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.

Monday Monday

Remember, Sen. Collins will be speaking at the Bangor Public Library on May 19 at 7:30am. The event is open to the public.

Not clear if she'll take questions. (I never got an answer.)

More on Collins' Dollars

As I've said before, I don't see out of state campaign donations as in any way tainted. And candidates shouldn't be held responsible for all the statements, issue positions or associations of their donors.

So the point of highlighting Sen. Collins' fundraising profile here isn't to suggest she's the tool of nefarious out of state interests or that corporations have bought her support.

It's a question, instead, of hypocrisy. And of priorities.

Let's remember, this is a candidate who has chided critics for using out of state money to question her record while confiding to out of state donors that they're the key to her campaign; who has solicited out of state dollars aggressively with a vile, red meat smear targeted to the hard right Republican base while just this month complaining about how expensive campaigns have become.

All this, and the junior senator is the pulling in three out of every four dollars from outside Maine.

In short: Are you kidding me?

The dissonance is truly something to behold, even for a seasoned, cynical political pro. (The utter lack of interest in the story--at least so far--from the Maine press corps is also pretty remarkable.)

So, that covers hypocrisy.

In terms of priorities: Look, it's not at all shocking that Sen. Collins is getting a ton of corporate PAC money, and I don't think it's because she's a patsy or plant. The truth is far simpler: Collins and corporations have goals in common.

Don't forget: The junior senator voted for all three of President Bush's fiscally reckless tax cuts for the super-rich; supports legal immunity for telecom companies who spied illegally on their customers; voted in favor of activist, business-friendly Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court; and looked the other way as Iraq war contractors bilked American taxpayers out of literally billions of dollars.

To put it plainly: Collins is the corporate world's dream candidate--especially once you adjust for the fact that she represents a blue state.

I'm sure they can't believe their good fortune.

After all, who would have thought that a state with one in eight residents on food stamps would seriously consider reelecting a pol who consistently favors industry over consumers, corporations over citizens and Wall Street over Mainers?

With Collins, business PACs have a good thing going. And they're desperate to keep it going. That's why they shower her with money. And it's why they'll continue to.

Senator From Away Redux

OpenSecrets.org has gone live with updated fundraising stats that include the first quarter of 2008.

According to a Center for Responsive Politics staffer, it's possible that some late data may still trickle in. But for now, this new set of numbers should give us a pretty clear idea of where things stand.

The upshot? The junior senator remains vastly more popular with out of state donors than with Mainers, and a darling of business PACs. Check it out:

--Collins continues to draw the overwhelming majority of her funds from out of state: Nearly three of every four dollars she's raised this cycle has come from outside Maine.

--At the beginning of 2008, she'd raised more money in the Washington D.C. region than from any city in Maine. That's still true. But her top five metropolitan areas now include only one Maine city: Portland is sandwiched among D.C., New York, Boston and Los Angeles.

--She's raised $1,347,692 from business PACs, or about 50% more from than she has from all Mainers combined. Rep. Allen, by contrast, has received $78,050 from business PACs.

Anyone in the Maine media think that's a disparity worth at least exploring?

Quote of the Day

Sen. Collins:

"Too much of our tax policy is directed at very large companies," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. "For example, there are needless tax subsides for the oil industry."

Well said.

You could be forgiven for concluding that Collins opposed the oil subsidy-laden Energy Policy Act of 2005 which, according to the Sierra Club, "harm[ed] public health, the environment and consumers."

But Collins was for it. (Fellow New Englander Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) and Collins pal Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) both voted against it.)

CNN: Allen Puts Obama Ahead in Supers

Coincidence? Or savvy timing?

Sen. Barack Obama has surpassed Sen. Hillary Clinton in the race for superdelegates, according to CNN's latest count.

Obama on Monday picked up an endorsement from Tom Allen, a Maine representative and U.S. Senate candidate.

[...]

With Allen's endorsement, Obama now leads in the race for superdelegates, 274 to Clinton's 273.

Link.

