Collins and the Right Flank

Why would a non-ideological, pro-abortion rights, pro-gay rights moderate go out of her way to raise money for a staunchly anti-abortion supporter of a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage?

The Philadelphia Inquirer:

Collins will headline a $1,000-a-plate luncheon for Toomey's Pennsylvania Senate campaign Aug. 2 at the Union League.

[...]

Toomey earned high marks from antiabortion organizations for his congressional voting record; he also supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Democrats deride him as an extremist, noting he had a more conservative voting record than former Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) by some measures.

Maybe Sen. Collins just has a thing for radical, right-wing senate candidates from Pennsylvania?

More seriously, it's worth noting that Collins is backing--and putting her fundraising prowess at the disposal of--a candidate who, in 2003, got a zero rating out of 100 from the League of Conservation Voters and a 100 out of 100 from the Christian Coalition. (Toomey's Democratic rival, Rep. Joe Sestak, is a former Navy admiral and a moderate, with issue positions that line up more closely with what Collins purports to believe. Go figure.)

To be clear, and for newer readers: The point isn't that the junior senator, by supporting a far-right ideologue, is showing herself to be uniquely nefarious.

The point is actually the opposite: Far from being a transcendent, above-the-fray oracle of centrist wisdom, Collins is just another loyal member of the Republican team.

Because of the exigencies of Maine politics, she's forced to side with the opposition a couple of times a year. But she's as partisan as she can get away with being.

Or, as an anonymous GOP leadership aide once told Roll Call, "Susan Collins is as conservative a Senator as can be elected from Maine."

The decision to headline a Toomey fundraiser just underscores that truth--one that's been obvious for years to anyone paying close attention.

More Line-Item Veto

A couple more points about the junior senator's sloppy about-face on the line-item veto:

--An e-mail from Project Vote Smart Research Associate Matthew Cornwall confirms the accuracy of the online questionnaire.

I just took a look at [Sen. Collins'] Political Courage Test from 2008 and the answers all match what is on the website. These Tests go through numerous checks and the candidate's responses should be entirely accurate.

--Yesterday, I missed an obvious point about Collins' purported reason for opposing the line-item veto--that it concentrates too much power in the executive.

Coming from Collins, that line of argument is ludicrous. This is a pol, after all, who has been practically begging the Obama administration to hold American citizens indefinitely without charges, in violation of the law and the Constitution.

So we're supposed to believe that a policy of snatching up Americans without charges--and the unchecked agglomeration of executive power it would represent--is no big deal to Collins. In fact, she welcomes it.

But it's the line-item veto that apparently raises all sorts of red flags.

I would call this line of reasoning facetious. But even that doesn't capture the depths of its cynicism and bad faith.

Evolving Standards

In Sunday's BDN, we learn that Susan Collins opposes the line-item veto:

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said the president and Congress need to work together to hold spending in line. She said the president's proposal would fundamentally change the balance of power and she cannot support such a shift.

But does Collins oppose giving line-item veto authority to the president on principle? Or does she just oppose giving it to this president?

If I'm reading this 2008 candidate questionnaire correctly, it would appear the latter. Scroll down to "Campaign Finance and Government Reform Issues" and you'll see that Collins put an 'x' on the line affirming that she, "Support[s] giving the President the power of the line item veto for items concerning appropriations."

I'm not sure which is more depressing: That Mal Leary--who's widely thought of as one of the better reporters in Maine--just takes dictation from the junior senator and doesn't think to do a twenty second Google search for her past position on the issue.

Or that Collins gets away with this sort of thing with total impunity--and press complicity--even though in most states it would be a headline-grabbing snafu, generating loads of media commentary.

Don't get me wrong, Collins has been guilty of a whole heap of unremarked upon hypocrisy over the last two years--on presidential appointments, the wars, arresting terrorists, and health care--to name but four areas.

But if Project Vote Smart's questionnaire is accurate, it's hard to think of a more blatant example than this.

Incidentally

Did we mention we're on Twitter?

Playing Defense

This morning Sen. Collins and her pal Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) try to argue their way out of a PR jam, pushing back on the idea that their cybersecurity bill is a civil liberties disaster.

If the government knew an attack that could have catastrophic consequences for Americans or our economy was imminent or under way, this legislation would give the president the authority to implement emergency measures protecting a select group of the most important networks and assets needed to maintain our way of life, while still respecting the civil liberties of our citizens.

These emergency measures would have to be the "least disruptive means feasible" and would automatically expire within 30 days. The president could renew the 30-day emergency measures up to three times for a maximum of only 120 days, and after that Congress would have to approve any extension.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think this will satisfy the bill's critics.

Voting With Her Dollars

Sen. Collins gives $750 to Republican Paul LePage's gubernatorial campaign.

Collins said she considers LePage a "very strong candidate" who has the "right message for the people of Maine."

Is she talking about the message that environmental regulations should be gutted or the message that creationism should be taught in public schools?

Andrew Ian Dodge: Snowe "Arrogant"

When Andrew Ian Dodge recently--and audaciously--guaranteed that Sen. Snowe would be in for a 2012 primary fight, I was intrigued. So last Friday, I gave the Maine Tea Party Patriots coordinator a call.

Gregarious and well-spoken, Dodge told me that he's worked in politics in both the US and the UK--including a stint managing a friend's campaign for parliament during a long stretch living overseas.

Several years ago, he moved back to Maine, where his family's roots stretch back several generations.

When I asked about the tea party movement in the state, and the threat it presents to Snowe, he was surprisingly measured: Dodge focused on the challenges facing the Maine Tea Party coming out of a divisive Republican primary--the potential for fracturing and infighting; the risk of being seen as the "cranky end of the Republican party"; the fact that many tea partiers are new to politics.

In fact, if anything he seemed to be downplaying the potential pitfalls Snowe faces on the road to reelection: He emphasized how powerful the senior senator is within a state Republican party he sees as insular, establishment-oriented and moderate--and more or less cut off from average voters. And he drew attention to the career risks a Republican pol would face by taking Snowe on.

But isn't Snowe almost ridiculously out of step with the Maine GOP base? Doesn't the current political climate make the senior senator's have-it-both-ways posture more difficult than ever to sustain? And isn't the tea party movement just the sort of energetic, ideological grassroots phenomenon that could nudge the Maine GOP into a paradigm shift?

Evenhanded and cautious, Dodge clearly didn't want to inflate expectations. Still, he did concede that, in Maine, "if you can get 2,000 people at the same time to the same place you're doing something right." And he expressed confidence that, if the movement survives the midterms, the Maine Tea Party will be well-positioned to do big things in 2012.

What's more, while Dodge was reserved--almost dispassionate--when talking about organization and strategy, his tone changed when the topic shifted to Snowe herself. "Her arrogance is amazing," he observed, his contempt palpable. He seemed particularly incensed about her failure to hold town hall meetings or engage with average voters. (Sound familiar?)

And while there wasn't time for an extensive discussion of policy (elsewhere, Dodge has defined the tea party movement as, "at its core, a non-partisan movement that seeks to unseat all politicians that are not fiscally conservative") it's clear that Snowe's work on health care won't be forgotten anytime soon.

In short, Dodge's critique--far from hysterical or unhinged--was coherent and pretty straightforward.

