptions, and so there's ample opportunity for manipulation.

But after looking into how the release's figure was calculated, I have to say it seems solid: The National Priorities Project arrived at it by tallying up Maine's actual share of tax dollars sent to the federal government (including income tax, gift tax, estate tax, etc.) and multiplying that share by the amount of money already allocated for Iraq war spending.

So the $1.4 billion number doesn't include the fiscal 2008 funding request, or any future allocations. It doesn't include Afghanistan spending, the Veterans Affairs budget, or any other add-ons. And it's based on Maine's actual share of federal tax receipts rather than an estimated figure.

In other words, it's an extremely conservative figure, one that understates the ultimate cost Mainers will bear--since at least some future Iraq spending is inevitable. And since the war carries so many hidden costs.

But Will He Apologize?

Over the weekend, the Kennebec Journal ran a letter from Maine GOP Chairman Mark Ellis explaining why pols who miss even a tiny fraction of votes are cheating their constituents.

Ellis, you'll remember, is the guy who stepped in it last fall, snarling via press release that, "Congressman Allen really seems to have lost interest in showing up to work" after Allen missed three votes for what turned out to have been a family funeral.

As far as I know, Ellis still hasn't apologized for the release's language, or retracted the charge. Instead, he clings to the fatuous, kooky idea that this race should be as much about Sen. Collins' perfect attendance as about issues and substance.

(Interestingly, though, the text of the original press release, which Collins staffer Lance Duston excerpted approvingly at Maine Web Report at the time, can longer be found in that blog's archives. At least I can't find it.)

Finally one positive worth noting: The KJ includes Ellis' GOP affiliation in the letter's signature. So I suppose that counts as progress.

UPDATE: For what it's worth, a cached version of Collins staffer Lance Dutson's above-referenced blog post can seen here.

Attack Video Gone

Not sure when it disappeared, but the incendiary video at Sen. Collins' out-of-state fundraising site is no longer live.

Was it pulled because of the press scrutiny? Did Sen. Collins get cold feet? Or was it merely a bandwith issue?

It's not clear.

Before the internet, this kind of vicious, misleading smear would be ancient history by election day. But in a world where information is always only seconds away, it will live on.

The upshot is that, come fall, Sen. Collins will have a tough time arguing that she's been running a positive campaign all along. And she'll get pushback if she gets on her high horse about negative attacks from Rep. Allen, should he decide to go that route.

You can still watch the original video here.

Pope Skips Dinner

Appears that Sen. Collins' dinner with the Pope didn't actually materialize.

(BDN is now characterizing the plan for the dinner as having been a rumor. But on Monday, the paper presented it as fact. Just saying.)

Collins Q1: $963,000

From Political Extra:

[Sen. Collins] raised $963,260, bringing her total to $5.52 million. She has $4.51 million in cash-on-hand.

Collins has opened up a sizable cash-on-hand lead over Rep. Allen.

Still, as we've noted in the past, both candidates are going to have more than enough money to compete. (Of course, it's always better to have more cash than less.)

UPDATE: As Eric Kleefeld at Election Central notes, this is already the most expensive Senate campaign in Maine history.

And it's just getting started.

UPDATE UPDATE I've corrected the post's title which originally referred (incorrectly) to Q4.

Allen Q1: $700,000+

From the Allen camp:

Congressman Tom Allen has raised more than $3.7 million for his U.S. Senate campaign.

"Individuals responding to Tom Allen's message of changing the direction of this country...contributed the overwhelming majority of our first quarter receipts, which totaled more than $700,000," said Carol Andrews, communications director.

The cash on hand total at the end of the quarter was almost $2.7 million. Allen's campaign received 2,654 contributions with an average gift of about $250. The most common contribution was $100.

That's slightly down from the $813,000 he raised in Q4.

Collins to Dine With Pope

It will be the first visit papal visit to Washington since 1979:

"I'd much rather meet the pope than a movie star," the senator said. "It's inspiring. It helps deepen my faith. It makes me feel humble and unworthy that I have this opportunity when many people don't have the opportunity."

Fish, Barrel, Etc.

Republican Ryan Lorrain wants you to know that Sen. Collins "has never failed to represent Maine in the 3,764 opportunities she has had to do so."

But apparently, he doesn't want to broadcast too loudly that he's running for a seat in the Maine House of Representatives this year. And the Google-averse editors at the Morning Sentinel don't feel the need to let readers know about Lorrain's affiliation either.

(Incidentally, I think Lorrain and I have different ideas about what it means to "represent Maine" in congressional votes.)

Free Collins Watch subscription to anyone who can point to three pro-Collins letters published in Maine papers over the last six months that weren't written by members of the Maine Republican party apparatus.

They Issue Statements

On last week's testimony from Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker:

The Iraqi government has still, more than five years after combat operations began, demonstrated neither the will nor the capacity to sufficiently enact and implement the measures necessary for national reconciliation--and therefore, it’s long past time for us to redeploy and transition our forces to a change of mission...

As long as [the Iraqi government] assume[s] the long-term protection of the United States will be in place, they have no incentive to address the root cause of the sectarian violence.

--Eli Pariser, political director of Moveon.org

Oh, wait. I'm sorry: That wasn't Pariser. It was Maine's (Republican) senior senator, Olympia Snowe.

Of course, she's missed a handful of votes over the years, so her opinion may not be worth much.

Who Pays

Today's Blethen article on the Petraeus hearings also references the reconstruction funding issue, and a question Sen. Collins addressed to Ambassador Crocker on that subject:

"Isn't it time for the Iraqis to start bearing more of those expenses, particularly in light of a windfall of revenue due to the high price of oil?" Collins asked.

[...]

In 2003, Collins and several others pressed President Bush to require Iraq to pay back a portion of $20 billion in reconstruction funding. Bush showed his displeasure when he met with Collins at the White House, according to news accounts at the time.

Let's set the record straight here before the Collins folks spin this into a fairy tale.

As far as I can tell, the U.S. has provided no new reconstruction funding to Iraq since the original $20 billion grant. So Collins is talking about having the Iraqis pay back some percentage of $20 billion.

If you've been following the war at all, you know that $20 billion barely amounts to a drop in the bucket: The war and occupation will cost the American taxpayer well over $1 trillion. So getting the Iraqis to pay back some fraction of two percent of our costs won't make much of a dent.

Let's be clear: The notion that the costs of our Iraq adventure are ever going to be recouped is just plain wrong.

The money is gone, we're not getting it back, and the people who supported and enabled the war are to blame.

The Ambiguous Case

This headline--Collins ambiguous on Iraq issues--and the lede that follows speak volumes:

Maine Sen. Susan Collins carved a middle path during Tuesday's Capitol Hill hearing on the war in Iraq, neither criticizing nor praising last year's troop surge and offering no opinion on its success or failure.

Striking, isn't it?

On the most important issue of our time, six years into a debacle of world-historical proportions that she helped set in motion, it's not at all clear where Sen. Collins stands.

Sure, we know what she's against--withdrawal deadlines and redeployment timelines. And, yes, she supports a toothless bill that slaps a new name on the mission without forcing any change in policy.

But is there any binding legislation that she does support?