Obama on Allen: No One Has Worked Harder

Via press release:

"Tom Allen understands the challenges this country is facing, and no one has worked harder to solve them. He knows that if we're going to bring about the change this country needs, we're going to have to change the way Washington works. That's why he's never been afraid to stand up to the special interests and demand accountability from our leaders.

"Like me, Tom opposed the war in Iraq from the start, and he's been a tireless advocate for ending the war and reshaping our foreign policy to truly make this country safer and more respected. He's fought for tax cuts for the middle class, health care for all, and a return to fiscal responsibility--something this President and his allies in the Senate seem to have forgotten about completely.

"I've had the opportunity to meet voters from every corner of Maine, and they have spoken with one voice about the need for real change. There's no question that Tom's record of service, his tenacity, and his judgment will make him an excellent Senator. I'm thrilled to be working alongside him in this critical election, and I look forward to working with him as President."

Allen: I'm With Obama

Rep. Allen, a Democatic superdelegate, has thrown his support to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Via press release:

"I have been friends for a very long time with former President Clinton and Senator Clinton. I respect their service to our nation. Hillary Clinton has run a vigorous campaign and has attracted a passionate following in Maine and around the country. She loves this country and is a true leader. For her service, I am grateful," he said.

"Most of the primary voters across the nation have now spoken. It is time to bring a graceful end to the primary campaign. We now need to unify the Democratic Party and focus on electing Senator Obama and a working majority in the United States Senate. That is how we can change the direction of the country.

"I am running for the U.S. Senate because I believe Maine should lead the change this country needs. I share important priorities with Barack Obama: universal health care, reining in gas and food prices, greater independence from foreign oil, bringing our troops safely home from Iraq, creating jobs and strengthening the middle class."

[...]

"In February I watched a new generation of Mainers become involved in our nominating process because they were energized and hopeful about the future. I watched Independents and Democrats--and even a lot of Republicans--in Maine enthusiastically support Barack Obama because they believe he can and will put America back on track," he said.

Not exactly a surprise.

But it does point, once again, to the enthusiasm gap Sen. Collins is likely to face in the fall: Maine Democrats--who supported Obama overwhelmingly--are energized. Desperate to turn the page, they're excited about the November election.

Maine Republicans? Not as much.

Plain and simple: Sen. Collins will lose her seat in the fall unless she's able to win the votes of many Obama supporters.

Does McCain Help?

USA Today raises the issue:

Republicans have 23 Senate seats to defend in the fall, and four incumbents — Sununu, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Norm Coleman of Minnesota — are among the most vulnerable.

[...]

Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the non-partisan Cook Political Report, said the deciding factor for GOP incumbents in November could be whether Democrats can succeed in efforts to "morph McCain into George Bush."

[...]

Anthony Corrado, professor of government at Colby College, said Allen and the Democratic Party are chipping away at the independent credentials of Collins and McCain by linking them to Bush. "Tom Allen voted against the war and the (Bush) tax cuts from the start," he said.

Yes, her term-long embrace of Bush is a problem for Sen. Collins.

But is her puzzling attachment to Sen. McCain--whose presidential candidacy she endorsed long before he was the presumptive nominee--any less troubling?

Remember, McCain ran the most fervently pro-occupation campaign of all the major GOP candidates, and would be happy for us to stay in Iraq for a hundred years. But Collins, who professes to be looking for ways to reduce our involvement in that country, still wants him to be President.

McCain also wants more Supreme Court justices in the mold of Samuel Alito And Collins, who calls herself pro-choice, still wants him to be President.

Why endorse--and so early--someone you profess to disagree with on the major issues of the day? And how are voters supposed to make sense of these (and many other) self-refuting stances?

These are the kinds of question you'd think an enterprising reporter might want to pose to the junior senator.

UPDATE: Of course, Collins voted for Alito. And that's a topic that deserves further probing as well.

Forest, Trees, Etc.

Sen. Collins waives two cents at war critics, and BDN acts like she's given them a dollar.