Which is not particularly good news for the senior senator.

Revisiting The Stimulus

It seems likelier by the day that the Recovery Act--the stimulus bill--was insufficient for the job it was meant to do. If events continue to point in that direction, President Obama and his economic team bear responsibility for thinking too small, and then accepting a package from Congress that was even smaller.

But while the President deserves criticism for flawed policy formulation and execution (and for his recent efforts to massage the ugly facts rather than confront them) it's worth recalling that he had some powerful enablers. And Sen. Collins was just about chief among them.

Remember, Collins was one of a handful of "swing votes" whose support was necessary to overcome the inevitable Republican filibuster of the legislation. And she was one of just two senators who worked publicly and assiduously (if often incoherently) to shrink the bill.

And the junior senator was very successful: Her deal making resulted in $86 billion in cuts, including billions in cuts to law enforcement grants, education funding, surface transportation programs and--infamously--pandemic flu preparedness dollars. She also voted against an extra $25 billion in highway, mass transit, water and sewer spending. And along the way, she permitted billions to be cut from LIHEAP and home weatherization programs.

(One upshot of Collins' tireless efforts and tough bargaining? Hundreds of millions of dollars less for Maine.)

There are plenty of towns that would have benefited from a few more repaved roads and a couple of extra cops on the beat. But the funds Collins was able to cut wouldn't have just bolstered the nation's infrastructure and put money in the pockets of workers. They would have also stabilized communities and boosted confidence.

Today the economy is weaker--and more Americans remain out of work--because that spending never happened.

Again, the ultimate fault lies with the President, who accepted the deal Collins and others were offering. He could certainly have worked harder to twist arms. Or he could have taken his case to the American people, the citizens of Maine, etc.

But it's clearer than ever that, when it came to the stimulus debate, the junior senator was someone who should have been resisted rather than accommodated.

And From The Right

Just before the long weekend, I had a nice chat with Maine Tea Party Nation Patriots Coordinator Andrew Ian Dodge.

Interesting stuff. More on that soon.

But for now, I want to flag this Collins-backed bill--and the discussion swirling around it. Dodge, for one, isn't exactly thrilled about the legislation.

And he seems to have some company.

UPDATE: Looks like I got Andrew Ian Dodge's title wrong. I have now corrected it. Sorry for the error.

Wall Street or Main Street?

John Cranford at CQ:

This [bank] tax would have collected $19 billion over four years starting in 2012. It would have been levied on the very largest financial companies--not just banks with insured deposits, but also hedge funds and the like...

The tax was added at the last minute during conference negotiations on the measure, mostly to keep it more or less deficit-neutral by offsetting the expected costs of cleaning up future failed financial companies...

But objections were heard from some Republican senators who had voted to pass the bill in May, among them Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts and Susan Collins of Maine. In a letter to the bill’s sponsors, Brown complained that the cost of the tax would be passed along to "millions of American consumers and small businesses" who use large financial institutions for banking services.

Well, from an economist’s point of view, Brown is right that the cost would be passed along. But every cost a company incurs is paid by someone--a combination of shareholders, customers and employees. So, too, the price of the economic collapse was passed along to all of those people--and also to the taxpayers who may never get back all the money used to keep the system lubricated.

The issue in this case is whether the $19 billion tax was the right financial offset for the future. The intention was to target very large institutions, the ones that were in the thick of the mess the last time and that benefited directly--and indirectly--from government intervention...It’s hard to imagine that [Brown or Collins] would prefer that this cost be more broadly levied on Main Street. In effect, though, that will be the case.

The bill now would require the FDIC to increase deposit insurance premiums paid by a wider universe of banks, not just the biggest ones--and hedge funds wouldn't be assessed at all. Do Brown and Collins not think that deposit insurance premiums are a cost that will be passed along to millions of consumers and small businesses?

(Emphasis mine.)

The "Healthy" Maine GOP

I don't agree with everything in this Politico article. But the broad point is certainly one worth airing. Not that it will get much play in the Maine media.

Stung by a series of setbacks on must-pass legislation, Democrats think they've found a culprit: local tea party influence in the home states of usually reliable moderates.

In a span of just a few days, Maine Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe have forced Democrats to dramatically scale back an unemployment benefits and tax bill, and they were part of a small coalition that effectively killed a bank tax tucked into a major Wall Street overhaul bill.

Democrats believe their positioning is no coincidence if one looks at what's going on back in Maine.

The Maine Republican Party has moved fiercely to the right with a new party backed by tea partiers, and GOP voters nominated a gubernatorial candidate who emerged as a tea party favorite. More pressing for Snowe, however, is that some conservative activists want to find a primary challenger to run against her in 2012.

[...]

"It's getting increasingly difficult," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, when asked about rounding up moderate GOP votes. "And I think Maine is going through its own transformation and challenge within the Republican Party. And I think that's a factor."

Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, the Finance Committee chairman, said "different senators vote the way they do--who knows all the constellations and reasons." And while he said he wasn't sure about the Maine moderates’ motivations to hold firm against the tax extenders bill, he said he “heard” from others that home-state politics were a factor.

In interviews with POLITICO, Snowe, Collins and Murkowski all rejected the idea that shifting politics back home would change their votes in the Senate, saying they were concerned about the costs and provisions in the proposed legislation...

Yet there's no denying that the Maine Republican Party is in a different place these days.

In May, the Maine Republican Party adopted a platform that praises the tea party movement and calls for an investigation into the "collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth," a "freeze" of stimulus funds, a rejection of all treaties with the United Nations, elimination of the Department of Education, steps to abolish the Federal Reserve and an assertion that health care is not a right...

In an interview, Collins hailed the GOP’s gubernatorial primary in her state, saying it turned out the largest number of voters in nearly 60 years, claiming it was a sign of the "health" of the state party. The energy behind the party platform, she said, was the result of anxiety about jobs and an antipathy toward the Democratic-controlled state Legislature.

Asked if her state’s Republican Party was squeezing out moderates, Collins said: "Not at all. Look, there were several moderate candidates who ran for governor. The party in Maine is a big-tent party, and we are united and concerned about spending."

[...]

Snowe, up for reelection in 2012 for a fourth term, is already being targeted by tea party groups in her state that cite her support for an early version of Democratic health care legislation and her decision to vote for the $787 billion stimulus--as Collins did, too.

"She will have an opponent in the primary--I guarantee it," Andrew Dodge, a coordinator for the Maine Tea Party Patriots, said of Snowe.

[...]

In an interview, Snowe said she was not worried about talk of facing a primary challenge in 2012.

"I’m sure many people have a lot of conversations," Snowe said. "My concern is solving problems for the nation, as I have for the time that I've been here, so I wouldn’t worry about that."

Euphemism Watch

WMTW:

A Wednesday rally in Portland asked Maine's two U.S. senators to help pass the jobs bill that remains stuck in the Senate.

The bill isn't "stuck." It faces a Republican filibuster. Supported by Maine's two sainted senators.

It seems to me that--at an absolute minimum--the Maine press has an obligation to inform the state's citizens that Sen. Snowe and Sen. Collins are blocking an up-or-down vote on extending unemployment benefits.

It not a difficult to explain. Unless you're trying hard not to.

