Dudley Reacts

Via KayinMaine over at Turning Maine Blue we get Maine Democratic Party Chairman Ben Dudley's response to Collins' vote on the Cochran amendment:

Dudley today called on Senator Susan Collins to explain her statement following yesterday's vote in the Senate when she supported an amendment to remove a timetable to end American involvement in the Iraqi civil war.

[...]

"It seems that Senator Collins is reading from the President's talking points," said Dudley. "But Maine needs a leader who will stand up and tell the President that it's time for a new direction that will end the War in Iraq."

"Senator Collins voted to go to war in 2002, and despite what she may say when she's home in Maine, Collins has consistently supported the President's failed policies in Iraq," Dudley said. "In Maine she says she is an independent voice, but when George Bush needs her vote to stay the course in Iraq, she's with him, not the vast majority of Maine people who want our Armed Forces to come home from Iraq and return safely to their families."

The Cochran amendment vote is destined to be a central issue in the 2008 race.

If Collins is figuring otherwise, she's miscalculated.

Class Warfare

Via Maine Democrats we learn that Sen. Collins voted with her Republican colleagues to strip troop withdrawal language from the Senate appropration's bill. (Their attempt failed.)

Still haven't been able to find a statement from Collins explaining her vote. The lead item on her website, in fact, concerns her recent meeting with Sumner Memorial High School students enrolled in teacher Vern Campbell's Social Studies class.

Seriously.

UPDATE: The New York Times quotes the junior senator this way:

Ms. Collins said she was more troubled by the requirement that the administration begin removing troops within 120 days of the legislation rather than the March 2008 deadline for having most of the military out.

"I don't think it is wise to have an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq," said Ms. Collins, who said she was willing to wait until August to see if the continuing troop increase improves conditions there. "This doesn’t mean I support an unending commitment of our troops in Iraq. I don’t."

Not clear why she thinks beginning to redeploy troops in 120 days counts as an "abrupt withdrawal" while moving most of the military out by March 2008 is sound policy.

Presumably, getting most of our soldiers out by next March will require getting some of them out, y'know, sooner.

Turning Collins Blue?

Yesterday, Sen. Collins was one of only two Republicans to back the Democratic budget resolution.

Collins explained her vote this way:

As with any major legislation, the fiscal year 2008 that was approved by the Senate is by no means perfect. But it does include many provisions that I support including increased funding for health insurance for low-income children; restored funding for the LIHEAP program; more funding for vital first responder grant programs; increased funding for veterans’ health care, and an expansion of the tax deduction for teachers...

It's worth mentioning that the resolution is nonbinding.

Thanks, Maine Bloggers

Wanted to write a quick post to tip my hat to the folks at Turn Maine Blue, Maine Democrats and Thinking Beyond Tomorrow for their great work and for giving this humble blog a warm welcome to the Maine blogging community.

Adding a link to a blog roll is a small, silent gesture. But to the new guy on the block, it means a lot.

Lieberman Takes On Collins?

By all accounts, Homeland Security Committee chair Sen. Joe Lieberman (CFL-CT) and ranking member Sen. Collins have one of the chummiest across-the-aisle relationships in Congress.

Which makes the following Lieberman swipe at Maine's junior senator all the more remarkable:

Where we've seen failure is when the US government failed to plan projects carefully and then failed to keep a close watch over contractors and now we've seen billions of dollars wasted--a cost measured not just in dollars but in the undermining of the overall US mission in these war-torn countries.

(Emphasis added.)

Naturally, Lieberman wouldn't call it a swipe--he'd say he didn't mean to single out Collins.

But let's be clear: When people talk about dismal-to-non-existent oversight of Iraq spending over the last four years, they're talking, in no small part, about the ineffectual tenure of Sen. Susan Collins as Homeland Security Committee chair.

Collins: Gonzales Not My Business

Sen. Collins breaks her silence on the US Attorneys scandal to tell the Associated Press the following:

"I do not think the attorney general has served the president well, but it is up to the president to decide on General Gonzales' continued tenure."

Reading between the lines, the implicit point Collins is making here is that what happens in the executive branch is none of her business.

(Of course, several of her Republican colleagues have had no trouble calling for Gonzales' resignation.)

Interesting to know that, six years into the President's term, she still believes he deserves this kind of deference.

Collins on Gonzales?

