Allen: Collins is For Corporations

This seems to be emerging as standard attack line from the Allen folks. Here's Rep. Allen in Portland today:

The Chamber and other allies of Susan Collins--like WalMart--have for weeks now attacked me and Maine's working men and women with distortions. The very names of their front groups--like Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and Employee Freedom--are lies.

[...]

Why are Susan Collins' allies in the U.S. Chamber attacking me and Maine's working people? Because they don't want change.

They want people to work hard for them, but they don't want them to be able to bargain for better health care benefits and fair wages.

They don't want change. They want more of the same.

The same Bush-Collins economic policies that give massive tax breaks to the superwealthy and the big corporations while working people fall farther and farther behind.

Susan Collins is on their side. She has voted down the line for the Bush economic policies.

That is why these big corporations and the U.S. Chamber are pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars--now about $800,000--into television and radio ads that the Brunswick Times Record rightly called "sleazy."

(Via press release.)

Question of the Day

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has so many houses that he's lost count.

But even he resisted the urge to vote for the Bush administration's unaffordable, irresponsible tax cuts for the super-rich.

So why couldn't Sen. Collins muster the courage to say no to her friend Karl Rove?

Centrism Watch

I'm not suggesting we had anything to do with it. But lately, we've been seeing at least a slight move away from the standard Sen. Collins-as-centrist formula in some prestigious publication.

Instead of referring to the junior senator--without qualification--as a "moderate," these outlets are hedging by saying that Collins "is seen" as a moderate.

Or that she's a moderate "at least on social issues." Or that she "is viewed as a moderate when compared to her national party."

As welcome as this development is, these publications are still straddling: The truth is, either Collins is a moderate or she isn't. And clearly, having backed the position of our radical, reactionary President on more than three out of every four votes over the years, she isn't.

Everyone knows that it's the job of the press to separate the fact from the rumor and appearance from reality.

So can we please here less about how Susan Collins is seen and more about, for example, how she's performed in office?

Curatola: It's Was Just Business

The star of the corporate-backed, Sopranos-themed ad campaign to re-elect Sen. Collins speaks:

“As a working actor, I am provided with many opportunities to appear in commercials,” [Vincent Curatola] said in a statement made available by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. “These are business decisions and do not reflect my personal views or opinions.”

UPDATE: Another terrible article from Blethen on the ads.

This one actually includes much of the information a careful, informed reader needs to figure out that the spots are lies. But it packages the facts in a way that seems designed to make it as difficult as possible to reach that conclusion.

Consider the opening:

Legislation that would allow organizers to unionize workplaces without secret-ballot elections...

Already, this is extraordinarily misleading: It strongly suggests that workers aren't currently allowed to organize without elections. But reporter Noel K. Gallagher knows this is false.

How do I know? Because she (he?) says so.

Today, when a union organizing effort is under way, workers are asked to sign cards seeking a union.

At that point, one of two things can happen: An employer can accept the cards and recognize the union, or it can require an election.

So then why start the piece with the flagrant misrepresentation that elections are currently mandatory? And why do we have to wait 16 paragraphs to learn the truth that the lede conceals? It's not clear.

It's also not clear why Gallagher observes, way up in the third paragraph, that "Opponents say the change would take away workers' right to an anonymous vote" when she clearly knows the charge isn't true--it's the privileges of the employer that are at stake.

And you have to wait to paragraph 25 (!) to learn that, "if 30 percent of the workers want an election, they can have one." Workers retain that right under the proposed legislation.

(So much for the pyramid style of reporting.)

Finally, while the article is pegged to the airing of the ads, it never mentions the claims made in them or asks their sponsor why the spots resort to false assertions.

Of course, that would require making powerful people uncomfortable. And that's something PPH seems awfully reluctant to do.

Paper: Ads Meant To Obfuscate

Another newspaper calls out corporate-backed anti-union ads for trying to trick Mainers.

With BDN having run an op-Ed weeks ago refuting the ads' claims, the absence of any similar debunking in the pages of the Blethen papers is more conspicuous by the day.

You'd think that newspaper editors and editorialists would take special offense to big money propaganda campaigns that use lies in an effort to swing an election outcome.

Of course, some people think PPH is, "already dead."

Allen: I'm With Workers...

...and Sen. Collins is with Wal-Mart.

"Thank You, Sen. Collins"

Here's the Friday morning broadcast from WJBQ, the day after word about their interview with Sen. Collins circulated widely.

No news, but they sure have a lot of fun with the story.

Question of the Day

Sen. Collins thinks the Cheney energy bill was "imperfect." The McCain campaign calls it a "pinata of pork." And the League of Conservation Voters termed it the "most anti-environment bill signed into law in recent memory."

So why did Susan Collins vote for it?

Collins on Energy

Sen. Collins' campaign has posted a new video that purports to outline the junior senator's position on energy.