Quote of the Day

Tim Fernholz:

At the end of the day, this will have little affect on the mechanics of the financial regulation bill, but it is a loss for good policy. Brown has demonstrated his ability to squeeze the legislative process for what he can get--he's a Bay State [Sen.] Ben Nelson [D-NE] now--but I wonder if his constituents will reward him for what he got: Loopholes for bank-operated hedge funds and the elimination of a bank tax.

But at least Sen. Brown's constituents know about it. Unlike some other states, Massachusetts still has media outlets that operate on the archaic principle that holding elected officials accountable is part of their job.

It's Not A Game

How many teachers will lose their jobs so that Sen. Collins can remind us all how important she is?

Perpetual Bailout

As we all know, Sen. Collins is super serious about deficits and debt. She's so serious about them that she's drawn the line at unemployment benefits.

Of course, her passion for balanced budgets flags when the interests of Wall Street banks are at stake.

Somewhere, Jeannine Guttman is smiling.

Still Not Clear

We still haven't been able to sort out whether Sen. Collins was behind the financial reform bill provision that explicitly blocks the federal government from regulating equity indexed annuities and the scam artists who push them on the elderly.

We do know that such a provision made its way into the bill currently before Congress.

And we know that Collins championed a proposal that would exempt variable annuity dealers from the fiduciary standards that would apply to other industry professionals.

What's unclear (at least to me) is whether these two proposals are one and the same. Or an earlier and later version of the same idea.

This article from last week seems to suggest that Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) was behind the language that actually made it into the bill. But the discussion there isn't exactly exhaustive.

And in the context of a law meant to strengthen the government's ability to rein in financial shenanigans, it's striking how little public discussion there's been about this regressive, anti-consumer provision.

We'll continue poking around. Meanwhile, if anyone has the inside scoop, please do drop us a line.

Quote of the Day

Felix Salmon:

It would be a fiasco of tragic proportions if the banks managed to remove these taxes from the final bill, essentially absolving themselves from cleaning up after their own mess.

More Good Faith Negotiating

After inserting a regulatory carve out into the financial reform bill, Sen. Collins is now talking about bolting:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) joined Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) this evening, putting herself back into the undecided column on Wall Street reform legislation, after House and Senate negotiators added new fees on banks to the final bill late last week.

[..]

If both she and Brown oppose financial reform over bank fees, it could stall or even kill the legislation.

My guess is that she's angling, on behalf of her corporate patrons, for a favor somewhere down the road. (Or maybe she'd just like another dinner with someone important.)

But it's certainly possible that she'll pull the plug on the whole thing. I, for one, wouldn't be shocked.

And after the junior senator's "work" on the stimulus, health care and the various unemployment benefits packages, no one in the White House or in the Senate should be surprised either.

Sneaking It In

I could be wrong. But based on this, I'm pretty sure Sen. Collins is the author of the financial "reform" provision discussed here:

Equity indexed annuities...are complex financial products that promise a minimum return on your investment. But they often require you to tie up your money for long periods of time and charge hefty surrender fees if you need to pull out your money early. Unscrupulous salesmen, who collect lucrative commissions, have used deceptive marketing techniques to sell these products to senior citizens, which is why sales of these annuities have been the subject of many lawsuits.

But a provision in the legislation will prevent the S.E.C. from regulating them, a step backward, consumer advocates and the commission have argued, from what is now the case. The S.E.C. had adopted a rule to regulate these annuities as securities, but it had not yet been enacted. Now, the annuities would be treated as insurance products, which means they would be overseen by state insurance regulators.

"That means no securities antifraud authority, no rules against excessive compensation, and no securities regulators to help police the market for these abuses," [director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America Barbara] Roper said.

With negotiations now complete, this provision is virtually certain to become law.

So in about 24 hours, Sen. Collins has voted to kill unemployment benefits and jeopardize Medicaid, and succeeded in protecting scam artists who rip off the elderly. That's quite an achievement.

Penny Wise

Sen. Susan Collins, who helped push through $2 trillion in deficit-generating tax cuts during the Bush administration, voted today to kill an unemployment benefits package that would have added $33 billion to the deficit--or about 1.7% of $2 trillion--on the grounds that the bill was "too expensive."

Seriously.

Deficit Attention Disorder

When the bill came due on tax cuts for billionaires and sweetheart military contracts, Sen. Collins was more than happy to let the next generation pick up the tab.

But when the subject turns to Medicaid and unemployment benefits for average Americans, suddenly the junior senator is quick to draw a line in the sand.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants the Senate to pass the worker benefits, aid to states and tax breaks to spur job creation before the House takes up the Medicare fix. But House leaders are coming under heavy pressure from physician groups and AARP, however, after the Senate passed a fully offset 'doc fix' last week."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also quickly wants to pass the extenders bill that includes aid to states for Medicaid spending, unemployment benefits and tax breaks. "For now, he and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus are trying win over Maine Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins by making additional cuts to the bill's cost." (Emphasis mine.)

It's a good thing there aren't any unemployed Mainers, and that no one in the state relies on Medicaid.

Lashof: Science Not With Collins

On the heels of her vote in favor of the Murkowski resolution, Sen. Collins will be at the White House tomorrow to talk about climate change.

Last night, I followed up with National Resources Defense Council climate scientist Dan Lashof, who recently rebutted Collins' thin and narrow public argument for stripping the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

I asked him about his confidence in the science behind his conclusions. Here's some of what he said:

I am not aware of any scientific support for the claim that all emissions from biomass should be considered carbon neutral and thus exempt from any consideration for regulation by EPA.

In fact, since I posted my blog a new scientific study commissioned by the State of Massachusetts was published... [See here.]

Of course, Lashof forgets that Collins is a moderate bipartisan centrist. Which, I'm pretty sure, gives her license to make up her own science.

Ah, The Memories

Remember the anti-union astroturf groups that worked so hard to support Sen. Collins' reelection in 2008?

On Friday, the New York Times had a long profile of Richard Berman, the man at the center of a couple of them.

Out To Lunch

We've been off the beat for the last few days. But Gerald at Dirigo Blue has been keeping a close eye on the junior senator.

NRDC: Collins Wrong on Biomass

From Dr. Dan Lashof, a Harvard and Berkeley trained climate scientist:

Senator Collins of Maine made a particular point of complaining about the way EPA plans to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from biomass combustion. Her talking points echoed very closely a letter to EPA dated May 24th, from Weyerhaeuser CEO Daniel Fulton...

Weyerhaeuser's claim that biomass combustion is always carbon neutral is patently false. While combustion of biomass from certain sources is carbon neutral, using biomass from others can add as much or more carbon to the atmosphere as burning fossil fuels. For example, waste biomass from a sustainably managed timber plantation can be carbon neutral, whereas timber obtained from clearing a mature forest for development can have higher net emissions than coal combustion.

EPA fully recognizes that biomass combustion should not be treated identically to fossil fuel combustion...and has indicated in its response to Mr. Fulton's letter that it will seek public input, including from stakeholders such as Weyerhaeuser, before providing guidance on how emissions from biomass should be treated in regulations...

Senator Collins has cosponsored a bill to require reductions in carbon pollution and indicated today that she wants to work across the aisle to advance a bill. I welcome her involvement and hope that she will follow the science, not the timber industry’s false claims, when it comes time to debate how biomass emissions should be handled in that legislation.