Wednesday's BDN editorial is better than the paper's first article touting the junior senator's proposed ban on Iraq reconstruction spending: The piece acknowledges that the plan is almost purely symbolic. But it still errs in characterizing the proposal as genuine, meaningful progress.

Notably, it fails to mention that there is no new funding in the pipeline for Iraq reconstruction--at least none that I've been able to find. So prohibiting such expenditure is either an empty gesture, or a suggestion that the President can't be trusted not to shift US military funds to Iraq reconstruction projects.

(Of course, if Collins thinks the latter is the case, and that the President is fundamentally untrustworthy, she should end her support for his Iraq policy.)

Implicit in the editorial, throughout, is the sense that while the proposal doesn't amount to much, it's the best politically viable progress we can currently hope for.

But that assumption misses a key point: What's politically viable is a function of what Sen. Collins and her "moderate" Republican friends are willing to get behind.

In other words, BDN ought to cut out the middle man and call on Collins to abandon her unwavering support for an indefinite occupation. And it should challenge Sen. Collins to withdraw her endorsement of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) unless he pledges to extricate us from Iraq in a lot less than 100 years.

What Convention?

As far as I can tell, neither Sen. Collins campaign website nor her Senate site so much as mentions last week's Maine Republican convention.

No text, no video, nothing.

Seems the junior senator might prefer we forget that, like far-right columnist Cal Thomas and former Governor Mitt Romney, she received an enthusiastic reception from Maine's anti-choice, laissez-faire Republicans delegates.

No Aisle Crossing

Senate Guru (does he ever sleep?) catches Sen. Collins breaking with Sen. Snowe, Sen. Roberts (R-KS) and the Democrats to vote with the Republican leadership against legislation "to make the flying skies safer and more passenger-friendly."

No word yet on why the junior senator opposed allowing even an up-or-down vote on the bill, which included a passenger bill of rights and a tighter inspections regime for the airlines.

A House version of the bill passed last year.

Betrayed

Let me be explicit about something bubbling beneath the surface in my various posts on HRC's decision to endorse Sen. Collins.

Namely: Other progressive interest groups have absolutely no business going there. And it'll be a scandal if they do.

I cut HRC some slack on the Collins endorsement because the junior senator has a genuinely respectable record on their agenda. She's been willing to buck her party and her president, and she's done it repeatedly.

Clearly, Rep. Allen has a substantially better record. But I can almost forgive HRC's decision, flawed as it was, because Collins has at least stuck her neck out on gay and lesbian issues.

But when it comes to just about every other area in the progressive interest group universe, it's a totally different story.

Whether you're talking about abortion rights, the environment or civil liberties, Collins isn't just inferior to Rep. Allen. She's part of the problem.

And so if they endorsed Collins, organizations working in these areas would be turning their backs on their members and their core missions.

A number of factors make this true, and we'll explore many of them at length as the race unfolds.

But for now, one illustration: A key moment for Collins--and perhaps the quintessential test of her respect for progressive values--was the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

It wasn't the only time she was tested. But it was one of the more prominent. And in the context of the contemporary political landscape, her 'yea' vote was decisive: It was as clear and complete a betrayal of pro-choicers, enviros, and civil libertarians as you could imagine.

It erased any doubt left about whose side she's on. And it--alone--was enough to void any purported claim she had on the allegiance of moderates and progressives.

Collins on the Gas Tax Holiday

Sen. Collins breaks with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) over his gas tax holiday proposal. And on the merits, she's right.

[Rep. Michaud] said [House Transportation Committee] members are worried that the loss of revenue for highway programs would cost jobs and delay needed bridge and road repairs.

"I think we have to look at the long term," he said. "I think we have to look at real solutions, like regulating the trading of energy futures."

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she shares the concern that a suspension of taxes would adversely affect not only Maine but the entire country. But she said she will review all of the ideas being proposed.

"I would not support any measure that would direct funds away from our already ailing transportation infrastructure," she said. "More manageable fuel prices would be better achieved, for example, by halting the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and repealing tax breaks for big oil companies, and redirecting the funding to consumers, both of which I have proposed."

Good for her.

Quote of the Day

Not Iraq, huh?