But after four minutes and 11 seconds, we're still no closer to knowing why Collins voted for the pork-laden, environmentally-disastrous Cheney energy bill.

Look: It's one thing to make promises in the heat of a campaign. It's another thing entirely to stand up for Mainers--and for energy independence--when it counts.

On the Cheney energy bill, Susan Collins had a chance to bolster her moderate, pragmatic credentials. She refused that chance.

WJBQ Interview in Perspective

As I've written, I thought Sen. Collins' performance in the WJBQ interview was undignified and that it raised questions about one of her key arguments for re-election: That she's a champion of civility and comity in a polarized Washington.

So I'm not surprised her remarks have received plenty of attention. You certainly won't see me complaining that they've generated more coverage in the local press than they deserve.

Still, I must say it's disappointing--and even depressing--to see local outlets treating this story as a major development even as their coverage virtually ignores the issues at stake in the upcoming election, the campaign's progress and Collins' record over the last several years.

It's astounding, for example, that PPH found space to spill 1,407 words over the course of two detailed, well-reported stories on the Collins interview; and yet so far the paper has run only a single perfunctory he-said/she-said article on the expensive, corporate-backed astroturf campaign to trick Mainers into putting the interests of multinational corporations ahead of workers in the voting booth.

And it's a scandal that, to this day, the Maine media still seems not to have determined why Susan Collins went along with President Bush on shredding the 800 year old right of habeas corpus.

And if local outlets refuse to probe theses issues, no one will.

So, yes: Coverage of this story was understandable and deserved. But if Collins' on-air gossiping merits this much plays, surely her performance in office deserves scrutiny as well.

EQME: Collins In "Lockstep"

Breaking with Human Rights Campaign, local LGBT advocacy org EqualityMaine has endorsed Rep. Allen.

And they take a couple of swipes at Sen. Collins in the process:

"After repeated requests for her to sponsor legislation, Senator Collins has called for a re-examination of this policy, but that is simply not enough," said [Executive Director Betsy] Smith. "Until it is repealed, Don't Ask, Don't Tell will undermine national security and perpetuate discrimination against LGBT Americans who serve their country."

[...]

Smith added, “Congressman Allen has refused to vote in lockstep with the most anti-LGBT administration in modern history. His votes have broken with this administration over 80 percent of the time. Meanwhile, Senator Collins chose to vote with this anti-LGBT administration 77 percent of the time. She has also supported the confirmation of highly conservative court appointees, setting back progress on relationship recognition issues and endangering critical protections for our allies, for women and for choice.”

So, why do EQME and HRC see things so differently?

In a nutshell, it's the difference between a local organization focused on issues and a Washington-based group obsessed with Capitol Hill power dynamics.

(Via TMB.)

PPH Notes, Doesn't Debunk, Smears

The Blethen papers finally get around to examining the false and misleading ads being bankrolled by Wal-Mart and other anti-union corporations.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case in the Maine media, the article frames the issue in a way that suits Sen. Collins--it parrots false claims rather than debunking them.

And then, for good measure, reporter Keith Edwards swallows a whopper--giving the junior senator credit for doing something she hasn't.

Has Edwards seen this fact check of the ad in question? Has he read PolitickerME's detailed coverage of the issues involved?

Does he know that a spokesman has said that Collins agrees with the ad's false message? Or that Collins has passed up opportunities to call for it to be pulled? It doesn't appear so.

Also lost on Edwards: There's a big difference between rejecting third-party ads in the abstract and denouncing a particular, slanderous attack on a rival.

Anyone who follows politics closely knows this.

Yet, despite Edwards' characterization and the article's headline, there's nothing in the piece to suggest that Collins has, in fact, called out the ad or the lies it contains.

And let's be honest: It's no wonder she hasn't. By staying quiet, Collins continues to send the silent message to her big business friends, allies and patrons that she welcomes their help.

As her record suggests, when the time comes, she'll be more than happy to return the favor.

Saturday Interview Roundup

The Press Herald follows up, using two political analysts to make the case that the WJBQ interview--which PPH itself covered on page A1 just the day before--is pretty much irrelevant as a political matter.

Is one of the PPH's two analysts a political consultant who literally advertises his connection to Collins on his website? See for yourself.

Meanwhile, the story is now reverberating through the right-wing media, with both Fox News' Hannity & Colmes and the Drudge Report taking note of the junior senator's comments.

Elsewhere, WJBQ's Jeff Parsons adds some further thoughts. He also provides audio from a prior, more benign Collins interview.

And the story has finally jumped the pond.

Quote of the Day

Allen campaign spokeswoman Carol Andrews on Sen. Collins' WJBQ radio interview:

Congressman Allen is spending his time talking to Mainers about his plan to strengthen the economy and has no time for spreading rumor.