We know what Rep. Allen thinks:

The only way to change direction in Iraq is for Congress to set a firm, responsible deadline for bringing our brave men and women home. I will continue to vote against funding for the war that does not include a clear and responsible end to our involvement in Iraq’s ongoing religious civil war.

We know what Sen. Snowe thinks:

It's long past time for us to redeploy and transition our forces to a change of mission.

But Collins has tried to split the distance, rhetorically, between occupation critics (like Snowe and Allen) and the war's supporters--all the while rejecting any plan that would in any way tie the hands of President Bush.

This inert, muddled approach may be politically astude given the Maine media's preference for empty centrism over clarity and sound policy. But it ain't exactly leadership.

UPDATE: Collins is twisting in the wind on the Colombia trade bill, too. (And check out the wildly misleading headline.)

BDN Snoozes Again

Gerald takes BDN to task for lazy coverage. I'd add just two points.

First, reporter Bill Trotter allows the Collins camp to maintain, unchallenged, that Allen is "more than 20 percent behind in the polls." Given that the only non-partisan poll in months says otherwise, this is inexcusable.

Second, Trotter states that, "Allen also indirectly touched upon the issue of his ties to MoveOn.org," but never elaborates or explains. Unless you count Allen's discussion of Gen. Petraeus and his work in Iraq as fitting Trotter's description. But that's a huge stretch. It's a Six-Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon kind of stretch.

The impression that's left is that Trotter was intent on including a dig at Moveon.org in his piece, and that the mere mention of Petraeus gave him an excuse to do so.

Rasmussen Data

Lots of fascinating data in the new Rasmussen poll on the Collins-Allen contest. Here are a few nuggets we found particularly salient:

--Collins is ahead 20% among males but only 13% with women.

--She has support from 27% of registered Democrats. Relatedly--and perplexingly--she scores 32% preference among self-described liberals. (Expect both of these numbers to fall as the election approaches.)

--Collins wins all age groups, but Allen is closest (-4%) with voters under 30.

--If Allen is to have any shot of winning, he will need to improve his standing with voters earning under 20K (-6%) and voters earning 20K-40K (-13%).

--Allen leads decisively (+22%) among voters who think Iraq is the most important issue.

--By contrast, Collins leads by an even larger margin (29%) among voters who think the economy is most important. This is another area where Allen needs to improve for the race to tighten.

--Collins does just about equally well with supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).

New Independent Poll

Election Advantage spots a new, independent Allen-Collins poll just out from Rasmussen, a reputable outfit: Collins +16%.

That number makes more sense to me than the margin in last week's Republican survey. And as Election Advantage notes, it shows Collins with the smallest lead she's had all cycle.

In fact, if you skip the Republican result and look only at non-partisan data, it quickly becomes clear that over the last six months, poll by poll, Allen has slowly whittled down Collins' lead--from 23% back in October down to the current margin of 16%.

Allen clearly has a ways to go. But with seven months till election day, a 16 point lead certainly doesn't seem insurmountable.

Presidential Poll

You can bet that this Maine presidential preference poll from Rasmussen got the attention of everyone at Collins HQ:

John McCain (R) 39%
Barack Obama (D) 49%

I, for one, am surprised by these numbers.

To be sure, Maine is a blue state. But Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is a known quantity, basking in the glow of a decade of positive press coverage.

On the other hand, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)--the probable Democratic nominee--is still new to national politics. He's excited a lot of people, bringing a staggering number of new, young voters into the process. But he still hasn't finished introducing himself to the state and the nation.

Granted, I'm no prognosticator. But it seems to me that his lead over McCain is more likely to grow than diminish as Mainers get to know him.

So: What effect would an Obama landslide victory in Maine--and a wide enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats--have on the Allen-Collins race?

It's a question you can be sure the junior senator's team is considering.

Case in Point

This article from the Sanford News is a case study in how the junior senator typically interacts with local constituents when she hits town:

Collins spent Friday taking a swing through southern Maine. Before arriving at the Sanford News office, she toured Whatman on Community Drive in South Sanford. Earlier in the day, she toured the Terra Cotta Pasta Company in Kittery and visited an elementary school and attended a Chamber of Commerce luncheon in York.

To recap: An editorial board meeting; a tour through a couple of companies; a school visit; and lunch with business folks.

Nothing wrong with any of that. But left out of the equation, of course, is direct contact with unvetted groups of adult Mainers.

Question: Why does Collins seem so averse to mixing it up with average Mainers? Why does her itinerary so often include a chat with school kids and a private meeting with business leaders, but virtually never a forum with her voting constituents?

More Real ID

Crisis averted.

Interestingly, Sen. Collins seems to blame Maine law for the stand-off, whereas, Rep. Allen puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Not sure if that difference of opinion has political legs--or who it advantages--but it is worth noting.

New (Republican) Poll

Political Extra tells us that Republican polling outfit McLaughlin & Associates has a new poll out--the first in many months--with Sen. Collins up 23 points on Rep. Allen.

I've never heard of the company. And the poll has a relatively high 5% margin of error. So make of it what you will.

But it's safe to say that the junior senator is still in the lead in this race.

Real ID

We've refrained from discussing Sen. Collins' role in the Real ID stand-off because we've had trouble making sense of her role.

Is she carrying water for the Bush administration, as the Maine Civil Liberties Union seems to think? Or is she using her access to the Bushies to make the best case to the Feds on behalf of Maine?

We're going to keep an open mind until we see strong evidence one way or the other.

Talking With Voters

Rep. Allen is holding a conversation with Mainers in Waterville next Monday night. It's open to the public.

As I've remarked previously, Sen. Collins seems to find plenty of time to talk to middle schoolers. But I can't remember the last time she took questions from actual Maine voters in an open forum.

Free Collins Watch subscription to anyone who can prove Collins has held a free Q & A, open to the public, for Maine adults within the last year.

They Write Editorials

The Kennebec Journal, refreshingly sane:

Attendance records are properly the province of teachers and school administrators, not politicians. But Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has turned her unbroken attendance streak at Senate votes into a blunt instrument against her challenger, Maine Democratic Rep. Tom Allen...

On the stump, Collins has charged that Allen has missed 145 votes during his more than 11 years in Congress. "That tells you something in terms of commitment," said Collins at a Lewiston Republican Party dinner recently.

No, it doesn't.

[...]

While Collins' attendance record is an accomplishment, it's a big stretch to propose that it should provide a significant basis for evaluation of her record...

Attendance at votes speaks nothing about the substance of those votes. And in the end, what Maine voters should focus on in this race and others are not diversionary tactics, but where candidates have stood and now stand on significant issues such as the economy, health care and the war in Iraq.

Wants

Sen. Collins wants new tax incentives for energy-saving homeowners, even though she's never adequately explained how we can afford the current slate of President Bush's tax cuts for the mega-rich. (Which she supported.)

She says she wants to reduce dramatically our military presence in Iraq, even though she's opposed every attempt in the Senate to achieve such a reduction.

Look: I want to end global warming and usher in an era of sustainable living. But if I fly to Spain every weekend, drive a gas guzzler to work and protest a new wind farm because it may harm my sea view--at a certain point, you have to question the seriousness of my commitment.

When someone refuses, year after year, to act on her professed desires, it's a signal. It doesn't mean the person is lying. But it does mean that these "wants" should be seen as something more akin to "aspirations" than concrete, binding pledges.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with aspirations. But a legislators power is the power to act: To hold hearings, to craft legislation, to vote.