Imagine: Lots of facts, no coddling whatsoever.

Take note, LCV.

Collins Has Chutzpah

Thankfully, someone gets it. Here's Daniel Weiss, formerly of the Sierra Club:

The U.S. Senate is a body with many senators who are not always ideologically consistent. Nonetheless, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) set a new standard for "Senatorial Chutzpah" today by announcing her support for Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) big oil bail out bill...

Sen. Collins announced her support for the big oil bail out bill after the paper industry urged her to support it because of its impact on biomass--an important industry in Maine. Yet EPA will focus its efforts on the largest pollution sources--those that emit more than 75,000 tons of global warming pollution per year. The only requirement for biomass is that it has to measure its pollution emissions.

In 2008, the League of Conservation Voters endorsed Senator Collins for reelection. At the time, she said:

Maine's future depends on clean air, clean water, and clean energy, and I will continue to work with LCV and forward thinking leaders from both parties to ensure a cleaner future for us all...

Yet today she joins every Republican and only a couple of Democrats to support the big oil bail out bill that maintains status quo energy policies that Senator Collins says that she wants to change. This is hardly "forward thinking" or working across party lines.

Still waiting to hear back from the LCV national office and the Maine LCV. The silence is telling.

Greenwashing Susan Collins

Radio silence so far from the national League of Conservation Voters, the Maine arm of the LCV and the League of Women Voters about Sen. Collins' vote in favor of the Murkowski resolution. Not exactly speaking truth to power.

On Twitter, MLCV calls the resolution the, "Dirty Air Act." But no reference to the fact that both of the state's senators voted for it. And no attempt to hold them accountable for supporting such a repellent piece of legislation.

I've made two inquiries to find out why MLCV has stayed quiet. Still waiting for a response.

I have had a fruitful back and forth with Bill Burtis at Clean Air-Cool planet. You'll remember that just a month ago, Adam Markham, the organization's president and CEO had this to say about the junior senator:

Maine's Susan Collins is showing strong leadership in the US Senate. Leading--not following political lines, bucking the tide of special interests, doing what’s right for her constituents as a matter of conscience--takes courage, understanding and patience.

Collins' stance on climate issues in Congress shows exactly that.

Talk about unfortunate timing.

I gave Burtis a chance to walk back that characterization, but he's not biting. In fact, he seems loath to venture a single unkind word about Collins.

He did seem to concede that he would've preferred Collins to have voted the other way on the resolution. But his position is that Collins can coherently back both the Murkowski resolution and climate change legislation. Her vote on the former doesn't necessarily undermine her support for the latter.

That's true as far as it goes. And Clean Air-Cool Planet can (arguably) be given a pass since it doesn't have a presence in Maine. But Burtis is leaving out one key thing--context. And the history here isn't flattering.

Sure, you can be in favor of balancing budgets while also backing tax cuts; for exiting Iraq while voting against deadlines for withdrawal; for health care reform while voting against a specific plan; for pandemic flu preparedness funding while stripping it from a particular bill; for the Cheney energy bill while supporting green energy.

The problem with Susan Collins is the pattern: After wringing her hands and complaining about the choice she faces, Collins virtually always sides with Republicans on the big issues.

At a certain point, you have to wonder about the rhetoric. We've been wondering about it for years.

Connecting the dots isn't hard--unless you're desperately trying not to. It's time "environmental" groups opened their eyes.

Quote of the Day

Sen. Susan Collins:

While I support wiretapping terrorism suspects, I have reservations about the sweeping approach the NSA is pursuing. I also have serious concerns about unelected government officials at the NSA taking on this complicated issue instead of Congress. It is Congress that should establish the framework for wiretapping American citizens.

Sorry, I think I muffed a few words.

Collins wasn't talking about lawbreaking at the NSA. Of course not. After all, would she ever really complain about the military or intelligence apparatus engaging in illegal activity or overstepping its authority?

No, she was talking about the EPA's legal, logical and evidence-based decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

My mistake.

Mischievous and Destructive

NYT:

...a mischievous and potentially destructive resolution by Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican...seeks to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s formal determination in 2009 that the buildup of greenhouse gases threatens public health and welfare.

That finding is the basis of E.P.A.’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide from vehicles and other sources. It is also one of the main underpinnings of the historic agreement in April to tighten fuel economy standards for the first time in more than 30 years. Repudiating the finding would cripple the E.P.A.’s ability to enforce that agreement as well as its authority to require stronger standards in the future. This is precisely the wrong thing to do in a country that needs to reduce its dependency on oil.

Ms. Murkowski’s proposal is objectionable for many other reasons. It would repudiate years of work by America’s most reputable scientists and public health experts. It would prevent the E.P.A. from regulating greenhouse gases from sources like refineries and power plants in the future. And it would send a discouraging message to a federal agency that appears to take its regulatory duties seriously, unlike the Minerals Management Service, which failed to police the oil industry.

I've made inquiries with LCV, Clean Air Cool-Planet and the League of Women Voters. Curious to hear what they have to say.

Collins 'Yea' on Murkowski Resolution

Award-winning environmentalist and eco group darling Sen. Susan Collins votes to strip the EPA of its ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Maybe the environmental groups just didn't give her enough awards.

Articles of Faith

We all know Sen. Susan Collins is serious about climate change. The League of Conservation Voters thinks so. And so does Clean Air-Cool Planet.

Heck, the venerable League of Women Voters is so sure of it that they gave her an award.

Except, y'know, it just isn't true.

Tomorrow, the U.S. Senate will take up a controversial measure that would restrict the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to control the release of greenhouse gases by cars and industry. Maine's two moderate Republican senators are considered swing votes on Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski's resolution. Both Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe have been critical of EPA rules and won't say how they will vote, which is unsettling to environmental groups and state officials.

[...]

A sticking point for Collins...[is] the way EPA intends to regulate emissions from burning biomass...

The forest products industry maintains that biomass users should be exempted from EPA rules. They consider biomass combustion carbon-neutral because it releases carbon dioxide into the air, offsetting the CO2 trees sucked in during their growth.

Collins appears to be on the same page. In a statement she says, "While I support regulating greenhouse gas emissions, I have reservations about the sweeping approach EPA is pursuing. For example, for the first time the EPA has classified biomass as not carbon neutral, which could have a negative impact on Maine's forest products industry."

But Maine Environmental Commissioner David Littell says it's one thing to call biomass harvested from sustainable forests carbon-neutral. But he says not all biomass is the same. "We can't accept the proposition that trees that are harvested and cut down for permanent development, that never are going to grow back again, is sustainable and carbon-neutral. Obviously those trees are never going to regrow."

Composite Character

The Hill conflates Maine's junior and senior senators, treating them as a single person. On purpose.

You Mean Lobbying Works?

So much for standing up to the bankers:

In the face of opposition from bankers, U.S. Senator Susan Collins has agreed to ratchet back a proposal that would prevent banks from using so-called trust- preferred securities to appear better capitalized.

Diluting the measure would be a setback for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The FDIC helped craft the language before Collins inserted it in the Senate’s financial-overhaul bill last month, according to a person close to the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity, and FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair publicly endorsed the amendment in a May 7 letter to Collins.