In an interview, I [Cal Thomas] asked Collins the main reason Republicans lost their congressional majority and are struggling to regain a political foothold in what looks like a big year for Democrats. She said, "There was an explosion of and increase in spending."

Not corruption? Not incompetence?

Collins Speech in Review

Three things jump out at me:

1. You have to be pretty cynical to accuse your opponent of coddling terrorists and then (minutes later?) face the TV cameras and say about the campaign, "I fear we're gonna see all those horrible attack ads." But it's the kind of cynicism you'd expect from someone who--when it's politically expedient--promises voters to serve no more than two terms and then goes back on her word when it interferes with her career plans.

2. I'm also puzzled by the speech's core message, which seems to be A) Democrats are hyper-partisan, interest group-coddlers who can't be trusted and B) I'm the strongest candidate because I work so well with Democrats. (Of course, evidence be damned, everyone knows the junior senator is a moderate-bipartisan-centrist, so naturally the Maine press will feel free to ignore the dissonance.)

3. Collins' lament about the length and expense of campaigns is a cute move given her fundraising profile and February decision to launch the earliest and most vicious attack of the cycle.

Collins, you'll remember, has received seventy percent of her funds from out of state donors; has traveled out of state to tell donors their money will play a key role in deciding race; and has received millions from business PACs.

Memo to the junior senator: One of the reasons the race has been expensive is that you've been hitting up your corporate friends for big donations, and then using those funds to smear your opponent.

Collins' Convention Speech

Via PolitickerME.com:

Part 1



Part 2



UPDATE: PolitckerME.com seems to have missed some of the speech. But in these clips, if I'm counting correctly, Sen. Collins says the word "Iraq" only once--and in passing.

In general, the address is noticeably light on the discussion of issues, even by the standards of a campaign speech at a political convention.

Collins at the Convention

The AP runs the first extended piece on Sen. Collins' remarks at the Maine GOP convention. Here's the meat of the article:

While allowing that she and Allen both care deeply about Maine, Collins said "the similarities pretty much end there" and ticked off a list of areas in which she and the congressman differ.

Collins said she supported Republican tax relief efforts, which Allen opposed. Collins said she voted for Medicare Part D drug coverage while Allen opposed it, and that she supported allowing the government to intercept overseas phone calls "of terrorists plotting to kill Americans" while Allen did not.

[...]

Collins touted her own record of helping to steer through legislation to protect the security of cargo, reorganize federal intelligence programs and make changes in the Federal Emergency Management Agency following Hurricane Katrina.

Collins also said she is best positioned to work in a bipartisan manner, while Democrats say she voted with the Bush administration 81 percent of the time.

Several points.

First, it's encouraging to hear the junior senator being upfront about her support for--and Rep. Allen's opposition to--the budget-busting Bush tax cuts for the super-rich. Why she wants to flaunt her soft spot for billionaires at a time when one in eight Mainers uses food stamps is beyond me. But good for her for being honest about it.

Second, Medicare Part D was, of course, a drug industry-sponsored sham, and it's since proven to be a boondoggle. So her pride in that vote is also hard to fathom.

Third, the bit about wiretapping (assuming it's been conveyed accurately) is a bald-faced lie. No congressional Democrat that I know of--Rep. Allen included--objects to wiretapping terrorist phone calls. What they take issue with, instead, is President Bush's illegal program of warantless eavesdropping on Americans.

Collapsing the distinction between these two issues is a disingenuous cheap shot and a smear. It would be like calling Sen. Collins an ally of North Korea because both she and Kim Jong Il don't object to the US staying bogged down in Iraq indefinitely.

Finally, while I understand what the reporter was driving at in the last sentence quoted above, the wording is unhelpful: Readers aren't interested in what Democrats say about Collins' voting record. Either the junior senator has voted 81 percent of the time with the Bush administration or she hasn't.

Which is it, AP?

UPDATE: In line with Gerald's complaint here, I'm also struck by how little coverage there's been of the convention in the Maine press. I understand it may not be front page news, but when a state party with two incumbent senators gathers in a presidential year, surely it deserves some attention.