Friday Interview Roundup

The print version of the Press Herald story is here. It's not terrible, but it studiously avoids any attempt to contextualize Sen. Collins' comments, or tell readers why they matter.

Granted, it's not hard to figure out why the junior senator's speculations were unseemly. And maybe there's an editorial coming. But it would have been helpful to have a few words of analysis from a political expert.

The article also states, incorrectly, that the video is circulating, "mainly on political blogs written by Democrats." Even at press time, this wasn't true: By my count, the video was live at five non-partisan sites (including PPH's own homepage and PolitickerME.com) and five partisan ones.

Elsewhere, WGME runs a piece, WCSH completely mischaracterizes what transpired during the radio interview, PolitickerME dubs Collins one of its losers of the week and Jeff Parson embraces his moment.

And as of this afternoon, BDN and Foster's Daily Democrat were both still featuring uncorrected versions of a since-corrected AP story that repeats WCSH's error.

New Poll: 15 Points

Rasmussen's August numbers are out and they show a 15 point advantage for Sen. Collins:

Tom Allen (D): 38 (42) (42) (42) (38)

Susan Collins (R-inc): 53 (49) (49) (52) (54)

That's very good news for the junior senator. It's too bad, though that the poll was taken on Tuesday--just before the radio interview kerfuffle--rather than later in the week.

WCSH Gets It Wrong

Sen. Collins never was asked if she thought the baby belonged to Edwards: She was the one who took the conversation in that direction.

The junior senator volunteered her assessment without being prompted.

WJBQ Distances

Jeff Parsons, Co-Host of The Q Morning Show at Turn Maine Blue:

[Sen. Collins'] views are not reflective of the radio station, my cohosts Meredith and Lori, nor myself.

New Collins Ad

Maine Politics spots a new ad from the Collins camp.

Juxtaposed alongside Sen. Collins' undignified speculations about John Edwards, it provides quite the contrast.

Thursday Interview Roundup

ABC News, WGME and Politico tackle the story here, here and here.

And Jeff Parsons, who appears to be the person responsible for posting the original video, reacts here.

Meanwhile, Gerald focuses on overlooked aspects of the interview here and Maine Politics posts an abbreviated, YouTube version here.

UPDATE: PPH weighs in. At 6:37pm, the article dominates their homepage.

UPDATE UPDATE: I forgot Senate Guru.

The Interview

Having watched the interview a couple more times, three thoughts:

1. It's sort of stunning how undignified Sen. Collins' performance is, especially for someone who presents herself as a paragon of decorum.

Can you imagine Rep. Allen laughing his way through a discussion of Edwards? Can you see Sen. Snowe dishing publicly about the paternity status of a former colleague? I can't.

2. There's also a callousness on display in the interview--a meanness--that I frankly didn't know was in Collins, even after having watched her closely for the last two years.

It's the kind of meanness you expect from Rush Limbaugh--or Tom Delay. Not someone who talks incessantly about the need for civility, and who has and staked her re-election on the idea that her very presence in Capitol Hill raises the tone.

Collins worked alongside Edwards for six years. And she professes to excel at bringing colleagues together. Even if she wasn't close with him, surely some of her colleagues were.

So how does her flagrant--and flagrantly insensitive--gossiping help her win the cooperation of those colleagues going forward?

3. If there was any doubt about the reasoning before, it's now abundantly clear why Collins' campaign has walled her off from regular Mainers, except in the most structured, scripted situations.

It didn't take a tracker to catch Collins saying something ugly. She did it out in the open, and with an extremely friendly interviewing team.

So I wouldn't expect to see her taking live questions from unscreened groups of voters--or anyone else--anytime soon.

UPDATE: Election Central has picked up the story. So has PolitickerME.com.

Collins: Edwards Is the Father

If this isn't super-icky, I'm not sure what is.



Is it just me, or is it clear from Sen. Collins' gleeful reaction that the discussion of Edwards pretty much made her day?

The key section begins at 3:30. But it starts to get ugly way back at 1:59.

PPH: Collins On Bush's Side 77% of Time

The Portland Press Herald is one of the "news" organizations most responsible for advancing the myth that, facts be damned, Sen. Collins is a bipartisan moderate centrist who loves to reach across the aisle.

And yet, even this Collins-friendly paper is now admitting the truth: That the junior senator has voted with President Bush 77% of the time.

Getting a newspaper to concede a demonstrable truth shouldn't exactly be a big deal. But given PPH's water carrying for Collins, it's actually pretty remarkable.

Will BDN be next?

The Effectiveness Myth

A letter from York published here presents Sen. Collins in a way that will be all too familiar to Mainers.

According to the writer, the junior senator is a "hard worker and well-studied legislator"; a "driving force" who has "led the way" and a "rare leader" who "gets things done for Maine and for the country."

We've heard it all before.