[...]

Since last month, lobbyists for the ICBA, a Washington- based trade group representing about 5,000 smaller lenders, have met with House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank...They’ve also met with staff for Collins...

"Senator Collins will support modifications to address concerns of community banks regarding trust-preferred securities they have issued," Collins' spokesman Kevin Kelley said yesterday in an e-mailed statement.

How much do you suppose that was worth in 2014 campaign donations?

Collins and Climate Change

Is Sen. Collins really planning to vote to strip the EPA of its authority to make climate change-related regulations?

I'd be surprised. But--given the junior senator's mediocre environmental record--I wouldn't be shocked.

Collins Backs Killing DADT

Two decades into the national discussion about homosexuality and the military, Sen. Collins has decided to back allowing gays to serve openly.

Kudos to the junior senator for the about-face. And for breaking with her allies on the far right. I'm sure her old friend Rick Santorum won't be too thrilled.

But let's not pretend this makes Collins some sort of trailblazer for justice. It doesn't.

There was a time when this sort of stand would have really helped shake things up. But that time is long gone.

Wall Street Reform Round Up

Sen. Collins reportedly won't try to block and up or down vote on the financial reform bill.

In related news, Reuters has picked up the story about the junior senator's sneaky carve out amendment to protect the mutual fund industry.

So Long, Arlen

A Meme Spreads

Lately, here and there, people seem to be catching onto the idea that--just maybe--Sen. Susan Collins isn't who she says she is:

I praised Maine Senator Susan Collins for wanting to extend [a fiduciary] duty to brokers who sell to institutions such as pension funds and mutual funds.

Wow, did I ever speak too soon. Last week, Collins declared herself in favor of gutting these protections for retail investors like you and me.

In brief, a fiduciary duty requires that brokers put their customers' interests ahead of their own. At present, they're allowed to put their own interests first--for example, by selling you something with a higher commission when a product with a lower commission might perform even better.

[...]

Last week, devious brokers found their champion. Collins proposed an amendment to the reform bill, to exempt from fiduciary duty brokers who sell only mutual funds, variable annuities, and certain closed-end funds. Furthermore, the Securities and Exchange Commission could expand the exemption to brokers selling other products packaged by their firms.

Folks, those are exactly the products that brokers are paid the most to sell and that carry the highest fees. In-house mutual funds cost more, and perform more poorly, then comparable lower-fee funds. The complications of closed-end funds makes them a source of abusive sales. Variable annuities are so laden with fees that it’s a miracle if customers come out even.

Collins wants to remove a broker's duty of care in the areas where it's needed most.

For a long stretch, Collins "opposed" President Bush's strategy in Iraq--but wouldn't lift a finger to do anything about it.

She called candidate Obama's health care plan "pretty good" during the campaign--and then did everything in her power to prevent a less progressive version of it from being enacted.

She complains about the deficit but votes for trillions in Republican-sponsored spending without offsets. And despite her occasionally encouraging environmental rhetoric, she continues to oppose the main climate change proposal pending in the Senate.

If you've been following Collins, it's pretty obvious what's going on here.

But it's nice to see that even casual observers of the junior senator are starting to connect the dots.

Misdirection?

Strengthening standards? Or watering them down?

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, late Thursday introduced an amendment to the financial reform legislation being debated on the Senate floor that would extend a fiduciary standard to broker-dealers, but excludes people selling variable annuities.

The North American Securities Administrators Association and the Consumer Federation of American condemned the amendment because of the exclusion.

"This amendment removes the fiduciary duty precisely where it is needed most--where the conflicts of interest are greatest, the investors are least sophisticated, and the sales practices are most abusive. It paints a target on the backs of senior Americans who are most likely to be targeted with abusive variable annuity sales practices," said Barbara Roper, director of investor protection, Consumer Federation of America.

Nice

Gail Collins:

“Let me emphasize that none of us wants a terrorist to be able to purchase a gun,” said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who nevertheless went on to argue against allowing the government to use the terrorist watch list to keep anyone from being able to purchase, um, a gun.

Blockage Removed

Hmm. It appears that Sen. Collins has folded like a folding chair on Wall Street reform.

Think this had anything to do with it?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The fun starts at 2:02. The look on the face of Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) is, at times, priceless.

(As with the Andrea Mitchell shellacking, no tweets from the Collins camp about this TV appearance.)

For the record, I don't think Sen. Collins is schizophrenic. I just think she's a hypocrite.

UPDATE: The junior senator will, of course, want credit here for being a moderate bipartisan centrist filibuster maverick. Or something.

And stenographers in the Maine media will probably give it to her. (If they even notice.)

But caving into the clear will of the people, in the face of public humiliation, doesn't exactly make you a non-ideological team player.

This isn't about moderation. It's about facing reality.

Oversight

It's too bad there wasn't someone as serious, unflinching and public interest-minded as Susan Collins in a position to get answers out of the Bush administration back when soldiers were literally getting killed by shoddy electrical work by military contractors.

Oh, wait.

Starting Over

Sen. Collins didn't make the highlight reel, but she might as well have.



Via Brad DeLong.

Collins and Deadly Chemicals

Terrorism is such a serious threat that Sen. Collins favors suspending the Constitution when suspects are apprehended.

But more stringent oversight for the manufacturers of deadly chemicals? To prevent a cataclysm? That's a bridge too far:

Although he left his stressful job with the Environmental Protection Agency nearly seven years ago, Bob Bostock says there's one scenario that still keeps him awake at night: A terrorist breaches a chemical plant's chlorine storage tank in, say, northern New Jersey, unleashing a toxic cloud that kills thousands.

"It's not that hard to do," said Bostock, EPA's top homeland security policy adviser from 2001 to 2003. "It doesn't require a high level of sophistication and in some cases doesn't even require access to the facility. It's something that could be done from off site."

[...]

Legislation passed by the House last fall would require major manufacturers and users of such deadly gases as chlorine to consider converting to safer alternatives and submit to stricter oversight by the Department of Homeland Security...

The current law, which was enacted in 2006 and expires in October, is weak, according to Rick Hind, legislative director for Greenpeace. "The standards are, for the most part, voluntary," Hind said. "They’re very industry-friendly. The House bill is much more enforceable."

But the chemical lobby is pushing back.

At a March 3 hearing held by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, representatives of the American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates argued for the status quo, saying they have taken steps to prevent accidental or terrorist-induced releases of dangerous compounds.

If they are forced to stop using such substances as chlorine, they said, there would be job losses and even plant closures. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is sympathetic to their position and has introduced legislation that would extend existing regulations for five years.

[...]

The chemical industry has considerable pull in Washington, having spent more than $45 million on lobbying in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The ACC spent the most — $7 million — among individual trade groups and companies. Dow Chemical spent nearly $6 million, and DuPont shelled out $3.75 million.

Centrists

Only shocking if you haven't been paying attention:

The [left-leaning group Americans for Democratic Action] on Tuesday unveiled a 65 percent rating for both Snowe and Collins. That's a 15-point drop for Snowe, who earned an 80 percent rating in 2008. Collins, who earned a 75 percent rating in 2008, dropped 10 points.

Conservatives, meanwhile, have boosted their assessment of the Maine senators.

