Middle School Priorities

Sen. Collins will find time this Friday night to attend the Hodgkins Middle School band concert.

But five years into a bloody, expensive, disastrously-misconceived war and occupation that she helped set in motion and continues to support, it's been more than twelve months--at least as far as we can tell--and possibly much longer since the junior senator has stood before adult Mainers in an open forum.

More on Collins' preference for middle schoolers over voters here and here.

Rasmussen

Facing an electoral drubbing, Republicans are now questioning the accuracy of Rasmussen polls, pointing out that they're automated--conducted via robocall rather than live interview.

As Kos notes, however, automated polls have a pretty good track record as of late.

I don't know enough to have a dog in this fight. But for what it's worth, my gut tells me that the ten point margin in the most recent Rasmussen survey, if anything understates Sen. Collins' advantage.

And so her lead seems more likely to expand than contract in the next survey.

But that's just one guy's gut. We'll have to wait and see.

And Now the Dems

Gerald will be blogging from the Democratic Convention in Augusta today and tomorrow.

Expect coverage at PolitickerME.com as well.

An Aside: NARAL

NARAL's poorly-timed endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) over Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) earlier this month is exactly the kind of dubious, self-defeating interest group action we counseled against here.

But it's the kind of move that could be repeated in Maine.

To recap: Having made the (correct) judgment months ago that Obama and Clinton were equally strong on abortion rights and related issues, NARAL had no reason to abandon its neutrality while the nomination was still up for grabs--at least no reason related to its mission.

What's more, the endorsement divided abortion rights advocates--as you would have had to expect.

So why go ahead with it at all? Why not wait for Obama to wrap up the nomination and then endorse, in a way that unites Democrats and brings pro-Clinton pro-choicers into the fold?

If you're thinking strictly about advancing the organization's mission, it's not at all clear. If anything, the endorsement looks counterproductive.

So clearly, something else factored in.

And you don't have to be a callous cynic or a political insider to realize that while the cause gains nothing from the endorsement, NARAL as an organization very well might: Increased access to the Obama campaign; perceived clout and influence with Obama's inner circle; entree with Obama donors; etc.

In short, it's not hard to see how a few folks daydreaming about jobs in an Obama administration might be looking for ways to get on the campaign's good side--and as soon as possible. And it's not hard to see how the organization's leadership might salivate at the opportunity to ingratiate themselves with the Obama camp's 1.5 million donors.

Interest group endorsements aren't supposed to work that way. They're not supposed to be about power games and parochial agendas.

Still, it's not hard to see how that kind of thinking could infect the decision-making process.

NARAL and groups like it present themselves as grassroots, mission-based organizations. But that doesn't mean they're always run that way.

And that's something worth keeping in mind when it comes to interest group endorsements and the Maine senate race.

Summer of Sam?

As promised, we'll be turning our focus to Justice Samuel Alito with some frequency in the weeks and months ahead: We'll dig into his record as a Circuit Court judge and his opinions on the Supreme Court; and we'll look back at his confirmation hearings, and at the politics of the confirmation vote itself.

But to begin, I want to lay out the basic facts of his nomination--as seen through the eyes of the Maine press as it unfolded--and Sen. Collins' role in it.

There will be details to fill in later. But hopefully this is a good starting point for discussion. If you notice any important gaps, please let us know.

--November 1, 2005. Sen. Collins reacts to the October 31 nomination announcement, telling the Morning Sentinel she's not familiar with Alito's record but that: "My number one criterion is that the person have excellent credentials and appropriate judicial philosophy and unquestioned integrity."

Queried about Alito's role as the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which "struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses," Collins tells the paper that she wants to read the opinion and discuss it with Alito.

The article notes: "Collins said she would not judge Alito on his position on abortion alone."

--November 2. A Portland Press Herald story names the Alliance for Justice and Planned Parenthood as organizations criticizing Alito's record.

--November 17. Alito's 1985 job application to the Justice Department, "in which he said the Constitution doesn't protect the right to abortion" is examined on the front page of the PPH.