So let's all try to filter out the lofty, gauzy rhetoric. Legislators need to be judged on the basis of what they do, and what they commit to doing.

More on Attendance

As Gerald notes notes, Jonathan Kaplan at PPH is also on the perfect attendance beat.

Why all the attention to this issue right now? Anyone? Good thing there isn't a war on.

To Kaplan's credit, he at least makes it clear that Allen has a stellar attendance record. And he finds space to lampoon Collins' kooky obsession with the issue:

Remember the student in high school who won an award at graduation because she never missed a day? That child has grown up, and her name is Sen. Susan Collins.

"Yes," he seems to be saying, "this is a profoundly stupid discussion, not worthy of adults." (And then the article goes on for another 977 words.)

I do have one quibble with Kaplan's formulation: In truth, a perfect attendance award seems like the stuff of a middle school graduation rather than a high school ceremony.

At least in my experience, by the time high school rolled around, principals and teachers were all too ready to concede that perfect attendance was less important than what you did in class; that the smartest kid in school wasn't necessarily the one who never missed a quiz.

And when it came to high school elections, bragging about an unbroken attendance streak would have been a surefire way to get laughed at--and not much of a strategy for winning votes. Even ninth graders know that never being absent isn't much of a leadership credential.

My hunch is that Mainers--with or without the help of the Maine media--will come to similar conclusions.

UPDATE: A request: Can reporters please stop referring to Collins' never-been-absent streak as her "voting record"? A voting record is a list of votes one has cast.

Maybe it's time to start to looking at a few of those votes?

The Peculiar Press

I don't understand why an article like this gets written: Without any fresh news peg, it resurrects a stale, feeble argument from the Collins camp about the tiny percentage of votes Rep. Allen has missed over the course of his eleven year career in the House.

Moreover, the reporter clearly knows it's a vapid attack line--the writer casts a Rutgers political scientist in the role of The Voice of Reason, allowing the professor ample opportunity to dismiss the charge as nonsense.

But then why write the article in the first place? Why indulge--and give voice to--such a silly argument when it hasn't been made publicly in a month?

Incidentally, if Sen. Collins thinks family commitments and public service are incompatible, she should say so. If she thinks missing a vote on a post office naming ought to be of more concern to Mainers than her enabling of the worst foreign policy disaster of our life times, she should explain why.

At the same time, she ought to explain how she squares this view with her continued support for a presidential candidate who's missed more than half the votes this congressional term.

A Team Player

In the Morning Sentinel, Republican Mayor of Waterville Paul LePage makes the case for Sen. Collins' re-election, trotting out a number of specious claims that are nonetheless part of the conventional wisdom about the junior senator.

Or at least, they used to be:

For the past 12 years, Sen. Susan Collins has amassed a voting record second to none...

She is not timid in challenging her party leadership, while maintaining the single-minded purpose of prioritizing the needs of the people of the state of Maine. She remains reliably in the mainstream...

She will buck leadership when it comes to representing her constituents...

It's an awfully gauzy appraisal, striking for its vagueness: LePage references not a single vote in defense of his claims.

But for the benefit of readers new to the conversation, here's a sampling of the junior senator's stances, which put the lie to LePage's argument:

Collins voted yes on the Iraq war.

She supports an indefinite, taxpayer-funded occupation of that country.

She voted yes on all three of President Bush's irresponsible, budget-busting tax cuts.

She voted yes on Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.

She supports letting phone companies off the hook, retroactively, for illegal wiretapping.

She voted yes on the suspension of habeas corpus.

I could go on.

But in short, this is not the record of a someone "challenging her party leadership." And it's certainly not "mainstream" in the context of Maine values.

Rather, it's the record of a Bush enabler, a water carrier for Karl Rove and former Sen. Rick Santorum's definition of a quintessential Republican "team player."

Even More Bowen

Gerald makes a nice catch: National Journal essentially confirms what we already suspected--that the Iraq Reconstruction IG's partisan political junket to Maine was orchestrated by Sen. Collins.

Five Years

If Sen. Collins is planning to commemorate the anniversary in any particular way, I'm not aware of it. (The most recent post on her blog is a meditation on the Can-Am dog sled race.)

Rep. Allen has reaction from Mainers here.

Bowen: Not Enough Oversight

Iraq Special Inspector Stuart Bowen didn't just discuss his Maine junket yesterday before Congress. He also admitted, after some prodding, that between 2003 and 2006, "There wasn't enough [Iraq] oversight in general in that period of time." [Correction: See below.]

Bowen was responding to a question from Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) about the paucity of hearings on Iraq contracting by the Governmental Affairs Committee--specifically, Sen. Collins' record of holding only a single hearing with a single witness during that timeframe.

In the video, Bowen first hems and haws. But then he goes out of his way to amend his hedged remarks, interrupting Lautenberg with the categorical statement above.

So here we have another close ally of Sen. Collins--a man who was willing to violate executive branch protocol to support her re-election--essentially admitting that Collins dropped the ball on Iraq oversight.

Collins can continue to make the case that she was just too busy to pursue the Iraq issue. She can continue to portray the interest in Iraq oversight by Lautenberg and others as partisan politics.

But those arguments are getting weaker by the day.

CORRECTION: Reader EO points out that I've mistaken former General Accountability Office head David Walker for Bowen. (I seem to have gotten my balding, middle aged white guys confused.)

It's notable that the leader of the independent, non-partisan GAO dismissed Collins' position on Iraq oversight during his testimony. But my main point--that there had been slippage in the Collins camp on the oversight question--was clearly mistaken.

Collins Watch regrets the error.

Bowen On The Hill

On January 3, we wondered aloud about the propriety of Iraq Special Inspector Stuart Bowen's junket through Maine with Sen. Collins.

And within a couple of weeks, the Washington Post took notice, characterizing an anonymous senior State Department official as "puzzled" by Bowen's willingness, as a executive branch employee, to intervene in a political campaign. The official added, "This is the kind of thing we're taught not to do."

Well, the issue has now reached the Senate: Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asked Bowen about the trip yesterday at a hearing. You can watch it here.

And as the Portland Press Herald reveals, Bowen's answers seem to have been not completely in line with the facts.

More in a bit.

Really, People

This morning, the Blethen papers run an Allen-bashing missive from Kim Pettengill of Albion.

The chance that this is not former Secretary of Maine Republican Party Kim Pettengill--the one who was a 2006 Snowe for Senate County Chair--seems remote.

If the editors at these papers think astroturf is a problem--or even an issue--they sure have a funny way of showing it.

And consider: Virtually every pro-Collins letter to the editor published over the last several months in Maine papers has been written by someone connected to the leadership of the Maine Republican party.

Does this says anything about the depth of support for Sen. Collins?

Sharp Contrasts

Kudos to Jonathan Kaplan for wading into the legislative muck and penning this report on Sen. Collins and Rep. Allen for the Blethen papers.

I've chided Kaplan from time to time. But this particular article represents a rare example--at least, thus far--of Maine campaign coverage relying on careful research rather than "he said/she said" stenography or spin.

The piece looks back at the congressional careers of the candidates, focusing on the nitty gritty. The verdict?