The American Conservative Union raised Snowe’s rating by 36 points between 2008 and 2009. Collins's conservative rating surged by 28 points after Obama took office.

Remember when, during the 2008 campaign, Collins told Mainers she would let Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) decide which way she should vote on key issues?

Me neither.

The Latest Excuse

What?

Susan Collins, another moderate being courted by the administration, told Reuters she would not side with Democrats unless Dodd and Shelby have come to a deal--a process she thinks could take weeks.

She's not even trying to hide it anymore.

Telling

The Hill:

Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins, her fellow Republican from Maine, co-sponsored the historic Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, along with McCain and a handful of other Republicans. But Collins's spokesman Kevin Kelley said this year that Collins would not jump onboard. He did not indicate the reason behind the decision.

Of course, the 2002 bill came up for a vote several months before the junior senator faced the voters.

Anyone else see a pattern here?

There's A Shocker

Sen. Collins is going to filibuster financial reform legislation.

Quote of the Day

From the Collins Watch archives:

When the Republican position on an issue is politically palatable in Maine, Susan Collins has no problem toeing the party line.

But the rest of the time--when the Democratic position is preferred (health care, Iraq) or when partisan divisions get scrambled--Collins resorts to describing the problem instead of offering solutions. She resorts to calls for hard work and hearings. And she resorts to empty calls for less partisanship and more moderation.

And then at the last minute before the vote, she hops off the fence and sides (almost always) with the Republicans, while bemoaning the absence of a non-ideological alternative.

Face Time

She sure does like to meet with important people.

(Flashbacks here and here.)

Thought of the Day

Sen. Collins on CNN:

I think the American people are really tired of the excessive partisanship that they're seeing in Washington. There are real problems with the economy, most of all, and they want us to get to work in a bipartisan way. So that's what I'm going to continue to advocate, and I hope that there are enough people of goodwill on both sides of the aisle to accomplish some of those goals.

The thing is, I watch Sen. Collins as closely as anyone.

And yet I have absolutely no idea what she would like the federal government to do, that it isn't doing already, to fix the "real problems" in the economy.

Soldiering On

It seemed for a brief moment like Sen. Collins might be breaking with her obstructionist GOP colleagues on financial reform. Think again:

"If the letter says I don't support the bill, I am happily going to sign it. I am still talking with my colleagues about whether a letter is the most effective way to send the message, or whether there are better ways, and those discussions are still ongoing. I agree with my colleagues that the Dodd bill is deeply flawed. But, as a former financial regulator, I also feel strongly that the current system is very flawed. We need a financial regulatory bill, just not this one."

When have we heard that kind of empty rhetoric before?

UPDATE: More:

Collins said that she supports some of the provisions in the bill. However, she said she has concerns about Senate Democratic leaders cutting off bipartisan talks after White House officials intervened.

Collins has said that she would like bipartisan talks to continue, but she does not want to box herself in on the issue.

Got that?

Showing Independence?

Interesting:

Republican leaders are struggling to maintain a unified opposition to the White House's financial-regulation revamp, which is emerging as the next big test of the GOP's ability to counter the administration's agenda.

Democrats, assuming they can maintain discipline among the 59 Senate votes they control, need only one Republican to surmount any filibuster. At least one, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, is resisting pressure to sign a letter committing all 41 GOP senators to back such a delaying move, according to a person familiar with the deliberations. Such a strategy would effectively block action on the legislation and push the White House to bend to GOP demands.

Empty Threats?

Sen. Collins then:

Raju reports that "several other GOP senators" said they would jump on board with Coburn blockade if the Democrats try to extend benefits without using the pay-go rules to fund them again. Among the supporters, apparently, is Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who attempted to stop Bunning the last time.

"The last time was an emergency situation--but we can't keep doing one-month extensions that aren't paid for," Collins told Politico.

And yesterday:

The chamber voted 60 to 34 to proceed on a measure that would extend unemployment insurance, subsidies for the COBRA health insurance program and federal flood insurance through May 5. Four Republicans -- Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and George V. Voinovich (Ohio) -- joined every Democrat present in voting to move the bill forward, making it likely that the measure will pass in a final tally this week.

Abbott Watch

Is Steve Abbot a closet Southerner?

[Steve Abbott] said Republican governors must fight the portion of the recently signed federal health care legislation which forces Americans to buy health insurance.

"There comes a point when the federal government is just becoming the government. They're completely usurping the roles of states and local government as well," Abbott said. "From that level, it is important that we push back."

Push back, eh?

Run Abbott, Run

Poor Steve Abbott. After making a doozy of a gaffe, he's decided to double down and keep the story alive for another week:

It is an acceptable campaign function to record an opponent when the candidate is at a forum, such as a speech or a meeting, where he or she is offering remarks, especially policy or political statements, ideas, or opinions...

It is unacceptable to follow or track a candidate when the candidate is at an event where he or she would not typically offer remarks. It is unacceptable to tail a candidate. Likewise, it is unacceptable to record a candidate's conversations.

So a candidate's interactions with voters at public events are fair game. As long as the candidate isn't moving. And is reading from a prepared text. Or something.

Yes, it's pathetic. It would be hilarious, too, if his old boss hadn't won an election using just this formula--so that she could tell different constituents different things and avoid vigorous, on-the-record questioning just about entirely.

Remember, when candidate Collins was tracked briefly--by a New York Times reporter--we learned she was telling voters that the Obama health care reform plan was "pretty good" and that she was open to supporting it.

(Of course, not a single Maine outlet reported on the statement.)

Does anyone really believe that was the only time she made a rhetorical commitment that she hasn't kept? What other sorts of representations was she making in conversations with voters? We'll never know.

Of course, the junior senator has never been one to shy away from hypocrisy.

Apparently, her disciple is similarly unfazed.

Abbott In Flux

This video is making the rounds:



He's totally fine with it now, but back then Abbott thought tracking, "demean[ed] the political process" and had "no place in the type of substantive issues-oriented campaigns that our voters deserve."

Quite a change of heart in less than three years.

Question of the Day

You don't suppose that, during his many years in Washington, Steve Abbott became friendly with anyone who works for the Republican Governors Association, do you?

Abbott Watch

The first flip-flop of the campaign?

An independent candidate for governor complained to a national Republican group this week about a woman it hired to follow him and other opponents with a video camera.

[...]

In 2007, Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins' staff complained after a tracker for the Maine Democratic Party videotaped her as she walked in a parade and chatted with people along the way.

[...]

Steve Abbott, a Republican candidate, seemed to share Cutler's view of trackers when he was Collins' chief of staff in 2007 and wrote a letter to the Maine Democratic Party.

"Tactics such as tracking demean the political process, contribute to voter cynicism and have no place in the type of substantive issues-oriented campaigns that our voters deserve," he wrote.

Abbott's spokeswoman, Felicia Knight, said Wednesday that Abbott's criticism was focused on the intrusive and intimidating nature of the tracker who was then assigned to Collins.

"On the other hand, he has absolutely no objection to people who are going to be videotaping public events and public speeches," Knight said.

Of course, Collins was videotaped only at public events; there's no evidence of her having been tracked in an "intimidating" way; and even Abbott seemed to concede at the time that the tracker never got in his candidate's personal space.

More background here.