And yet it's telling that--as is almost always the case--the characterization lacks any supporting details: We never find out what Collins has accomplished, how she's "led the way" or how all the hard work has translated into results.

It's just sort of known that Collins is great at what she does, and that Maine is better off for it.

In truth, the portrait of Collins as some kind of ace legislator--a master of the Senate--is betrayed by the facts. And it's a portrait in desperate need of scrutiny, even if the Maine media is unwilling to provide it.

Let me be clear, first, that there is a kernel of substance to the idea. And this is surely part of why surrogates in her staff and the press have been so successful at working this bit of branding into the media narrative.

Namely: By all accounts, Susan Collins is an earnest and hard working person. And in so far as the interests of Mainers coincide with her conservative ideology, she does seem to try to look out for her constituents.

The problem--and it's a big one--is that there's no necessary connection between being earnest and being effective; or between hard work and good outcomes. And that's where the facts break down and the myths take over.

To wit:

MYTH #1: Collins' hard work and spirit of cooperation have gained her clout and influence in the Senate that benefits Maine.

The independent, non-partisan Congress watcher Congress.org (owned by Roll Call) begs to differ. They ranked Sen. Collins #68 out of 100 senators in their data-rich, exhaustively-researched power rankings for 2007. She ranked #10 out of 13 among the the senators first elected with her in 1996, and in the bottom half of Republicans.

(Rankings for 2008 will be out in late October.)

And think about it: Is Sen. Collins the most popular recipient of PAC money from her Republican colleagues because she's especially successful at twisting their arms? Or because they're successful at twisting hers?

Think she's beloved by Karl Rove, Rick Santorum and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)--a first term senator who has already leapfrogged her on the power rankings--because of the influence she wields? Or because she's easily influenced?

MYTH #2: You miss the point. Sen. Collins may not be "powerful" in the conventional, Washington D.C. sense of the term. Rather, she's mastered the art of using a collegial, behind-the-scenes approach to steer projects and dollars to Maine.

If you're talking about earmarks, Collins ranks #63 according to Congress.org, with about $132 million to her credit. By comparison, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) raked in just under double that amount for his home state. And he's only been in the Senate since 2006.

If you're talking about non-earmarked public projects, by far the most prominent example is, of course, the shipbuilding at Bath Iron Works. And as we all know, the junior senator's clout and influence have led to exactly the result she was lobbying to avoid.

MYTH #3: The fact remains, Collins has repeatedly written landmark legislation that's improved the lives of all Americans. Maybe her bills aren't flashy or expensive, but they're serious and important. And her hard work and skill are why they got done.

Name them. I'm not being facetious. I've been writing this blog for almost two years and the only landmark legislation with her name on it that comes to mind is the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which implemented the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

The uncontroversial bill passed 89-2. And good for her. But surely, the lion's share of the credit goes to the 9/11 Commission itself--for writing the recommendations and then touring the country to build political support for them.

In that instance, Collins didn't come up with the ideas or persuade her colleagues to accept them. She may have helped usher the bill toward passage, but it was bound to become law in any case.

And when you think of some of the truly groundbreaking legislative developments over the last eight years--the Military Commissions Act, the Protect American Act, the Bush tax cuts, etc.--the junior senator's role is far from clear.

Typically, she either has little to say about the bill until the last minute and then hops onto the side of President Bush, whom she's voted with 77% of the time. Or she talks about how the issue is complicated and the bill imperfect before, you guessed it, voting with President Bush.

In either case, she's reacting to events rather than shaping them. She's seeking political cover rather than taking a firm stand and then working to build a consensus behind it.

And whatever else that is, it's no way to be a leader.

Allen On EFCA

UPDATE: You'll notice that Rep. Allen is answering a questions, here, from an audience filled with people who look very much like adult Mainers.

Sen. Collins, take note.

Times Record: Ads Are "Despicable"

Strong words from The Times Record about the corporate-backed, anti-union lies now polluting Maine's airwaves:

Political advertising in Maine has sunk to a new low, thanks to the misleadingly named Coalition for a Democratic Workplace.

The coalition, which launched an aggressive campaign of anti-union television ads this spring, dragged Maine television viewers deeper into the slop with a new ad that portrays union officials as crime syndicate kingpins and six-term U.S. Rep. Tom Allen, the Democratic Party's challenger to two-term Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, as the union bosses' henchman in Maine.

The ads are slick but sleazy. They insult Allen, union members, the history of the U.S. labor movement--and the intelligence of all Mainers.

Bankrolled by deep-pocketed, out-of-state silent partners who for decades have lobbied Congress and state legislatures to make workers' rights and safety subservient to corporate profits, the coalition attempts to damage Allen's image with voters by equating him with strong-arm, anti-democratic tactics...