There is one media organization in Maine that's treated the convention as important news: The one that's New York-owned, web-based and operated on a shoestring.

No, we're not patting ourselves on the back. We're talking about PolitickerME.com.

Quote of the Day

Betsy Smith, Executive Director of Equality Maine:

"I don't think that the HRC has a basis anymore for this type of endorsement. People were upset in 2002 when they endorsed Collins over Pingree, but it was a little more understandable then...This is a very, very different situation. They now have every reason to look at both candidates, and records that both of them have in Washington."

Collins to GOP Convention: Wha?

I haven't been able to get my hands on the text or video of Sen. Collins' remarks to the Maine Republican party convention earlier today. But the very short AP story on her speech is sort of baffling:

After a rousing introduction by fellow Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, Collins ticked off a list of areas in which she and Allen disagree, such as committee choices, privacy and Medicare prescription drug coverage.

Seriously? Committee choices?

I have absolutely no idea what that's supposed to mean. But now I'm intrigued.

Punishing Good Behavior

Pivoting off Gerald's strong points, a few final thoughts on Human Rights Campaign's endorsement of Sen. Collins.

As I said from the start, HRC had its reasons for endorsing Sen. Collins. But it's worth mentioning that the purely political case for the endorsement is exceedingly, almost laughably weak.

Consider: Just about everyone--including Republicans--believes that Democrats will gain seats in both chambers in November. And the smart money believes that the GOP's chances of regaining control of Congress before 2012 are slim to none.

Meanwhile, Sen. Collins has already come out in favor of ENDA and against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

So unless HRC thinks Collins' positions are contingent on their endorsement--unless they think they've essentially bought her cooperation--the Maine Senate race represents an opportunity to replace a lukewarm (but reliable) supporter from the minority party with a solid ally from the party in power. In other words, someone in a position to actually advance HRC's goals.

Now it's true that most Democrats in the Senate already respect HRC's agenda. But it's also true that there will be many competing priorities for Democrats to tackle over the next couple years. And when it comes to public support, expanding protections for gays and lesbians isn't exactly high on the list.

Given this landscape, HRC's willingness to signal to its most stalwart supporters that the organization doesn't have their backs--and that HRC won't even refrain from endorsing their challengers--seems beyond boneheaded. It seems like a huge strategic miscalculation.

But at a minimum, it's a questionable way for the organization to persuade wobbly pols to champion its issues.

UPDATE: Poor word choice: I didn't meant to suggest that protections for gays and lesbians are unpopular. (Which I'm pretty sure isn't the case). What I meant, instead, is that such protections are not a top priority for most Americans.

Republicans in Augusta

Susan Cover is on the ground at the Republican convention in Augusta. Wonder how Sen. Collins' nod from Human Rights Campaign is playing with the delegates...

UPDATE: Politicker ME is promising photos and video.

The Interest Groups

November's election isn't likely to turn on Human Rights Campaign's endorsement of Sen. Collins. But since the junior senator's success with voters depends on convincing them she's a moderate, there are some other progressive organizations whose verdicts will matter: If she's embraced by moderate, left-leaning groups, this will inevitably solidify the impression among voters that Collins is who she says she is.

Conversely, if Collins finds herself attacked by progressive organizations, independents and Democrats who've supported the junior senator in the past will surely take note of that as well.

So it will be interesting to see how these endorsements shake out, whether any organizations decide to sit on the sidelines, and whether those who do take sides back their words up with fundraising, organizational support, etc.

HRC: Many Factors At Work

David Smith, VP of Programs at HRC, via e-mail:

[...]

As you acknowledge in your blog post, there are many factors that go into determining which candidate to endorse. It is not good strategy to work against an incumbent with a demonstrated track record in the Senate, who has laid the groundwork for the progress we want to make...

HRC is a bipartisan organization. This is not an empty principle or a meaningless nod to an ideal we do not follow. We are bipartisan because equality knows no party, and because we simply cannot achieve justice for the entire GLBT community by conceding that only Democrats should care about us. We cannot, should not, and will not make fundamental human rights--the right to work, the right to be safe from hate violence,
the right to protect your family--a partisan issue.