UPDATE: Gerald adds a delicious detail that really should have been in the PPH story.

Maine Values?

Sure, she's a fiscal conservative--when Democrats are in charge. And when it comes to unemployment benefits.

But when it comes to tax cuts for millionaire, weeding out corrupt military contracts and paying for unnecessary wars? Not so much.

To Recap

President Obama had nice things to say, yesterday, about three members of Maine's four member congressional delegation.

Amen, Sister

Even someone at WaPo gets it:

Overuse of the essentially meaningless word "moderate" has become a blight on American political and religious discourse.

[...]

On one level, the promiscuous use of the word "moderate" is nothing more than an abbreviation, born of the need of both print and television media to use one word instead of 10. Thus, moderate becomes a label that makes it unnecessary to spell out what the person in question really thinks.

On a deeper level, though, the mindless moderate label facilitates avoidance of thinking...

The constant use of the word "moderate" begs the fundamental question, "Moderate in relation to whom or what?"...

Are Representatives Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine moderate Republicans--that is what they are always called by the media--because they didn't reject Democratic Obama's health care reform proposals at the outset of the process even though they voted with their party at the end?

Obama Stiffs Collins

The President singled out Maine's senior senator during his speech, noting that some of Sen. Snowe's ideas are in the health care reform law. And he called her a "friend."

But of course, provisions authored by Sen. Collins made it into the bill too. So where's the love?

Yes: The dig wasn't exactly explicit. But it's wasn't that far between the lines, either.

Question of the Afternoon

Which Maine media outlet will offer the sloppiest, laziest coverage of the Obama visit?

The Hill: Obama Will Play Nice

Disappointing if true:

A White House official said not to expect any pressure from Obama on Maine's two Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

[...]

Both could be swing votes on a variety of issues, and the White House will need Republican senators to join Democrats in order to move things through the Senate.

Their importance will only increase next year if Republicans gain seats in the Senate.

Of course, it depends what "exert pressure" means.

I certainly wouldn't expect the President to castigate Sens. Snowe and Collins, shame them, or advocate against their reelection.

But as I've mentioned, it would make an awful lot of sense for him to push back, gently and respectfully, against the specific lies and distortions that have come out of their mouths. And to do so in a way that punctures the media-created bubble of infallibility that the two women live inside.

Question of the Morning

How long has Sen. Collins' trip to Qatar and western Europe been on the calendar for?

(Just asking.)

I Guess That's A "No"

Wondering if the junior senator will be at President Obama's health care event tomorrow?

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins is visiting Qatar and western Europe this week.

The Maine Republican's office says Collins is part of a congressional delegation that planned visits to the U.S. Central Command regional headquarters in Doha, Qatar.

"That's Just Not True, Susan"

If there's one sentence I'd like to hear from President Obama tomorrow, that would be it.

Don't get me wrong: I don't expect the President to launch a blistering attack on Sen. Collins in her own state. That would be undignified, bad politics and it's just not the guy's style.

Further, I understand that since he's hoping for support from Sens. Snowe and Collins on climate legislation and other proposals, he's likely to include some praise for them in his remarks. And that's totally understandable.

But it would be a shame--and a mistake--for the President to allow his speech to feed the idea that Maine's senators are transcendent, non-ideological figures. In fact, he has a unique opportunity to push back against that ridiculous, pervasive myth.

To put it plainly: With extremely rare exceptions, the Maine media simply don't allow criticism of the state's senators to surface anywhere outside letters pages. The notion that either woman might be fallible--let alone motivated by ideology--just doesn't get aired.

So imagine if, in a speech the local media can't help but cover, President Obama said the following:

I applaud Senator Collins for her vote on the stimulus bill. And I thank her for her engagement and hard work on the issue of climate change.

But I've been deeply disappointed with not just her vote on health care reform, but her rhetoric before and after that vote.

During the debate, Senator Collins repeatedly complained about the cost of reform to the federal government, even though the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had long maintained that the proposal under discussion would actually reduce the deficit.

And now that the law has passed, Senator Collins still isn't being candid with Mainers. Just last week she issued a confusing press release suggesting, or so it seems, that 97% of Maine employers will now be faced with a new, unaffordable requirement to provide health insurance to their workers. But that's just not true, Susan.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of Maine's large employers, the ones who do face a new requirement under the law, already offer health insurance to their employees.

Now, Senator Collins has been willing to cross the aisle more often than many of her Republican colleagues. But I'm afraid that what we have here is partisan jockeying interfering with an objective examination of the facts. And that's a real shame.

It wouldn't change anything over night. But it would plant a seed in the minds of a lot of politically independent and politically incurious Mainers.

And once you plant the seed, who knows where that might lead?

Onward Christian Soldiers

Strangely, I can't seem to find any public statement from Sen. Collins advocating military trials for these terrorists, her support for the military detention of US citizens notwithstanding.

It's almost as if she's got a blind spot in this particular instance.

Anyone?

Will Sen. Collins attend President Obama's health care event in Portland tomorrow?

Seems unlikely to me. On the other hand, it's sort of a natural question for someone in the Maine press corps to ask.

And yet, unless I'm missing something, no one has asked it.

Collins Question, Nominee Withdraws

NYT:

President Obama’s choice to lead the agency that guards United States airports abruptly withdrew his nomination on Friday night amid questions about his work as a defense contractor, the second time the White House has lost a nominee for the critical security post.

The questions, as we mentioned, seemed entirely legitimate and appropriate. And they seemed to be coming, mostly, from the junior senator.

The Fire Next Time

The undead corpse of PPH seems deeply puzzled by the planned Obama visit. And quote machine Mark Brewer is equally flummoxed. (Why is he considered an authority on these things, again?)

But it's actually pretty simple: Both President Obama and health care reform are popular in Maine. At the same time, the state's two Republican senators not only voted against reform but behaved abominably throughout the process--moving the goalposts, working for momentum-sapping delays and spewing misinformation.

So President Obama is coming to Maine, at least in part, to demonstrate that disingenuousness and bad faith have a price. (Though you can be sure he won't put it quite that way.)

He's not looking to wound Sen. Snowe or Sen. Collins, per se. But he is making it clear that intransigence and obstruction aren't freebies. There's the possibility of a political cost.

And whether they admit it or not, that's a message both pols will probably keep in mind in the future.

Give It Up, Already

The health care debate is finally at an end. But Sen. Collins is still trying to confuse Mainers.

She's still working to trick her constituents into thinking the bill--I mean the law--does things it does not do.

Shameless.

Will the President draw attention to her misinformation campaign on Thursday?

Obama To Maine to Talk HCR

So says The New York Times:

The White House announced that President Obama would step up his defense of the law with a trip next week to Maine.

Representative Chellie Pingree, Democrat of Maine, strongly supported the legislation, as did many of her constituents. But aides to Ms. Pingree predicted that the president would be greeted by some protesters. The senators from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, both Republicans, voted against the legislation, and Ms. Snowe delivered a blistering critique of it on the Senate floor this week.

Sounds delicious. But one wonders why he didn't make this trip months ago.

No Longer An Emergency

TPMDC:

Remember Jim Bunning's one-man government shut down earlier this month? Remember how everyone--even Republicans--condemned it?

Well, it seems the GOP has had a change of heart...