They aim to divert a strong Democratic challenger in a key race for control of the U.S. Senate by driving a wedge between leaders and members of unions that, for good reason, have historically backed Democrats. Introducing Allen and Collins into the latest round of ads proves that this campaign's about politics, not democracy.

Production quality masks the dishonesty of the ads' basic premise, which is that union leaders run roughshod over members' rights.

In fact, the Employee Free Choice Act, which Allen and most major U.S. unions support, does not deny members the option of secret balloting in contract votes. It aims to strengthen legal protections for workers who seek to unionize or who face coercive conduct by employers during labor-management negotiations...

The despicable ads focus on the internal issue of union balloting to distract voters from the coalition's broader agenda, which continues to hinge on muting workers' voices during the process of lawmaking.

They should require a disclaimer that reads: "Brought to you by the people who fought family leave, collective bargaining, a livable wage, the 40-hour work week and occupational safety laws."

As good as it is to see this kind of unflinching assessment, the editorial only underscores how scandalous it is that, by and large, the Collins-friendly Maine media has remained silent.

After all, what we're talking about here, at bottom, is a sophisticated, expensive campaign of corporate-backed propaganda that uses outright lies in an effort to trick voters into believing the opposite of the truth.

You might think that kind of thing would raise eyebrows in newsrooms around the state.

Or maybe, by now, you know better.

No Defense

From PolitickerME:

Allen's campaign routinely criticized Collins for voting in favor of the 2005 energy bill. They say it was backed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and spurned the spikes in oil prices.

A spokesman for Collins' campaign, however, said that Collins acknowledged the bill was imperfect at the time. Also, he said, it passed with the approval of 74 senators.

And this tells us what?

Collins voted for the bill. Acknowledging that it "was imperfect" doesn't explain anything. And pointing to how others voted is a distraction, not a defense.

So we aren't any closer to an answer to the question, Why did Sen. Collins vote for the Cheney energy bill?

I still have no idea why.

Priorities

Our military is over-stretched. The country is up to its ears in debt. Maine is staring down a home heating crisis and the state has one of the most closely-watched senate races in the nation, featuring candidates with radically opposing views of how to solve the problems we face.

And the Sun Journal--which hasn't exactly been overwhelming readers with incisive political coverage--gives us 1154 words on how celebrities are raising money for politicians! In Maine!

Look: Everyone already knows that Sen. Collins is a moderate bipartisan centrist who likes to reach across the aisle--I get that.

But a little more reporting on the actual facts of her record--and the record of her opponent--wouldn't exactly be overkill.

But But But

Get ready to see push back from Sen. Collins' camp on CQ's well-documented report that the junior senator has voted with President Bush 77% of the time.

Keep in mind that the 77% figure radically understates Collins' support for the Bush agenda: When you look only at the President's top legislative priorities over the last seven-plus years, she been with the White House 100% of the time.

But the Collins team is likely to focus on the fact that the 77% figure is among the lowest Bush support scores for senate Republicans.

The obvious retort to this argument is: So what?

If you got pulled over for driving 95mph, would you complain to the officer that someone else was going even faster?

Not if you knew what was good for you.

Look: Sen. Susan Collins made the decision to side with President Bush on more than three out of every four votes. Period.

Talking about where that puts her among her colleagues isn't a defense or explanation of that choice.

It's an attempt to distract attention from that choice.

NOTE: We've added a larger version of the photo above to the Collins Watch Flickr group.

Lucky Thirteen Fourteen

In keeping with the standard astroturfing approach, Fred O. Smith II gets in a jab at Rep. Allen before he finds an opportunity to laud Sen. Collins. But laud her he does.

Now, maybe this isn't the same Fred Smith who just weeks ago sat on the
Maine Republican Platform Committee. And perhaps it was another Fred Smith who was a 2006 County Chair in Sen. Snowe's re-election effort.

Maybe that was Fred Smith I. Or Fred Smith III.

I can't be sure. And since the Google is out for repair at the Kennebec Journal, we may never know.

For an explanation of why we care about this kind of astroturf, start here.

UPDATE: Anonymous, in comments, is correct: Number 13 was here.

Thought of the Day

If I was in the progressive politics business and had a couple-few million dollars to spend on the Allen-Collins race, I'd make sure that every adult in Maine knew the number 77.

And I'd make sure they knew it soon.

Collins with Bush: 77%

PolitickerME points us to a nifty new feature at CQ.com: A rundown of presidential support scores for every member of Congress.

Sen. Collins clocks in at 77%: She's sided with the President on just more than three out of every four votes over the last seven-plus years.

(Rep. Allen, by contrasts, has supported the position of President Bush a measly 18% of the time.)

We knew the junior senator's Bush support number was in this neighborhood: Collins has successfully nudged it down a bit since she clocked in at 81% a couple of months back.

Still, it's helpful to have the entire matrix available in one spot for all to see. And to have a full explanation of the methodology.