--December 13. Collins remains undecided on the nomination after having met with Alito, according to the PPH. A Collins spokesman tells the paper that the junior senator is waiting for the confirmation hearings to make up her mind.

--December 20. Bangor Daily News covers local opposition to the nomination.

Maureen Drouin of the Maine Sierra Club tells the paper that Alito's rulings have been persistently detrimental to clean water and public health.

Nicole Clegg of the Family Planning Association of Maine is quoted as worrying that Alito will uphold laws such that, "access to safe, legal abortions will be an impossibility for millions of women."

Andy Cadot of Maine Lawyers for Democracy argues to BDN that, "[Alito's] decisions are driven by his own personal ideology, which favors corporations and big government...That places him to the far right of even conservative justices now on the Supreme Court."

--January 6, 2006. With confirmation hearings about to start, NPR notes that Sen. Snowe and Collins, "are two of just a few pro-choice Republican senators whose votes are considered to be up for grabs."

--January 15. PPH reports that Collins remains undecided on Alito, but will not support a filibuster of his nomination.

In the same article, Chris Quint of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England is quoted as saying, "Judge Alito cannot hide from his consistent pattern of decisions as a judge and a clearly stated legal philosophy that will put Maine people's right to privacy at risk."

Nicole Clegg of Family Planning Association of Maine charges, "Alito's claims of respecting precedent and privacy rights don't square with his 15-year record as a judge and even longer career as a government lawyer."

--January 27. Collins says she will vote in favor of Alito, PPH reports.

"Based on the record before me, I believe Judge Alito will be a justice who will exercise his judicial duties guided not by personal views, but based on what the facts, the law and the Constitution command," the junior senator is quoted as having written.

The article goes on to acknowledge opposition from 40 Maine advocacy groups, mentioning the National Organization of Women, the AFL-CIO and the National Environmental Trust as examples.

Maine Women's Lobby Executive Director Sarah Standiford laments, "Now was the time for Senator Collins to stand by her pro-choice values and stand by Maine people, and she failed."

--February 1. Collins joins 57 colleagues to confirm Alito 58-42. Four Democrats support the nomination while one Republican--Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)-- votes against.

Jonathan Crasnick, director of Democracy Maine, tells the PPH that Collins and Snowe are more conservative than they often let on: "They get all this praise for being moderate, but time after time for judicial confirmations and other issues, they follow the Bush administration's agenda."

Collins counters to the paper that, "Even a cursory review of my voting record demonstrates that I stand tall for what I believe in, that I reflect the views of the majority of Mainers and that I vote in a very moderate way."

Quote of the Day

Ron Kaufman, former senior adviser to the Romney presidential campaign:

I think any Republican who doesn’t say panic is in the wind is lying through their shirt.

Blade Endorses Allen

The New England Blade (which describes itself as, "New England’s premier gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender newspaper") endorses Rep. Allen:

Just in the past years, [Sen. Collins] has become what some have labeled a leader in her party on GLBT issues. She was a lead co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and she is rumored to be considering a similar role in obliterating the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule and replacing it with a non-discrimination policy.

Many in the GLBT community view Collins as a key ally in the Senate...

Getting Collins to this point has not been easy: she refused to publicly support or oppose the 2005 referendum in Maine that sought to keep an anti-discrimination law on the books, and it was only after months and months of arm twisting that she made an overture suggesting that she might take a closer look at "Don't ask, don't tell."
Having a Republican ally in the Senate on GLBT issues has merit, and Collins carries a big stick.

In contrast, while Allen lacks the bravado of Collins, he is crystal clear on where he stands on all issues affecting the GLBT community and their families. In times of crisis, and we believe that DADT, ENDA, and any effort to undermine laws that are aimed to protect the GLBT community are clear and present danger, it is wiser to elect a lawmaker who doesn't require cajoling.

Little and Late

If you're wondering what all the fuss is about Sen. Collins' failure to probe Iraq war contracting, this story in today's New York Times will give you a hint:

A Pentagon audit of $8.2 billion in American taxpayer money spent by the United States Army on contractors in Iraq has found that almost none of the payments followed federal rules and that in some cases, contracts worth millions of dollars were paid for despite little or no record of what, if anything, was received.