What the legislative records show is that both candidates have exhibited sharp differences in the policies they support and contrasting views of how government should work.

Again, that's the verdict. But the journalistic case for it is built at length, and it's well worth reading.

Fans of both Collins and Allen will find things in the article that speak to the strengths of each candidate.

But I think Kaplan is right to frame his report the way he does: These are two people with very different ideologies, different visions of the scope of the problems Congress faces, and contrasting views of how to solve those problems.

So the notion that personality and temperament are the only things at stake in this election is ludicrous.

If nothing else, I hope this article takes that argument off the table.

Brief Hiatus

Barring any stunning revelations, we'll be taking off the next four or five days. Of course, if history holds, news will break just when we're furthest from the computer.

But I hope not.

Have a great weekend.

KJ Does It Again

It's been more than two months since the Kennebec Journal published a pro-Collins letter with a glaringly-incomplete writer attribution.

So I guess we should have expected this letter from Penny Morrell in today's paper.

Is this the same Penny Morrell who's sat on the Maine Republican Platform Committee, the Kennebec County Republican Committee and served as chair of the Belgrade Republican Town Committee? You wouldn't know it from reading the letter.

Let me reiterate: There's nothing wrong with Maine Republican officials cooking up letters to the editor as a way to frame the election debate. And there's nothing wrong with Maine papers printing those letters.

But would it be so difficult for KJ editors to spend a couple of seconds on Google? Would it be such an imposition for them to let Mainers know when a letter has been penned by someone who's part of the state Republican party apparatus?

Maine Papers

Remember the faux "tracking" scandal? When supporters of Sen. Collins got hot and bothered because the junior senator was videotaped...from a safe distance...at public events?

More than a year before election day, Maine newspapers ran no fewer than ten stories about it. I count four articles in the Bangor Daily News alone.

But Collins jumps the shark with a vicious attack linking her opponent to unpatriotic thugs (and rich Jews)--and what happens? It takes three weeks for any coverage in the local papers.

And as far as I can tell, BDN and Portland Press Herald--two of the state's biggest papers--have still not run a single word about it.

What's that about?

Smear Watch

Ugh. The only thing I would add is that this is exactly the kind of mistake the spot is designed to cultivate.

Indeed, the whole point of juxtaposing Allen with flag-burners is to lump the congressman together with them.

Make no mistake: The video is a guilt-by-association hit job constructed to impugn Rep. Allen's character. Anyone who suggests otherwise isn't being candid.

They Write Editorials

From the Kennebec Journal:

Politics is a rough business.

That was amply demonstrated this past month when Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins' campaign produced a particularly pungent video for use in fund raising against her Democratic challenger, Rep. Tom Allen.

[...]

It features unflattering and downright provocative images of what the campaign calls Move on.com's [sic] "extreme allies," including a flag burning and an image of anti-war demonstrators holding aloft a banner that says, "We support our troops when they shoot their officers."

[...]

This is a hotly contested campaign, with huge stakes given the close divide in the Senate. Strong partisan appeals, with all their potential for ugliness, will likely be a constant part of the next eight months of this campaign. Anyone who expects the Collins-Allen race to be a polite tea party is out of touch with reality.

That said, we're bothered by one aspect of the video affair. Collins' Maine campaign manager, Steve Abbott, told Blethen Maine News reporter Jonathan Kaplan that Collins had not seen the video until after it had run.

[...]

But in an interview with an editorial board member of this newspaper, Abbott said, "It's not like she didn't know that we were doing it." Indeed.

It's a rare politician who leaves even the details to campaign surrogates, let alone the substance of campaign appeals. Abbott's explanation of Collins' lack of involvement in the video then took a strange twist: Had the appeal been to Mainers, he said, Collins would have been much more involved in it. But this was an appeal to out-of-state contributors whose primary focus was on Moveon.org, not the actual candidates, so she didn't review its final form.

That's one of the most peculiar forms of constituent service we've ever heard of.

Collins can't have it both ways.

The materials produced by a candidate's campaign to drum up support are a reflection of the candidate. Especially when the message is this edgy and powerful, it's incumbent on a candidate to take responsibility for it--yet Collins herself has remained silent about the video.

The fundraising video is strong stuff. There's no legal requirement for the senator to have vetted the video before it went out, but neither the senator nor her campaign should be hiding behind those legalities.

We have nothing against the video--it's the lack of accountability by the senator that's the problem.

Kudos to the KJ for (finally) taking up the issue.

Credit them for rejecting the junior senator's ridiculous attempt to distance herself from the attack, and for questioning Abbott's contorted logic.

That said, I'd take issue with the KJ's characterization of the video's tone and substance as unexceptional. In truth, the spot is a vicious smear, featuring the kind of incendiary images you'd expect only from a fringe candidate.

Let's not forget: Sen. Collins loves to present herself as a moderate who prizes comity and consensus above all else. The video demonstrates clearly and succinctly that it's all a posture and a sham.

Better Late

After three weeks of near-silence, credit Jonathan Kaplan for being the first member of the Maine press corps to delve into the Collins fundraising smear story.

Kaplan's even-handed write-up includes some news: That the video was sent by the Collins camp to "potential out-of-state contributors" (my emphasis); and that the Collins camp alleges that "Collins did not see the video, which her staff composed, until after it ran."

Both bits of information suggest that Sen. Collins understands how radioactive the spot is, even as she embraces the ugly, Rovian tactics that the video epitomizes.

We also learn from Collins flack Steve Abbott that the video "isn't intended to inform people about...Congressman Allen." But I'd be surprised if Abbott was able to keep a straight face while saying that.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't examine the George Soros wrinkle of the attack, which I wondered about here.

And Kaplan does repeat one serious error, describing Collins as having, "stopped short of embracing a full withdrawal [from Iraq]." That's like saying the Patriots stopped short of embracing full victory at the Superbowl.

But overall, Kaplan does a good job of letting Mainers know about the giant dose of attack-dog negativity that Collins has injected into the race. And that's far more than anyone else in the Maine media has done.

Much Ado?

Yesterday, I debunked the Collins camp's claim that an investigation of Iraq war spending was sought only by a single partisan Democrat. And I questioned their assertion that Collins had more important things to deal with.

But that second point--that Collins was busy tackling more important issues--is open to two different interpretations.

I took the Collins campaign to be arguing that the junior senator was so busy pursuing important oversight projects that she just couldn't find time to squeeze in a look at Iraq war spending.

But the other possibility (and perhaps a more natural reading of the remarks) is that Collins' schedule had nothing to do with it--she simply didn't see anything about Iraq war spending worth investigating.

After all, as Gerald notes, she still isn't calling for hearings.

But surely, below-standard kevlar helmets could bear a little more scrutiny. Surely, the pricing formula behind Halliburton's $45 cans of soda is ripe for a bit more probing.

And certainly, the Senate ought to be exploring why, even now, equipment contractors that repeatedly flunk inspections get rewarded with new business from the government.

Apparently, Collins disagrees. But I'd sure like to hear her explain why.

Walking, Chewing Gum, Etc.

As we just noted, Collins flack Steve Abbott opined yesterday to PolitickerME.com that, when it came to investigating Iraq war contracting, Collins simply had more important things to do:

Steve Abbott, campaign manager for Collins, said in the three years Lautenberg pushed the issue, the committee dealt with reports from the 9-11 commission and the Hurricane Katrina hearings. They oversaw mergers involving 22 federal agencies--the biggest reorganization in modern history. They dealt with intelligence reform.