Since the score is derived from 564 votes, it's not likely to budge much over the next few months.

Stepping Back

Huzzahs to Gerald for doing the exhausting but essential work of debunking the lies about the Employee Free Choice Act being pushed by corporate front groups.

Still, it's worth stepping back for a moment to remind ourselves that the card check smear attacks are really about something much larger:

Preserving the wealth of corporations and those who run them.

Don't get me wrong: The folks in the corner offices at Wal-Mart and elsewhere are concerned about the Employee Free Choice Act. But they're also concerned about tighter regulation, the capital gains tax rate and international trade agreements.

It just so happens to be more palatable, in an electoral context, for them to complain about card check than to howl for lower taxes for millionaires or rail against environmental standards in trade accords.

(And it's always easier to attack pols who care about the interests of the bottom 95% of wage earners when you can find a way to wrap your message in faux-populism.)

The reasons the attacks are so strident is pretty obvious: For most of the last eight years, corporations have had more or less carte blanche in Washington. If we wind up with a Democratic president and large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, those days will have come to a decisive end.

Naturally corporate interests aren't going to relinquish power without a lot of kicking, screaming, whining and flailing.

And that's what we've been seeing: The smears now on the air are the first few kicks and screams.

Allen Unveils Ads

TV and radio spots will begin running Saturday.

UPDATE: Here's the TV ad:

More Wondering

Out of state anti-union front groups are smearing Rep. Allen with false attack ads, the most recent of which trades on stereotypes about the relationship among unions, organized crime and menacing Italian-American men.

And according to PolitickerME, Sen. Collins, "agrees with the message" of this ad.

Now, Maine just happens to have a governor with an Italian-American ancestry and a small business background.

I wonder what he thinks of corporate attempts to draw an equivalence between union activities and the tactics used on The Sopranos.

Maybe someone should ask him?

Collins: Unions Worse Than Mafia

This just in from PolitickerME:

Sen. Susan Collins agrees with the message in several ads that attack opponent and U.S. Rep. Tom Allen for his support of the Employee Free Choice Act...a spokesman for her campaign said Wednesday.

So there you go.

The junior senator is now on the record endorsing the view that unions, as a group, are more pernicious than mafia.

She's on the record standing behind the lies debunked here and the smear that unions, collectively, are mere tools of organized crime.

And her spokesman is on the record parroting the lie that the Employee Free Choice Act would eliminate the private ballot in union elections. (It wouldn't.)

It's been clear for weeks that Collins and her team were more than happy to benefit from misleading corporate-backed, anti-union ads and the false impressions they create.

But I'm positively stunned that a spokesman would acknowledge that Susan Collins agrees with the ugly smears and lies at the core of the various ad campaigns.

Just Wondering

Rep. Allen is holding another press conference tomorrow. I e-mailed the campaign and they confirm that, as usual, he'll be taking questions.

When's the last time Sen. Collins held a press conference with reporters?

In Maine, I mean.

Dieter? Bill? Anyone?

Astroturf Endorsements

Okay, so it isn't exactly an astroturf group. But as Gerald makes clear, REP's endorsement amounts to less than meets the eye.

I haven't seen the press release, but I wonder: Does it note that Sen. Collins voted for the Cheney energy bill that the League of Conservation Voters--which REP cites approvingly--called the "most anti-environment bill signed into law in recent memory"?

I'd guess not. But I'd love to be proven wrong.

Latest Pro-Collins Ad

From the anti-union, Wal-Mart-backed Coalition for a Democratic Workplace:



Fact-check of a nearly-identical ad here.

If Sen. Collins has an issue with these kinds of dishonest attack ads, you wouldn't know it.

Everybody Does It (Really)

As we all know, Sen. Collins frames herself as a moderate, driven by pragmatism rather than ideology. And to perpetuate this myth, her surrogates make a number of related arguments.

But their most prominent and important one is this: Collins is a champion of compromise. She works well with Democrats. She's great at crafting bipartisan solutions.

We're likely to hear this argument--call it the "Collins plays nice" thesis--ad nauseam between now and election day. And to be fair, it does have some truth to it.

Of course, one wonders where the junior senator's bipartisan spirit was when she parted ways with Sen. Snowe to vote for the unaffordable 2003 Bush tax cuts, ramrodded through Congress with the aid of Vice President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote.

And to be sure, there's a big difference between shepherding meaningful, big-ticket legislation through Congress and backing token measures designed to massage problems rather than solve them--Collins' drop-in-the-bucket plan to narrowly trim Iraq spending comes to mind.

Still, the core idea--that the junior senator gets along with Democrats and has little trouble working with them--seems to be basically true.

But here's where things break down: The notion that working well with others, across party lines, should count as some sort of re-election credential is ridiculous. It's beyond silly.