The audit also found a sometimes stunning lack of accountability in the way the United States military spent some $1.8 billion in seized or frozen Iraqi assets, which in the early phases of the conflict were often doled out in stacks or pallets of cash. The audit was released Thursday in tandem with a Congressional hearing on the payments.

In one case, according to documents displayed by Pentagon auditors at the hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, a cash payment of $320.8 million in Iraqi money was authorized on the basis of a single signature and the words “Iraqi Salary Payment” on an invoice. In another, $11.1 million of taxpayer money was paid to IAP, an American contractor, on the basis of a voucher with no indication of what was delivered.

This is the kind of thing we would have been better of knowing in 2003. Or 2004. Or 2005.

BDN Tackles the Farm Bill

The BDN editorial board weighs in on the Farm Bill this morning, and their piece makes a lot more sense than PPH's take on the bill.

My only real beef with it comes here:

[Collins] added that, while she supported increased funding for food stamps and other nutrition and conservation provisions, as well as increased federal oversight to prevent manipulation of electronic energy markets, "as a whole, this farm bill represents wasteful spending and the wrong priorities."

BDN cites these statements approvingly.

But in the context of the junior senator's record, it's important to ask what exactly she means when she says she "supports" a goal or idea--in this case food stamps and conservation.

After all, when you consider the fact that she's voted for $1 trillion in tax cuts tilted toward the super-rich and an Iraq policy that'll ultimately cost at least another trillion, it's curious that $43 billion in farm pork is where she draws the line.

And it's notable that she's willing to sacrifice $200 billion in food aid on the altar of fiscal prudence after she spent literally years turning back please to investigate--and help end--the expensive and deadly waste, fraud and corruption in Iraq war contracting.

So yes: Collins may "support" food stamps and conservation programs. But she supports them the same way I support cleaning my room. It's something I'd like to see accomplished. But it's not exactly high on my list.

As is often the case with Sen. Collins, the problem isn't so much what she thinks. (Or "thinks.") It's what she's willing to do about what she thinks.

And when it comes to putting the needs of Mainers ahead of the priorities of her President, she hasn't been willing to do nearly enough.

Passing The Hat

Do you value the analysis and reporting we've been providing here? Think it serves as a corrective to the less-than-vigorous, rarely-substantive coverage Sen. Collins receives in the media?

Then please consider visiting our tip jar--in the form of the 'Donate' button at right.

Caveats, explanations and self-congratulation here.

Cut and Paste

Talk about press release journalism. Egads.

But compare it to the same reporter's take on Rep. Allen's speech in Bangor, which positively brims with context, some of it gratuitous.

At times, I've accused BDN of being lazy. But I think this is something else.

Innumeracy

It's still too early to know all the ins and outs of the Collins camp's strategy for the fall. But one of their key assumptions would appear to be that Mainers can't count.

Consider Sen. Collins' response to questions from Bangor Daily News about paying off the national debt:

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said that if the full Congress approves the effort she has pushed in the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the Iraqi government to pay for a greater share of the costs of the war, it will be a significant savings.

"This will save billions of dollars as we shift costs," she said. "They are seeing a huge windfall as oil prices have soared, and they should pay more of the costs."

But, Collins said, that is only part of the solution. She said the Farm Bill, which passed last week over her objections, includes "billions" in subsidies to farmers, in some cases, to not grow food.

"We cannot continue these subsidies that are causing food shortages," she said. "It just does not make any sense."

So, let's review how Collins intends to close the gap.

As the article mentions, the debt currently stands at $9.2 trillion.

The "effort" on Iraq funding Collins cites amounts to blocking future reconstruction dollars and making the Iraqis pay for their own equipment and training. I haven't seen anyone attach a number to this plan, but let's be optimistic and put the savings at $10 billion.

The farm bill subsidies which she mentions are a clearer case: They'll cost $43 billion over five years.