Raju reports that "several other GOP senators" said they would jump on board with Coburn blockade if the Democrats try to extend benefits without using the pay-go rules to fund them again. Among the supporters, apparently, is Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who attempted to stop Bunning the last time.

"The last time was an emergency situation--but we can't keep doing one-month extensions that aren't paid for," Collins told Politico.

UPDATE: Sorry, I forgot the kicker. Collins voted against PAYGO in January.

Hypocrisy We Can Believe In

By every indication, Sen. Collins is going to continue to hold Democratic and Republican administrations to different standards--on a whole range of issues.

That said, she seems to have a pretty good point here. The fact that she's been indifferent, historically, to GOP-related contracting abuses and Geneva Convention violations doesn't mean she's wrong this time around.

UPDATE: From WaPo:

Collins also revealed on Wednesday that some of Harding's employees worked at a prison where detainee abuse occurred in 2003, contradicting earlier White House statements that Harding's staffers were assigned to another location.

This looks worse and worse for the White House.

The Essence of Partisanship

It boils down to having two sets of standards--one for your team and another for the other guys.

And whether the subject is arresting terrorists, budget balancing or Senate procedure, over the last year-and-a-half, Sen. Collins has been a true poster child for this kind of crooked reasoning.

Reconcile This

Sen. Collins now:

Sen. Susan Collins (R., Me.) tells NRO that she sees Democrats’ use of the procedure as an "abuse" that will have a "detrimental impact" on the Senate.

Sen. Collins then:

[crickets]

What Was The Hurry?

After a debate that stretched for more than a year, the most thorough discussion of the Maine-specific impact of health care reform (that I've seen, anyway) arrives the day after the legislation passes.

Gotta love the Maine media.

Pick Your Poison

A free Collins Watch subscription to the first reader who can find a quote from Sen. Collins complaining about the poisonous atmosphere created by President Bush in 2003 when he (in the parlance of our times) rammed through his tax cut package via reconciliation.

In case anyone has forgotten, the vote on that deficit-balloning measure was 50-50, with Vice President Dick Cheney breaking the tie so that the rich could get richer.

Needless to say, the junior senator voted in favor of the measure.

Poisoning the Atmosphere

The Hill, today:

One outcome appears certain already: The final vote [on health care reform] won't be bipartisan. Moderate [sic] GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, well-known in the Senate for working across the aisle with Democrats, said it will be a party-line vote that "poisons the atmosphere."

Sen. Susan Collins, in February:

This administration cannot see a foreign terrorist even when he stands right in front of them.

Thought of the Day

If Sen. Collins really was the legislator she pretended to be during the 2008 campaign, health care reform would have passed months ago.

(Special credit goes to the lazy, sloppy, starstruck Maine media for living inside the junior senator's alternate reality.)

Quote of the Day

Sen. Susan Collins:

The Postal Service needs to focus first on expanding customer services and developing new revenue streams rather than cutting services in order to reduce its red ink.

Good Question

As we all know, Sen. Collins professes to want the health care discussion to focus more on lowering costs. Here's the President:

LCV Still Swooning For Collins

Remember when the national arm of the League of Conservation Voters shelved its own standards and, in a move that betrayed its membership, endorsed Sen. Collins?

Even though she had a far weaker record on environmental issues than her opponent? Even though local Maine LCV officials were lining up against her? And even though the organization was unable to articulate why its own environmental scorecard--"a nationally accepted yardstick"--should be ignored in her Senate race?

Good times.

Fifteen months later, LCV is out with its first new scorecard since the election. And in a Senate where 51 members scored a 100 rating, the junior senator clocks in with a disappointing 64.

So much for rewarding bad behavior.

But does LCV at least regret its decision, in light of a year's worth of new information? Is the organization ready to repent and change its ways?

Of course not.

Rather, LCV Deputy Legislative Director Sara Chieffo told us in a phone interview that she remains, "comfortable" with the Collins endorsement. She touted the junior senator's environmental record as compared to other Republicans. (Talk about grading on a curve!) And she said she was "encouraged" by Collins' "engagement" on environmental issues.

One of the things going on here, of course, is that LCV--a nominally "non-partisan" organization--practices affirmative action for Republicans. That makes it easier to solicit donations from independents and green conservatives, and (ironically) to frame the organization as indifferent to partisan politics.

But another thing that's at work here (and let's hope it's the main thing) is that LCV is trying to make nice to Collins in advance of the climate change legislation debate that's coming later this year. Or in 2011. Or sometime.

The background: Collins has put forward a "cap and dividend" proposal that some people of good will think isn't terrible on substance. So the hope is that she will negotiate in good faith to amend the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham proposal, perhaps incorporating some of her ideas. And that she'll then vote for cloture and final passage.

Of course, the question with Collins is whether and to what degree she's being disingenuous--whether she might just be looking to delay, dilute and/or kill progressive legislation without appearing to do so. Mainers, after all, have been taught for years by the local media to listen to her rhetoric and ignore her actions.

On the climate issue, there's already some reason to suspect Collins of bad faith: In 2008, just months before she faced Maine voters, she supported cloture to advance the Lieberman-McCain cap and trade bill, which had no real chance of passing. But after the election, Collins seemed to change her tune, saying, "It's a complicated issue to tackle at a time when the economy is weak."

In any event, we'll be watching. And we'll be among the first to congratulate LCV if their multi-year, standards-shredding effort to cultivate Collins pays off with a big environmental victory.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

Quote of the Day

BDN:

All members of Congress should be concerned that the body routinely passes measures that aren't paid for. But, it seems odd to hold up a $10 billion bill that would help working-class families and the elderly, but not take a similar stand against measures that have added trillions of dollars to the deficit. Sen. Bunning voted for the tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush and for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bunning isn't the only one.

More Goodies

If I'm reading this right, Sen. Collins was the only Republican to vote to keep a $100+ billion unemployment assistance-themed bill on track yesterday.

I'm all for it. But it does raise the question: Since the junior senator votes for all the spending and all the tax cuts, wouldn't it make sense for someone to ask her how she proposes to balance the budget?

Thought of the Day

Sen. Collins will gladly cross the aisle to hand out goodies. But she consistently rails against unpleasant things like service cuts and allowing tax cuts to expire.

She likes to have it both ways. And that's why they call her a moderate.

All Over The Place

Yesterday, Sen. Collins was blaming Democrats for Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-KY) crusade against unemployment benefits, health benefits and highway programs.

Today she went to the floor to make it clear that she disapproves of his filibuster.

Tomorrow, who knows.

Collins: Blame Dems For Bunning (R-KY)

She sure is a loyal soldier:

Hundreds of jobless Mainers woke up today with the looming threat of losing their unemployment benefits. Benefits expired this weekend, and a measure in Congress to extend them for another month is being held up by one senator, Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican.

[...]

But Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican, says both parties share the blame for the gridlock. "Had Sen. Reid included it in the bill that we passed earlier this week, we would not be in this situation," she told Capitol News Service.

And if Reid had folded health care reform into the same bill, there would be no uninsured people left in the country.

Shame on Harry Reid!

Hint: War Is Hell

Obviously, that's not the whole story. But sending soldiers off to fight multiple tours in a grueling, misconceived and abysmally planned war--without sufficient resources--can't help.