But let's unpack this.

As we've seen, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) was already agitating for hearings by September, 2003.

Now, the 9/11 Commission Report wasn't published until July, 2004. And Katrina didn't even hit until August, 2005 . (More on Collins' incomplete, Bush-friendly Katrina investigation here.)

That leaves "mergers involving 22 agencies"--presumably, the creation and integration of the Department of Homeland Security--and "intelligence reform."

But from the beginning of the Iraq war till the day Lieberman and Lautenberg penned their letter, I count zero hearings on intelligence reform and only six related to launching the Department of Homeland Security.

So holding a mere six hearings left Collins too busy to look at Iraq spending? What on earth is Abbott talking about?

In fact, those six hearings left plenty of time for the junior senator to conduct a thorough investigation of Iraq war contracting.

How do I know?

Because Collins found time, during that period, to probe Great Lakes Restoration Management and tissue banks, among more than a dozen other subjects.

And in the months that followed, she investigated everything from the cost of the census to the Defense Department's premium airline tickets.

I'm not saying those hearings were frivolous: They may have been issues well worth pursuing.

But clearly, Collins can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Bottom line: The junior senator had every opportunity to probe Iraq war contracting. But she chose not to.

Not Gonna Cut It

Less than a month ago, Sen. Collins' story about her refusal to investigate the Bush administration's dangerously corrupt procurement practices was that she didn't want to duplicate work being done elsewhere.

But now she's singing a new tune.

According to the Collins camp, the uproar for hearings--the kerfuffle over her scandalously lax approach to oversight of the Bush administration--should now be seen as a charade cooked up by a single overzealous Democrat:

Staff for Susan Collins said today that the efforts [to get a hearing] were a politically charged one-man crusade, and the committee had more important issues to deal with...

"All this stuff was going on, and a single Senator from New Jersey wanted us to drop all the other things and hold a hearing about one thing going on in Iraq," Abbott said.

Lautenberg sent Collins nine written requests for the hearing. Abbott said they were all publicity stunts...

"It was all political," Abbott said.

Well, then.

Sometime soon, I'd like to examine Abbott's stunning observation that Collins "had more important issues to deal with." But for the moment, let's focus on the charge that Lautenberg was pushing a narrow, political agenda with a constituency of one.

This would be a great argument for Collins--if no historical record existed. But unfortunately for her, there's a paper trail. From September 23, 2003:

Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Senator Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., Tuesday sought Committee hearings on the limited or no bid contracts awarded for the reconstruction of Iraq.

In a letter to Committee Chairman Susan Collins, R-Me., Lieberman and Lautenberg noted that a secretive, non-competitive bidding process raises concerns about "favoritism and collusion" while an open process results in substantial cost savings for the taxpayer. In particular, the senators wrote, Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation, formerly led by Vice President Cheney, has received more than $2 billion for its work in Iraq, much of that from an oil infrastructure repair contract awarded through a no bid process. The cost of that contract has been spiraling upwards over the last few months, increasing by $300 million in just one week, according to news accounts.

"With these hearings," Lieberman and Lautenberg wrote, "we would hope to examine the details surrounding these secretive contracting procedures, and explore what additional safeguards are needed to restore the public’s confidence in the integrity of our procurement system." (Emphasis added.)

And as Jessica Alaimo notes in her piece at PolitickerME.com, five other senators also signed on with Lautenberg.

But Lieberman's involvement, in particular, speaks volumes: It shows that even one of Collins' closest allies was so upset with her stubborn unwillingness to probe the Iraq war contracting mess that he went public with his concerns.

As we've pointed out before, back in 2003 plenty of people were aghast about the no-bid deals and worried about their impact on our war effort.

But--ever the Republican "team player--Collins stood down, even after Lieberman prodded her to act. As Iraq came apart, she sat on her hands.

We'll all be paying the price for years.

UPDATE: Senate Guru has more, along the same lines, here.

Blog Blog Blog

I'd be remiss not to highlight PPH's primer on Maine political blogs, published over the weekend.

Collins Wants McCain in Maine

Via Politico.com:

Collins, who endorsed McCain for the Maine caucuses, says his willingness to buck the GOP establishment could appeal to undecided voters in a state Bush lost by 9 points in 2004.

"I'd be glad to have him campaign for me," Collins said.

Maybe they'll call it the Hundred Year War Tour?

The Remix

Just when I thought it was safe to take a couple of days off, Gerald catches Sen. Collins removing the offensive, over-the-top Allen smear video from her attack site standuptomoveon.org.

Some time over the weekend--I forget exactly when--I followed Gerald's link and saw what he saw: A fundraising solicitation without the inflammatory video, but otherwise similar to the original version.

In his post, Gerald seems to have been operating under the (reasonable) assumption that after sleeping on it, the Collins camp thought better of the gutter tactics employed in the spot, and pulled the video for that reason.

Alas, Gerald was wrong. How do I know? The video is back up.

But is it the same video?

I wondered, and so watched it several times in tandem with the original. And there is, indeed, a clear difference.

So: Did the Collins camp think better of including an unexplained snapshot of George Soros--a transparent pander to fringe paranoids and anti-Semites? Afraid not.

Did they reconsider the ugly, incendiary and unconscionably tasteless tactic of implying a link between Rep. Allen and people rooting for the death of American troops. Unfortunately, no.

No, instead--in a move that appears to be a response to a criticism I raised here--they reworked the text of the video to remove a demonstrable falsehood.

In the original video, one line of text about Moveon.org reads: "That's more than they've given to any other candidate."

But, as I pointed out, Moveon has given far more money to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) than they have to Rep. Allen. So the new video reads: "According to the latest FEC reports, that's more than they've given to any other candidate." (Emphasis mine.)

Look, it's wonderful to know that people inside the Collins camp are careful readers of this blog.

But it's sad and disappointing to find out that, even in the context of a decision to rethink a fundraising pitch, Collins' team remains comfortable deploying a hateful and wildly misleading message designed to stroke the most radical, reactionary elements of the Republican party.

It speaks volumes about the lengths the junior senator is willing to go to win this thing.

Diana Allen Diagnosis

From the Allen campaign:

Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Tom Allen and his wife, Diana, today issued the following joint statement concerning her recent diagnosis of breast cancer:

"In recent days a routine mammogram detected breast cancer in what doctors have described as a very small malignancy believed at this point to be in its early stages. We will not know the entire story until surgery yields more information, but we are very optimistic that Diana will fully recover.

[...]

"In the meantime, our campaign for the U.S. Senate will continue and remain vigorous. Diana feels well and we are partners in this campaign as in our lives together...

Dr. Melinda R. Molin of Portland's Mercy Hospital and Breast Care Specialists, said that while further tests and surgery will provide more conclusive information, Diana Allen is in good health.

"This growth was detected on a mammogram and is much too small to even be felt," Dr. Molin said. "At this point Diana is in excellent health. Everything we are seeing suggests this cancer is in very early stages...We are all positive because everything now suggests an excellent prognosis."

All Quiet

Gerald critiques an NPR story about the Collins camp's recent Allen smear.