So, add Collins' proposals together and we're talking about $53 billion in savings. Remember, the national debt is more than $9 trillion. Anyone else see what's going on here?

In short, the junior senator hasn't even scratched the surface of the problem.

(Can you imagine what would happen if--at a meeting with a loan officer--you boasted about your great progress in paying off your $10,000 debt by pointing to the $58 you'd been able to scrape together?)

What's more, Collins voted for the Iraq war--which is on the way to costing well over $1 trillion; she's consistently voted to fund that war to the tune of $12 billion per month; and consistently voted against a mandated withdrawal.

Meanwhile, Collins voted for each of President Bush's fiscally reckless tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, at a total cost of well over $1 trillion.

In sum, after voting for policies that will add more than $2 trillion in debt, the junior senator wants to undo the damage by slashing a minuscule fraction of that amount, even as she supports policies that send the debt ever higher.

To call the junior senator's answer to the debt question "ridiculous" doesn't get anywhere near conveying the magnitude of its absurdity.

Of course, this is where a vigorous press enters the equation--where careful, well-researched reporting is vitally necessary to keeping readers informed. But the BDN just slaps the Collins quotes down on the page and leaves it at that. No follow-up questions, no context--nothing.

Lazy, drive-by reporting isn't a problem exclusive to BDN, or to Maine--far from it. But it's especially dangerous--and irresponsible--in the context of a senate race where one candidate is depending on voters buying into an image that has stunningly little to do with her record.

UPDATE: Portland Press Herald gets in on the act with a mathematically-challenged editorial praising Sen. Collins for voting against the Farm Bill.

Reasonable people can disagree about the merits of the legislation. But PPH characterizes it as nearly pure pork, even as it lauds the bill's food aid and conservation provisions.

Here's the thing: Those provisions make up 78 percent of the bill. So it's just plain wrong to assert that, "the real beneficiaries [of the bill] are not Maine residents," given that one in eight Mainers is on food stamps.

Simply put, once you do the math--and realize that Collins' vote against $43 billion in farm subsidies meant opposing five times as much in food aid--PPH's entire argument falls apart.

WGME Follows Up

Little new here, aside from the fact that the station should obviously have found some other B-roll footage to run during its original report.

Can't say I'm surprised, though, that the junior senator's allies are looking for some way to distract from the substance of WGME's story.

BFPF Checks In

Bangor Foreign Policy Forum explains, via e-mail, why their Monday event with Sen. Collins has been closed to the public:

Nothing has changed outside of the unusually large, yet understandable, number of people expressing an interest in attending Monday's talk. Given that the forum is a 501(c)(3) organization that relies on the dues, contributions, and volunteer work of its members, it is standard policy to give members the opportunity to bring a guest, whether a close family member, friend, or colleague, to each and every event. We use a lecture hall with a maximum capacity of 70 people...

In sum, no speaker, regardless of position or title, plays a role in the format of the talks or has a role in the identities of the guests in attendance. We will gladly allow them to invite guests for obvious reasons (Congressman Allen brought 4 staffers). We made sure that a respectable journalist, Mr. Don Carrigan, moderates both events, and we have set aside time as always for questions and answers. Like the event with Congressman Allen, we have invited the media, including MPBN and their Speaking in Maine lecture series. Hopefully they will broadcast this talk...

Good to know.

Followership

Via Andrew Sullivan, here's conservative pundit Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal:

What happens to the Republicans in 2008 will likely be dictated by what didn't happen in 2005, and '06, and '07. The moment when the party could have broken, on principle, with the administration--over the thinking behind and the carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government--has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They're stuck...

If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party's fortunes from the president's. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn't be left with a ruined "brand," as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership.

When I first started to look closely at Sen. Collins' record, in late 2006, I was struck by how rarely she'd crossed President Bush, especially in major votes.

But her refusal more recently--right up until now--to break decisively with the President and his failed policies: That's been even more surprising.