To her credit, Susan Collins has demonstrated that our rights are not a partisan issue, but an American issue...

We thank Rep. Allen for his continued commitment to equal rights. We stand by our endorsement of ally, friend, and leader Senator Susan Collins.

Striking, for a couple reasons.

Smith is being pretty open about the power dynamics here: He acknowledges that pissing off incumbents isn't in HRC's interests. But he also makes it clear that Collins' Republican affiliation weighed in favor of endorsing her. And he implies that it weighed rather heavily.

Of course, critics of the endorsement likely agree with Smith that HRC ought to be a bipartisan organization. But they'd argue that the onus should be on Republicans to sign onto HRC's agenda--rather than on HRC to bend its standards to accommodate members of the GOP.

UPDATE: Having now listened to Mike Signorile's interview with HRC's David Smith, I heartily recommend it. Worth your while if you have a few minutes.

More HRC and Collins

Human Rights Campaign's decision to endorse Sen. Collins has kicked up some dust with progressives over the last several days.

Howie Klein panned the move on Monday, noting at Huffington Post (and in comments here) that Collins has backed some of President Bush's most egregious judicial nominees, and that she actually scores well below Rep. Allen on HRC's own legislative scorecard.

Meanwhile, the endorsement has been ridiculed at Daily Kos and elsewhere.

HRC VP David Smith took to the airwaves yesterday in an effort to quell the controversy. And while I haven't had a chance to listen to the audio yet, the upshot seems to be that Smith continues to face skepticism within the GLBT community.

We've got an e-mail in to Smith, asking him to detail the reasoning behind giving Collins the nod. We'll let you know if he gets back to us with anything interesting.

Bangor By Dawn

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

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

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

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

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

What questions would you ask Sen. Collins?

HRC Endorses Collins

No, not Hillary Rodham Clinton:

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But voters face a much simpler calculation.

Fourth And Goal

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

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

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

So you tell me.

BDN Falls For It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's that simple.

$1.4 Billion

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

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

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

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

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

But Will He Apologize?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attack Video Gone

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

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

It's not clear.

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

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

You can still watch the original video here.

Pope Skips Dinner

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

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

Collins Q1: $963,000

From Political Extra:

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

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

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

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

And it's just getting started.

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

Allen Q1: $700,000+

From the Allen camp:

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

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

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

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

Collins to Dine With Pope

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

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

Fish, Barrel, Etc.

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

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

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

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

They Issue Statements

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

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

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

--Eli Pariser, political director of Moveon.org

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

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

Who Pays

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ambiguous Case

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

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

Striking, isn't it?

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

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

But is there any binding legislation that she does support?

We know what Rep. Allen thinks:

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

We know what Sen. Snowe thinks:

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

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

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

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

BDN Snoozes Again

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

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

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

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

Rasmussen Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Independent Poll

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

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

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

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

Presidential Poll

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

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

I, for one, am surprised by these numbers.

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

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

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

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

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

Case in Point

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

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

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

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

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

More Real ID

Crisis averted.

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

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

New (Republican) Poll

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

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

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

Real ID

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

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

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

Talking With Voters

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

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

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

They Write Editorials

The Kennebec Journal, refreshingly sane:

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

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

No, it doesn't.

[...]

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

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

Wants

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on Attendance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Peculiar Press

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

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

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

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

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

A Team Player

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

Or at least, they used to be:

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

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

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

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

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

Collins voted yes on the Iraq war.

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

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

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

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

She voted yes on the suspension of habeas corpus.

I could go on.

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

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

Even More Bowen

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

Five Years

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

Rep. Allen has reaction from Mainers here.

Bowen: Not Enough Oversight

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

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

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

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

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

But those arguments are getting weaker by the day.

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

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

Collins Watch regrets the error.

Bowen On The Hill

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

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

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

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

More in a bit.

Really, People

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

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

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

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

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