Maybe more coverage is coming, but I've been surprised by how little attention Collins' hit job is getting in the Maine media--given how over-the-top the spot is.

One wonders: If the Allen team went ahead and designed a fundraising pitch linking Collins to David Duke and Southern Partisan magazine, would the reaction be similarly muted?

Just asking.

A Thin Slice

BDN runs a disappointing campaign update that paints a picture of Sen. Collins and Rep. Allen as virtually indistinguishable on economic issues.

He criticized the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the health care system, saying their lobbyists exert too much control over Medicare. He decried tax breaks for the oil industry at the same time that they are having record profits and many Mainers are having trouble paying their heating bills.

When he mentioned the Iraq war, he partly cast it in an economic light by leveling criticism at the Bush administration for wasting "billions" of dollars on the conflict and running up the national debt.

[...]

During a recent telephone interview, however, Collins expressed support for many of the same economic ideas espoused by Allen.

Yes, Collins has a long history of opposing the corporate agenda.

Except for, y'know, her votes in the Senate

To be clear, the article doesn't contain any blatant untruths. But this kind of context-free, surface-gloss reporting is one of the main problems with political journalism today.

And it plays right into the hands of the Collins camp.

Because instead of testing Collins' rhetoric against her legislative record--instead of doing the difficult (though not that difficult), boring work of sifting through votes and speeches, reporter Bill Trotter essentially takes the junior senator at her word.

That leaves Collins free to cast herself as a champion of the very causes she's opposed in the Senate chamber--to pose as an ally of Allen when she's really been a foe.

And so it's no wonder when, later in the piece, Trotter notes that, "Mainers often rely on a candidate’s likeability when they cast their votes."

Maybe if the Maine media did a better job of holding politicians accountable for not just their words but their deeds, that wouldn't be the case.

The Passion Primary

Sen. Collins' decision to cozy up to the GOP's passionate, if paranoid, fringe makes more sense in the context of the "massive" turnout for the Maine Democratic caucus on Sunday: Her team must feel enormous pressure to do something to close the enthusiasm gap.

After all, 46,000 voters participated yesterday, nearly three times the Democratic party's 2004 total.

That's a stunning number, and one that signals Rep. Allen will have a reservoir of energy to tap not just on election day, but in the months leading up to November.

Collins Goes Negative

Make that very negative, very early.

The attack site--which Collins certainly approved personally--contains a number of falsehoods and distortions. For example, the video and accompanying text both claim, incorrectly, that Rep. Allen has received far more money from Moveon.org fundraising than has Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). The numbers shown are either invented or out of date.

But let's look past that for a moment.

My question is, What exactly is George Soros doing in Collins' video?

Not exactly a household name to begin with, the ad doesn't bother to identify Soros. Yet--and in a way that feels gratuitous--the video seems to go out of its way to include a snapshot of him.

Why?

Surely, this isn't dog whistle politics directed toward the paranoid wing of the Republican party. Right?

Surely, this isn't a coded appeal to conspiracy theorists on the GOP fringe who see a world full of scheming Jews conspiring to keep them down. Is it?

This Jew, for one, isn't amused. (Anyone in the press care to ask Collins endorser Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for his take?)

Yes, I get it: The site is meant to be inflammatory--it's a hit job designed both to leverage radical right rage for fundraising and to distract voters, staving off a frank discussion of the junior senator's disastrous term in office.

But the Soros reference--and the inclusion of the obscene "we support our troops" poster--cross a line. And it's a line, incidentally, I wouldn't have expected Collins to cross even in October.

Let's be clear: This kind of ugly, Coulter-style smear has no place in our political discourse, let alone from a pol who poses as a champion of bipartisanship.

I hope Sen. Collins thinks carefully about the wisdom of embracing this kind of hard-right, slash-and-burn approach.

Inaction Matters

Gerald has a superb post up at TMB detailing the upshot of Sen. Collins' lack of Iraq contracting oversight.

As chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee, the junior senator dropped the ball. Period. She should admit it, apologize and move on.

PPH Lends A Hand

When we first encountered PPH reporter Jonathan Kaplan in December, he was passing on Republican talking points as if they were facts. A more recent effort was more encouraging

But now he appears to be back to his old tricks.

In yesterday's piece, on Sen. Collins' Moveon.org-related attack on Rep. Allen, Kaplan makes a number of dubious assertions.

First: "Allen raised $365,000 from MoveOn.org." This is both false and misleading.

The strange thing is, Kaplan seems to know this: Lower down in the article, he clarifies, making it clear he understands that the money wasn't "from" Moveon.org, and that the contributions instead came from individual citizens--who weren't necessarily even Moveon.org members.

So why, in the article's third paragraph, does he parrot the Collins camp's factually-challenged spin that Allen received a giant cash infusion directly from Moveon?

Second: "Allen has called for an immediate and safe withdrawal of troops. Collins has called on President Bush to change the mission of U.S. troops, but she has stopped short of demanding a complete withdrawal." Again, incomplete and misleading.

Allen has called for beginning a withdrawal immediately. But Kaplan's construction leaves open the interpretation that Allen wants all troops out within a week.

And while Kaplan is right that Collins has called for a change of mission, she hasn't demanded any sort of withdrawal, let alone a complete one: She has never voted for a plan which would force Bush's hand in Iraq. And in fact, while she nominally "opposed" the surge, I haven't heard any complaints from her about our current troop strength in Iraq.

In short, there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that Collins has a problem with keeping 100,000 American troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future. But Kaplan's characterization leaves the opposite impression.

So again, we have two more sets of assertions which play into Collins' hands--glossing over her almost total deference to Bush while describing Allen's view in a way that makes him sound at least potentially reckless.

Credit Kaplan for observing that Moveon, "has become an organization despised by conservatives because of its ability to quickly organize and raise money on behalf of Democratic causes and candidates" and that, "this is not the first time Collins has tried to use MoveOn.org to gain political advantage."

But these useful bits of context do not excuse the article's misrepresentations.

On Offense

Sen. Collins is, of course, entitled to attack Rep. Allen for accepting donations from participants in a Moveon.org fundraising effort.

But does it really make sense for the junior senator to focus attention on campaign cash?

After all, according to the most recent data, Sen. Collins has generated about twice as much money from PACs as she has from Mainers. She's raised more from business PACs than she has from Mainers.

And she's raised more than twice as much money from out of state donors as she has from Mainers.

In short, it's no stretch to say that Collins' campaign has been fueled, overwhelmingly, by out of state business interests: Donors who know, based on experience that when given a choice, Collins will happily vote with the corporate community and against ordinary Mainers.

If the Collins camp thinks small-dollar liberal donors are more dangerous to Maine's interests than DC influence-peddlers, Wall Street fat cats and the mega-rich, they're welcome to make that argument.

But with the economy souring, I suspect that this is an argument the Allen team will be happy to have.

On The Ground

Here's an account from a Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) supporter of his GOP caucus experience yesterday:

[There] was about 1.5-2 hours of speeches by 6 or 7 people who are either running for some local office or a family member speaking for them. The over whelming [sic] theme of the day was mushy emotional talks about the importance of family, "honor", and how great it is to be a Repblican [sic]...