Collins Event Now Closed

Via e-mail from Peter Fandel, Program Coordinator for Bangor Foreign Policy Forum:

Thank you all for contacting the Bangor Foreign Policy Forum regarding the talk on May 19th by Senator Susan Collins. Due to the overwhelming response for this event, we will be unable to seat those who are not either members of the forum or
invited guests of members. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience but hope you can join us at a future event.

Hmm...

As regular readers know, as far as we can tell Sen. Collins hasn't appeared before adult Mainers in a free, public forum for well over a year.

So this event seemed like an exceedingly rare opportunity to hear from the junior senator, and maybe even pose a question. And last we heard, seating for non-members was going to be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

So what changed? We'll see if we can find out.

UPDATE: It's worth remembering that this event--now a strictly private affair--is being held at the Bangor Public Library.

No Soup For You

I'll be the first to admit that the farm bill includes some dubious provisions. But keep in mind, two-thirds of the funds allocated in it are for emergency food assistance and food stamps, which are used by one in eight Mainers.

What's more, Sen. Snowe--who joined Rep. Allen and Rep. Michaud to vote in favor of the bill--is calling the legislation, "essential to Maine's various industries."

So why did Sen. Collins vote against it?

New Poll: 10 Points

The folks at Swing State Project spot Rasmussen's new poll on the Allen-Collins race:

Tom Allen (D): 42 (38)

Susan Collins (R-inc): 52 (54)

April's numbers, which gave Collins a 16 point advantage, are in parenthesis.

Rep. Allen and Sen. Collins are now tied among independents.

UPDATE: Most of the Rasmussen data is subscription-only. But here are a couple of tidbits:

--90% of Maine voters believe the nation is heading down the wrong track.

--In the presidential contest, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) leads Sen. John McCain by 13 points.

More Contracting (Collins Version 3.0)

As chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee, Sen. Collins was better positioned than anyone else in government to investigate--and help reform--our dangerous, corrupt and expensive war procurement practices. But for years she did nothing.

In January, the junior senator defended her inaction by claiming that she didn't want to duplicate work being done elsewhere.

Then in February the story changed--a spokesman argued that pleas for oversight dating back to 2003 were a sham, a partisan effort by a single committee Democrat to score political points.

Since that's been disproved, Collins seems to have moved on to a third set of justifications: Hearings themselves are nothing more than political theatre. And, by the way, she's shocked and appalled to be criticized about something so serious.

Two responses.

First, if hearings are as useless as Collins makes them sounds, why did she hold so many of them during her tenure as committee chair? Was it all about scoring political points and political theatre?

Second, on the junior senator's shock and dismay: No one responsible for this kind of garbage is in the position to play the "appalled" card. Please.

Four Years

WGME covers the Iraq war contracting story:



The piece is laudable in a number of respects--it manages to cram a lot of facts into five minutes. And it provides more context than I can remember any of the Maine papers giving readers.

But it does leave a couple of misleading impressions, if only due to time constraints:

1. Hearings aren't just a chance to shame corporate bigwigs on TV (as the voice over implies) or an opportunity for political theatre.

When done right, oversight committees use subpoena power and public testimony to uncover hidden truths and spur action.

In this case, aggressive investigation would have shed light on the scope and seriousness of the war contracting problem. (And it was deadly serious.) Contractors would have scrambled to reform their conduct and the Bush administration would have felt pressure to keep them in line. National outrage would have followed and--almost certainly--legislation.

But because Sen. Collins sat on her hands, none of that happened. Corrupt practices continued, the news trickled out slowly and our war effort suffered as a result.

2. The junior senator suggests that she chose legislative action over hearings, and the broadcast lets her get away with this characterization. But it's bunk: The bill Collins refers to just after 3:00 wasn't passed until late 2007--just a few months ago. (This fact is mentioned in the report's closing seconds, but it's easy to miss.)

Of course, the calls for hearings--even from Collins ally Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)--stretched all the way back to 2003. And that's when there was a desperate need for action.

Waiting more than four years--till the President's approval ratings have tanked, at the beginning of your own reelection battle, when the worst damage has already been done--that's not leadership. It's not competence.

It's fecklesesness in the face of disaster.