Because being able to compromise is a basic job requirement in the Senate. As long as the filibuster exists, it's the only way things get done.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has worked extensively with Democrats. And Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has done the same with Republicans. The same is true of polar opposites Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA).

That doesn't make them moderates or centrists. And it's not an important selling point for their re-election. Instead, it speaks to each senator's recognition that he was sent to Washington, D.C. with a job to do. And that he'll almost always need bipartisan support to do it.

So let's get real: The idea that Sen. Collins is unique--or uniquely-adept--at crossing the aisle to get things done is nonsense.

She's not better at it. She just talks about it more than anyone else.

Quote of the Day

McCain campaign Senior Policy Adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer:

The 2005 Bush-Cheney energy package...was a pinata of pork.

Quote of the Day

Paul Kane, Washington Post reporter:

There are not many politcal reporters [in Maine], now that the Portland Press Herald has closed its DC bureau there is not a single reporter in the entire state who covers the congressional delegation down here, so no one can explain to voters the intricacies of what matters and what doesn't matter down here.

This is a problem for Allen--and, it's going to be a bigger problem for the state of our democracy as other papers close bureaus and there's less scrutiny of Congress from home-state papers than at any time in 100 years.

Weekend Reading

If you're indoors, taking refuge from the rain, why not curl up with a pair of late-1990s Sen. Collins profiles?

Here's one from The Boston Phoenix. And here's The New York Times Magazine's effort.

They both make for interesting reading, but not for the reasons you might expect: More than anything else, they remind us how innocent a time the 1990s were, and how much has changed.

In the articles, the junior senator gets a lot of praise for opposing the removal of President Clinton from office. She gets credit for refusing to sign onto the partial birth abortion ban--or at least certain versions of it. And she's forgiven for backing unaffordable tax cuts because the package favored by the Republican leadership was even more irresponsible.

In the context of the times, these positions made it possible for Collins to claim, credibly, to be a moderate Republican. And most Democrats outside of Maine--in part because of profiles like these--viewed her as, at worst, harmless.

(In retrospect, The Times profile is particularly credulous and fawning: It's clear that reporter Michael Winerip is far too willing to see a handful of GOP-bucking votes as evidence of wonky pragmatism rather than, say, political expediency.)

Of course, Collins' moderate street cred was one of the reasons many of us we're aghast when, as the Bush administration took the country down a radical, illiberal path, she went quietly along for the ride.

In 2003, 2004 and 2005 we were stunned as Collins and other "moderates"--rather than serving as a check on the worst instincts of the Bushies--helped instead to fuel their corrupt, lawless and power-mad agenda.

Historians will have to decide why Collins and others stood with President Bush when the country needed them, instead, to stand up for fiscal sanity, clean government, the rule of law, and basic human freedoms.

Of course, Mainers don't need to wait for that judgment.

Collins Photo Sharing

We've started a photo-sharing group at Flickr.

Here's the idea: We'd like to use the group as a hub for user-generated and copyright-free images of--and relating to--Sen. Susan Collins and the Allen-Collins race.

So, for example: If you attend a parade or campaign event and snap a great photo--posting it here would make it available to a wider audience.

And if you're a local blogger covering the race, the group can serve as a safe way to locate free images.

One important point: The group is not intended as a place to park photos scavenged from stock photo collections and other privately-owned sites on the internet.

It's meant, instead, as a place to upload photos you've personally taken and photos pulled from copyright-free venues--sites run by the federal government, for example.

We've kicked the group off with three copyright-free photos from Sen. Collins' senate website.

Won't you join us?

And Yet Again

Is the lesson of the last six years that we need less regulation and oversight of government contracting?

Sen. Collins would have you believe that it is:

A Senate committee Wednesday approved a bill to extend the Homeland Security Department's authority to contract for specialized research and development without going through regular procurement regulations.

[...]

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ranking member Susan Collins, R-Maine, who sponsored the bill, said it would provide "an important, alternative procurement strategy for research and development programs."

The idea, she said, is to accelerate prototyping of break-through technologies by companies that have not generally done business with the government. These firms are usually smaller and less able to handle multiple government regulations, she said.

Translation: More money for the Howe brothers. Less money for programs that actually protect the homeland.

At It Again

Sen. Collins' failure to police costly, corrupt and deadly military procurement practices while chair of the Homeland Security Committee will go down in history as one of our government's seminal Iraq war failures.

But the junior senator seems not to have learned her lesson.

This week, the Homeland Security Committee considered the nomination of Jim Williams to head the General Services Administration--the federal government agency that spends $16 billion a year managing, maintaining and supplying 8,300 federal buildings.

Like so many other Bush administration appointments, the Williams nomination raised red flags from the beginning: As a GSA officer, Williams had been involved in granting a suspect, controversial contract to Sun Microsystems.