The Grand Finale was a speech by Senator Susan Collins. I was mildly annoyed with the complete lack of content up to this point...but by the time Susan was done speaking I was mentally counting down the days until I can switch back to being a registered independent.

She started right into a list of the faults of our congressional rep, Tom Allen (I'm sure he has plenty, but it seemed out of place to me) including the fact that he missed over 100 roll call votes to which a the Romney supporter standing next to me and myself both quietly said "That's bad?!"... In between her attacks of Tom Allen (which were plentiful and VERY well received) she filled us in on her fantastic Republican credentials.

Sounds like a blast.

UPDATE: PolitickerME has video:

The Collins Bump?

Gerald beat me to this post--about Mitt Romney's triumph in the Maine Republican caucus, and the rejection of Collins endorsee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) by the vast majority of Maine Republicans.

Hard to know what it means, if anything. But it does at least suggest that the testimony from Sens. Snowe and Collins didn't weigh too heavily into the thinking of members of the Maine GOP.

Old Friends

From The Politico:

Last weekend, the prestigious black-tie, closed-to-press Alfalfa Club dinner featured former Secretary of State Colin Powell, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, a host of members of Congress and, of course, President Bush. But we hear it wasn't the campaign digs of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) that raised eyebrows, but rather Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and her chumminess with GOP Svengali Karl Rove.

Sources say the two seemed to be enjoying a grand old time together, laughing and being very playful, which has the chattering class, well, chattering.

[...]

We tried to find out whether Collins is Rove's BFF, but he e-mailed that he was "running for [the] airport" and didn't elaborate. As for Collins she said: "It is a great opportunity to catch up with a lot of old friends, including Karl Rove, Bill and Janet Cohen and Mary Margaret Valentini."

Rick Santorum thinks Sen. Collins is a Republican "team player."

Collins considers Rove an "old friend."

Is there any real doubt about why the junior senator failed her state and her country by refusing to probe Iraq war contracting as chair of the Governmental Affairs committee?

Collins Q4: $963K

The junior senator raised slightly under $1 million in the fourth quarter of 2007, compared to $813,000 for Rep. Allen.

Allen reports cash on hand of $2.5 million, versus $3.9 million for Collins.

So the Collins camp retains a respectable but not overwhelming financial advantage: As we've said previously, money won't be the deciding factor in this campaign.

That's something everyone should be happy about.

Question Time

Senate Guru has a query for Jen Burita, Sen. Collins' press secretary.

More Santorum Blogging

Just heard back from Mike Lux, who clarified a couple of things about his Amtrak encounter with former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA).

First, Lux says there's no doubt that the man sitting behind him was indeed Santorum. Say Lux:

I introduced myself, saying "You look familiar" to which he replied "I'm former Senator Rick Santorum".

So that's settled.

Lux also confirms what his post implied: He has no doubt that Santorum was citing Sen. Collins as a quintessential example of a "Republican team player"--someone who looks out for the best interests of the party whenever possible.

Finally, here's your moment of zen.

They Write Letters

Jen Burita, Sen. Collins' communications director--or is she candidate Collins' campaign spokesperson?--writes a letter to the Kennebec Journal:

The assertion that Collins has been anything but a leader on oversight issues related to Iraq and federal contracting is absolutely false. Collins' leadership in exposing waste, fraud and abuse in federal contracting and in asking tough questions is well known.

For example, in August 2006, she chaired a hearing to examine waste and fraud in Iraq reconstruction contracts.

Psst: Hey, Jen. The war in Iraq started in, um, two thousand and three.

Is this really the best gloss that Collins' in-house spinmeisters can put on her performance? That it took her more than three years to get around to anything resembling Iraq oversight?

Even though oversight of government contracting was at the core of her job as chair of the Government Affairs Committee?

Look. This is not funny. Billions of dollars, and perhaps even lives, could have been saved if the junior senator had focused on the administration's corrupt, often chaotic contracting procedures in 2003, 2004 or 2005.

Even in the war's earliest days, there was plenty of evidence of a problem.

But Collins sat on her hands for more than three years.

And let's be blunt about why: She did it in deference to her pal President George W. Bush.

Burita can try to dress up the junior senator's feckless cowardice however she wants. But the truth is as ugly as it is clear: When her country needed her to be a leader, Collins chose to be a Republican "team player."

UPDATE: More here and here.

This Is Interesting

Open Left blogger Mike Lux shares an odd story about a Thursday train ride--Lux says he found himself sitting directly in front of former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA).

The story is worth reading in full, but here's the nugget of most interest to fellow Sen. Collins watchers:

So pretty much the whole trip this guy [Santorum] is working his cell phone, talking to people about how anyone is better than McCain and Giuliani would be better than McCain because then at least he wouldn't betray the conservative movement...yeah, Giuliani is bad on some issues like abortion, but at least he would stand with the conservative movement. He was saying that there are people like Susan Collins who vote moderate sometimes, but at least she is a team player who always plays with the team and never plays against the conservative side even if she has to give the liberals a vote because she's from Maine. But McCain will sometimes go against the team even when he doesn't have to.

I don't know of Lux, and hadn't previously come across his name.

But his bio at Huffington Post lists him as a former Clinton White House aide and former Senior Vice President at People For The American Way. So it's hard to brush off his account.

I've gone ahead and tried to get in touch with Lux. I'll let you know what I find out.

Creeping Fascism?

They write letters:

I am disgusted by Sen. Olympia Snowe's stated position on the inclusion of immunity for telecoms in the FISA bill and justifications for it.

Conspiracy to violate the rights of U.S. citizens never merits a free pass, and the argument that this immunity is only for civil suits fails to take into account that those are the only available remedy, since the Bush administration has frequently demonstrated that it would never take action to punish its own criminal behavior or that of its corporate accessories.

Collusion of government and corporate interests to violate the rights of individuals is not new--in fact, it was given a formal name many years ago--fascism. It took much too long for the elected officials of the United States to act against it then, and it appears that many, like the senator, are willing to countenance it now for the sake of political convenience.

Maine citizens have taken independent action in the court to defend their constitutional rights, since the current administration seems intent on stripping them.

Sens. Snowe and Susan Collins are acting to slam the courtroom door in their faces to protect the Bush administration and those corporate executives who were willing to violate the law and constitutional rights.

Dennis N. Fortin

Springvale

NYT: Collins Huge Disappointment

The New York Times weighs in with a web editorial blasting Sen. Collins:

The Supreme Court has lurched far to the right in recent years...This shift has occurred in large part because moderate Republicans have voted in virtual lockstep with the administration on judicial nominations.

One of the greatest disappointments on this score has been Susan Collins of Maine, who is now up for re-election. Ms. Collins bills herself as a strong supporter of choice-- something that has added to her reputation for independence--but she has rubber-stamped judges who are doing great damage to the right to choose...

People for the American Way, a liberal group, has unveiled this new anti-Collins ad starring actress Kathleen Turner. In the ad, Ms. Turner declares that Ms. Collins "didn't stand up for our rights. She stood with George W. Bush."

[...]

We hope that there are more ads this year like this one--informing voters about the damage being done to the courts, and of the importance of stopping it.

Telco Immunity

Back in October, I wondered about the junior senator's position on granting retroactive immunity to telco companies who illegally disclosed customer records.

Finally, we have an answer: She's for it.