Radio silence, so far, from Maine's junior senator on the fate of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales--at least I haven't been able to track down a statement. She hasn't made a peep about the behavior of anyone in the administration during the US Attorneys scandal, as far as I can tell.

This after two of her Republican colleagues have taken the unusual step of calling for the Gonzales' dismissal.

What's she waiting for? Permission from the White House?

Musical Chairs

Via The Caucus we learn about a recent press release with Senator Collins' name on it:

In the last election, the voters said they were sick of the partisanship that produces gridlock. They want us to work together and get things done. So, as a start, instead of sitting on opposite sides of the room like a house divided, we want the American people to see us sitting side by side as our Committee members work together make our nation more secure and our government more efficient.

A couple of points are in order.

First, since when was the election a referendum against partisanship? It may be pretty for Collins to think so. But back here in the real world, we all know that the midterms represented a stinging rebuke to President Bush and his enablers in Congress.

Voters didn't want less gridlock. The wanted to check the power of a Republican party intoxicated by power.

Second, while there's nothing wrong with shaking up committee seating assignments--can you think of an emptier gesture? If gridlock were the main problem in Washington, does this get us any closer to the solution?

4 Out of 5 Bushies Agree

Senator Collins gets a presidential support score of 79 from Congressional Quarterly.

The Senator will go to great lengths over the next two years to distance herself from the administration. But over the last six years, on issues large and small, she has been an advocate, supporter and enabler of the destructive and poisonous policies of President George W. Bush.

Her accountability moment awaits.

Breaking out the Kid Gloves

The Kennebec Journal lets Sen. Collins off way too easy in this editorial on the junior senator's decision to renege on her 1996 commitment to serve no more than two terms:

Collins' answer to her critics is that when she made the pledge, she wasn't truly aware of the power of long-term incumbency--and now she is. We're a little suspect of that explanation...Susan Collins was an experienced political hand when she made her pledge who surely knew, at some level, the power of seniority.

We'd be happier with the good senator if she just said what really appears to be the case: She changed her mind. She likes being a U.S. senator (who wouldn't?) and wants to stay on the job. Changing one's mind is generally a signal of openness to new ideas and evidence, not political perfidy...

Certainly, it would be nice if none of us made promises we can't keep, or don't intend to keep. But who among us--except the saintly, perhaps--has not changed our mind at least once, an act which could be interpreted by some (often our children) as a faithless about-face?

What?

Note to Kennebec Journal: This isn't about "changing one's mind." It's not about white lies or personal foibles and it's got nothing to do with failing to live up to the expectations of your children.

It's about a public commitment to voters, made in the context of a political campaign.

Collins wanted something from the people of Maine and the promise was a way to help get it--plain and simple. She signed a contract with Maine citizens and she's now getting ready to fink on her end of the bargain.

We can argue about the significance of Collins' broken promise--how important it should be to voters in 2008. But can we all please agree that it's more serious, and tells us more about Collins' character, than a broken dinner date?

Read Craig's take at Turn Maine Blue here.

Scenes From The Senate

On Saturday a vote was held in the Senate to close debate on the Iraq war resolution. Sen. Collins was among seven Republicans lining up with Democrats in favor of bringing the resolution to a vote.

COLLINS WATCH was there.

Photos by Willow Lawson.

More at Contrapositive.

Twelve and Out?

Last week I assessed the evidence that Sen. Collins had promised to seek only two terms in the Senate and concluded the following:

While it doesn't sound as though Collins made a formal, explicit promise not to seek re-election in 2008, she certainly made something close to a pledge.

Well, hold the phone.

It looks like she may have made a full-fledged pledge after all.

Craig at Turn Maine Blue has produced an audio tape on which he says Collins is caught pledging to serve no more than two terms.

A transcript of the tape reads as follows:

Audience Member: Simple question, requires a one word answer, three of you support term limit amendment to the constitution, I want you to take the pledge, if you are elected will you serve twelve years and no more.

Female Voice: Yes
Male Voice: Yes
Male Voice: Yes

If it's Collins's voice on the tape, the water just got a bit hotter.

Funding Formulas

Just yesterday I revisited Sen. Collins's sorry tenure as Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental affairs--during which time she successfully beat back a White House attempt to allocate homeland security funds on the basis of risk.

Well, today we learn from Congress Daily that Collins is at it again:

The Senate is planning to move legislation to implement unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but with provisions that appear to put the chamber on a collision course with the House.