Even though Maine's own attorney general--currently investigating Verizon's illegal activities in this area--has more or less begged her to oppose it.

Even though retroactive immunity sends the ugly, illiberal message that the law doesn't apply to lawbreakers who have powerful friends.

Why would any senator--let alone a reputed "moderate"--support a provision that ran directly counter to the interests of her constituents and the rule of law, while simultaneously sanctioning the invasion of every American's privacy?

I honestly can't understand it.

King Weighs In

Senate Guru flags Stephen King's remarks about the race in the Bangor Daily News. The author comes out against Sen. Collins' re-election, saying:

"We’ve had enough Bush Republicanism to last the country for a long time," he said. "We’re seeing a lot of chickens come home to roost because of Bush Administration policies. You can’t pump billions of dollars into a foreign war without it affecting the economy."

Here's Tom

Rep. Allen goes long form, re-introducing himself to Mainers.

I think it's pretty effective. What do you think?

Collins and Roe

Via TMB, we learn about a radio spot People For The American Way is running: It questions Sen. Collins' commitment to abortion rights, taking her to task for supporting the Roberts and Alito nominations. (Listen to the spot here.)

I'm very curious about whether, and to what extent, abortion will become an issue as the campaign unfolds. Clearly, the answer will depend, in part, on the national pro-choice organizations--and whether they defy their grassroots (and common sense) by endorsing Sen. Collins.

The junior senator is, of course, nominally pro-choice. But as the PFAW spot notes, she's supported judicial nominees that have taken us to the brink of a Roe v. Wade overturn. And I've yet to hear about any regrets.

In fact, there's every reason to think that if a Republican--say, anti-choice Collins favorite Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)--wins the presidential election, Collins will find herself voting to confirm the supreme court nominee who puts the nail in Roe's coffin.

Strawman Watch

PolitickerME.com notices an interview of Sen. Collins, conducted by a seventh grader, that ran in the Camden Herald.

(I'll ask again: When was the last time Collins took unscreened questions from voting constituents who hadn't paid for the privilege of her company?)

The junior senator used the Q & A as opportunity to once again mischaracterize the Iraq debate:

Q: What do you think about the war?

Sen. Collins: I am concerned about the war. I think the Iraqis should take responsibility of their own country. However, we can’t take our troops out all at once.

Who, exactly, is proposing this?

If anyone knows any which malevolent forces are behind the Simultaneous Removal of All Troops Plan, please let me know.

KJ Letters Again

Elizabeth St.Laurent of Augusta has had two pro-Collins letters published in the Kennebec Journal in the last month.

And a third Collins-touting letter she wrote ran back in April. (That one is featured on the junior senator's campaign website.)

Good for St.Laurent for getting all that ink.

But how many candidate-backing fluff letters can one person write before the KJ decides it's enough?

We Noticed

You'll remember that a couple weeks back we expressed confusion about Sen. Collins' curious, questionable alliance with State Department official Stuart Bowen.

Today, the Washington Post--in a piece aptly-titled "It's Maine. Who's Going to Notice?"--unpacks some of that confusion, and answers a few of our questions:

Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart W. Bowen Jr., whose own office is under investigation by the FBI and three other entities for waste and mismanagement, raised a few eyebrows last week when he showed up in Maine with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and told the state's leading paper she was the "most consistent and effective supporter of our oversight in Iraq."

Collins is in a tight reelection battle in a blue state where the war, and her prior support for it, could be a critical factor. Last year she helped save Bowen's office, which has exposed enormous waste and fraud in the Iraq rebuilding effort, after House Republicans tried to kill it.

Bowen, a former top aide to President Bush in Texas, last week went to Maine with Collins to speak at a college and then joined her at an editorial board meeting of the Portland Press Herald-Maine Sunday Telegram, where he praised her for supporting him.

His trip didn't go unnoticed in Washington. A senior State Department official said he was "puzzled" by Bowen's appearance alongside Collins. "I wondered what he was doing," the official said. "This is the kind of thing we're taught not to do."

Let's be fair: It's not as if Sen. Collins has single-handedly politicized the executive branch.

But her willingness--and seeming eagerness--to participate in the Bowen charade shows poor ethical judgment: An inspector general's legitimacy depends on a perception of independence and political neutrality, and Collins ought to know that.

It also underscores that for whatever reason, seven years in, the junior senator still desperately craves the Bush administration's seal of approval.

(And by the way, if Collins has been the "most consistent and effective supporter of our oversight in Iraq" then Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is a pacifist.)

Collins and Rove

Gerald over at TMB posts an anonymous YouTube attack on Sen. Collins.

The argument it makes isn't new, but the piece includes an interesting bit of footage that I haven't seen before--a CNN clip of the junior senator walking with Karl Rove.

It seems likely to me that we haven't seen the last of that particular clip.

Q & A

Sen. Collins will be taking questions from Berwick middle schoolers this afternoon.

When was the last time she took questions from real live Maine voters in an open forum?

A Team Player

The brand new Maine Owl blog has a long, detailed post taking us back to 2004 and the oil-for-food scandal, and exploring Sen. Collins' response at the time.

It's instructive because, as Maine Owl notes, it demonstrates the junior senator's hypocrisy: Collins was up in arms about the corruption of that program, but curiously silent when it came to her own country's corrupt and wasteful Iraq contracting procedures.

Even though the Iraq contracting failures were far more costly to the American taxpayer. And even given the fact that--as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee--she was literally the best positioned pol in the country to end the cronyism and spur reform.

The hypocrisy is just further evidence of Collins' long history as a great "team player" for the Republican party.

She's first in line to express shock and dismay when it fits the GOP agenda. But when the Bush administration is at fault, not so much.

100 Years?

The junior senator's preferred Republican nominee for President, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), would be perfectly happy for the United States to be in Iraq for 100 years.



Does the Maine co-chair of McCain for President agree?

The Big Picture

If you're Sen. Collins, you've got to be happy with where the race stands as we move into 2008.

According to the most recent public poll, you're 17 points ahead of your challenger and above the 50% threshold; your opponent's arguments haven't gained traction with the media; and even after seven years of near-unwavering support for the Bush administration's reactionary agenda, your reputation as a centrist remains more or less intact.

You've also raised plenty of money, and your corporate friends have signaled that they'll do what's necessary to keep you competitive.

On the other hand, most Mainers--and even most likely voters, I'd imagine--haven't really tuned into the 2008 senate race yet; your approval rating has dropped sharply over the last couple years; and it seems more likely than ever that energized Democrats will come out in force on election day.

Your positions on Iraq, tax cuts for the mega-rich, civil liberties and conservative judges also happen to be out of step with the preferences of your constituents.

In other words, it's your race to lose. But there are plenty of ways you could lose it.

Positioning

Jonathan Kaplan takes a fresh look at Sen. Collins position on Iraq, only to see that nothing has changed.

She's still working to distance herself, rhetorically, from President Bush's tragically inept Iraq policy while continuing to oppose any and all efforts to rein him in.

Hmm...

Why is Sen. Collins accompanying the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction--an executive branch employee--to meetings with the editorial boards of the Portland Press Herald and Bangor Daily News?

Not a rhetorical question. Seriously, what's that about?

In other news, the Sun Journal today identifies the junior senator as a Democrat. You'll forgive us for not being amused.