[...]

The Lieberman-Collins bill does have some controversial provisions...For example, it would guarantee each state receive more guaranteed funding than the House bill...

The 9/11 Commission recommended doing away with state guarantees, saying all grants should be based on risk...

"I have concerns with the first responder funding formulas," House Homeland Security ranking member Peter King (R-NY), said. "I believe the Senate should follow the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which gave the House formula an 'A.'"

So there you have it: Collins is once again teaming up with Sen. Joe "three way tie for third place" Lieberman (CFL-CT) to put pork barrel politics ahead of the security of the nation.

Collins may say that 9/11 changed everything, but she clearly doesn't believe it. Like so many of her fellow Republicans, she's still got a pre-9/11 mindset.

Seriousness Watch

Today we learn that Sen. Collins is working to stall the Real ID Act, which includes national standards for drivers' licenses.

I don't know enough about the act to know if its security benefits outweigh the costs (as Collins seems to believe). But reading about Collins's legislation was a fresh reminder that the junior Senator was the chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs as recently as December.

What does she have to show for her tenure? The record isn't pretty: Under her leadership, the Senate failed to heed the lessons of 9/11 and pass the kind of vital port security, chemical plant security and air cargo security legislation that the country desperately needed.

In fairness to Collins, she was confronting a White House and Republican majority more interested in launching foreign wars than in doing the difficult, boring work of securing the homeland.

But she can't blame the White House for her sordid role in the homeland security funding formula debate of 2005: Collins spearheaded successful efforts to divert homeland security funds from high-risk areas to low-risk ones.

As the New York Times noted at the time:

Before the vote, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made a powerful appeal to the senators to distribute the money based on risk. But the Senate, led by Susan Collins...put political pork ahead of national security.

Let's be blunt: On the homeland security front Collins has been part of the problem, not the solution.

Anyone who lives in a city or works in a city--or has friends or relatives who do--should have their head examined before lifting a finger to help re-elect Collins.

Collins Watch

In the past I'd heard vague rumblings about a 1996 pledge from Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) to serve no more than two terms in office. But searches both on and off the internet turned up nothing.

Thankfully, Foster's Daily Democrat has the scoop:

Collins said during her first campaign for the Senate she did not plan to serve more than two terms and thereafter reaffirmed that position when she first sought re-election.

The Bangor Daily News, on Sept. 17, 1996, reported Collins saying: "I want to go to Washington, serve two terms, and then come home."

Six years later, in a letter dated Sept. 6, 2002, to Carl Lindemann of Portland, Collins wrote: "I am proud of the accomplishments I have made during my first term, and I hope to have the opportunity to serve the people of Maine in the Senate for another six years. I intend to serve only two terms as I indicated in the Sanford forum six years ago."

But now, heading into a campaign for a third term, Collins says she has had a change of heart...

"I've found that I really underestimated the importance of seniority and how much difference it makes when you are a more senior member," said Collins, who worked for former U.S. Sen. William Cohen for a dozen years after college.

"At the time, I thought that 12 years, that two terms, would be enough. This was at the height of what I would call the frenzy over term limits," Collins said.

Hmm.

While it doesn't sound as though Collins made a formal, explicit promise not to seek re-election in 2008, she certainly made something close to a pledge. In any case, blaming the "frenzy over term limits" for her predicament does little to enhance her credibility.

In other news, Roll Call demonstrates why the minimum wage will be an issue in Collins's 2008 campaign:

Democrats are targeting Collins, who is up for reelection in 2008, and part of their strategy will be highlighting her mixed record on the minimum wage...

On March 7, 2005, Collins was one of only 16 senators to vote no on competing wage amendments offered by Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).

Kennedy's measure would have raised the minimum wage $2.10, and enjoyed bipartisan support with Republican Sens. Pete Domenici (N.M.), Norm Coleman (Minn.), the recently defeated Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) and Mike DeWine (Ohio). The amendment was defeated 46-49, falling 14 votes short of the 60 needed.

The Santorum amendment was billed as more business-friendly, calling for a wage increase of $1.10 with tax breaks for small businesses. Some conservatives, such as Sens. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) and then-Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), voted for the measure, but it also fell, 38-61.

Collins's office declined to comment to The Hill on her votes at that time, but explained her stance when pressed on those votes this week, stating that the senator repeatedly has voted against minimum-wage bills that do not contain small-business exemptions and tax breaks.

Except that the Santorum amendment did include small business tax breaks.

Looks like Collins is going to have explaining to do on a whole host of fronts.

Collins Watch

Via Newsweek:

QUESTION: Do you see any contradiction between supporting McCain, who is in favor of escalating the war, and your current role now in trying to stop the escalation?

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): No, because there isn’t going to be any candidate who I agree with 100 percent. This is a major issue, and I’m sure that John wishes he hadn’t taken me on the trip [to Iraq] with him in December. That’s the real irony.

Silly me. And I thought the irony was that almost two years before the election, Collins has already signed on to back a candidate for president whom she vehemently disagrees with--or at least professes to--on the most important issue facing the country.

Collins Watch

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has signed on to head the Maine wing of Sen. John "surge" McCain's presidential exploratory committee.

At the same time, Collins is sponsoring an anti-surge resolution in the Senate.

Guess that's why they call her a centrist.

Collins Watch

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) wants you to think that she's sane on the issue of global warming.

But if she'd had her way on election day and Republicans had retained control of the Senate, notorious climate change-denier Sen. James Inhofe (R-ME) would still be chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Here's what Inhofe said about global warming as recently as November:

Inhofe...argued that the current wave of unprecedented warming is due to "natural changes." "God's still up there," Inhofe said, and to the extent there is warming going on, it is "due to the sun." He added, "George Soros, the Hollywood elitists, the far left environmentalists on the committee that I chair--all of them want us to believe the science is settled and it's not."

Democrats have a one-seat majority in the Senate. A vote for Collins in 2008 is a vote for Inhofe to resume control of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

There's no other way to look at it.

Collins Watch

Now she tells us:

I have long had concerns about the President's broad use of signing statements to raise questions about the executive's intention to comply with legislation approved by Congress and signed into law by the President.

She's been so concerned about it, in fact, that a search for the term "signing statement" on her website turns up yesterday's press release--and only yesterday's press release.

You don't suppose Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is pandering, do you?

UPDATE: In comments, Dean points to an October 6, 2006 Boston Globe article which portrays Collins as having "rejected Bush's suggestion that he can bypass the new FEMA laws."

But this doesn't tell us much: Collins isn't seen registering any qualms about the President's practice of issuing signing statements. All she's shown to be doing, in the article, is rejecting a particular bit of presidental legal analysis.

That said, I've now gone back and searched for evidence to support Collins' press release claim, and she comes out at least a tad better than I might have expected:

In a July 27, 2006 CQ Daily article, Collins is quoted as saying, "I don't think signing statements should be used to thwart the will of Congress or to undermine the laws that we pass."

And an October 16, 2006 Federal Times story mentions that Collins has signed a letter to the President stating, in part: "We continue to have concerns about your broad use of signing statements to raise questions about the executive's intention to comply with legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President."

(These are the only two public comments by Collins on the subject of signing statments that I can find--but if anyone turns up more, please do pass them along.)

So score one for Collins: She hasn't been completely mum on the issue these last six years.

Of course, it worth pointing out that both of the on-the-record comments I've been able to track down came within the last six months (during a period, incidentally, when the President's approval ratings have been at historic lows.)

So Collins may have "long" had misgivings about the President's use of signing statements. But--if we assume, as we should, that "long" means more than six months--I've yet to find any evidence to back up her claim.

Collins Watch

Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post weighs the prospects of Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) in 2008:

The decline and fall of Republicans in the Northeast over the past few elections bodes poorly for Sen. Susan Collins' (R) chances of avoiding a tough race in 2008.

Collins has long stood in the shadow of her colleague Olympia Snowe (R) and is seen as the more vulnerable of the two Senators. Rep. Tom Allen (D) told Roll Call...that he was seriously considering a challenge to Snowe. Allen would likely be the most formidable Democrat the party could put forward.

He has held the 1st district, which takes in the southern part of the state including the state capital of Augusta as well as Portland, since 1996. Allen's challenge would be to introduce himself to the voters in the state's massive 2nd district--the largest congressional district east of the Mississippi.

Collins skated to victory in 2002, winning with 58 percent. Democrats won't let that happen again.

CONTRAPOSITIVE will be keeping close track of the 2008 Maine senate race as it unfolds over the next 22+ months. (For the reasons outlined in this post.)