Specifically, an investigation by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) found that:

Williams pressured a GSA contracting officer to approve [the] Sun contract, even though [he] knew GSA's inspector general had detected alleged fraud and had referred the matter to the Justice Department.

"As FAS commissioner, he was the top GSA official responsible for making the tough calls, and he chose not to protect the taxpayers," Grassley said. "He made the wrong choice. He is now accountable for that decision." Because of that choice, Grassley said, Williams should not be GSA administrator.

In fact, the Justice Department later sued Sun Microsystems for fraud.

But earlier this week, Collins placed a committee vote in favor of Williams' nomination. Here she is explaining her take on his role in the Sun contract:

“I don’t know if his actions were perfect in retrospect, but I am convinced that his motivations were always in the best interest of the taxpayers” Collins said.

So Williams has good intentions. Glad that's all that matters when it comes to executive-level government service.

Look: Susan Collins knows better.

But apparently, being a team player is more important to her than learning the lessons of the past; the rewards that come from not ruffling any feathers trump her interest in fiscal discipline and good government.

It's an unfortunate story, but an interesting one. And one that deserves to be told.

NRSC: Going For Broke

The National Republican Senatorial Committee and its chairman Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) are ready to give faith-based fundraising a try:

I will not allow our Republican candidates to be outspent by the DSCC this cycle. Therefore, it is my intention to give the NRSC's IE Unit the total budget to match the DSCC dollar for dollar in every state they run ads.

"While I am aware we do not currently have the funds to match the DSCC, I am giving our IE Unit this budget on faith--faith that my Republican colleagues will step up to the challenge and transfer the funds necessary to remain competitive with the Democrats. I have informed my colleagues that it is now up to them.

I know Republicans are down in the dumps this cycle. But does it make sense to sound this desperate?

In any case, no reason to feel sorry for Sen. Collins: You'll remember that the anti-union front groups have her back.

More Stevens

Here's another article from the national press. Still no word from the local papers.

Remember, less than a week ago, Blethen ran a "news update" on their website when a six week old poll with skewed demographics (and other problems) came out showing a sizable lead for Sen. Collins.

But they've yet to even mention the fact that the junior senator is washing her hands of $10,000 from a sitting fellow senator, or that her PAC gave him $5,000 just as the FBI investigation that led to yesterday's indictment gathered steam.

Stunning.

Tunnel Vision

Al Diamon wonders (via Maine Politics) why the Maine media has ignored the Sen. Collins angle of the Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) story, even as that angle gets plenty of coverage nationally.

Could it have anything to do with the Maine media's decision to ignore polls that put Collins' advantage under ten percent?

Or the fact that there's better coverage of Rep. Allen's legislative proposals in New York-based Newsday than there is locally?

Of course, maybe it's all just a giant coincidence.

Quote of the Day

Sen. Collins:

I can't think of two more creative minds than Bob Kerrey and Newt Gingrich.

Here.

Moment of Zen

We'll have more to say about photos and the Allen-Collins campaign within the next few days.

Collins to Dump Stevens Money

Maine Politics breaks the story. No word yet on whether Sen. Collins will ask for her $5,000 back from Stevens.

It's worth underscoring that Sen. Collins' PAC went ahead with its donation to Alaska's senior senator last June, right around the time that evidence of Stevens' wrongdoing was mounting.

Of course, she is a Republican team player.

Spreading the Wealth

There will now undoubtedly be new calls for Sen. Collins to return the $10,000 given to her this cycle by indicted Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) Northern Lights PAC.

But I'm more interested in the $5,000 Sen. Collins's Dirigo PAC has given Stevens this cycle.

Anyone care to explain how that contribution has advanced the cause of good government? Or fiscal discipline? Or moderate bipartisan centrism?

Um, Guys?

The nation deserves a proper debate in Congress about the growing energy crisis...But you'd be hardpressed [sic] to find many real proposals to deal with high gasoline and high heating oil prices in Congress during this election year.

--Kennebec Journal, July 29

Rep. Tim Bishop (D-Southampton) used a news conference in Riverhead yesterday to promote a bill that would give tax credits to families who are expected to struggle this winter to pay their heating bills.

The bill would give a $1,000 tax credit to individuals and $2,000 tax credit to families - an earning cap of $100,000 per person would apply - to help pay for rising heating costs. The bill also calls for loans of up to $5,000 per household at 1 percent interest to pay for energy-saving improvements.

The bill, the Middle Class Home Heating Relief Act, was introduced in the House of Representatives on Thursday by Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine).

--Newsday, July 29

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

More on the Howe Brothers

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute
At the beginning of the month, I wrote about the $3 million grant Sen. Collins seems to have steered to Howe & Howe for their (dubious?) Rip Saw prototype--an investment of taxpayer dollars that seemed questionable at best.

I promised to dig further and am back with some results.

Unfortunately--though not surprisingly--there's not much information out there about the Howe brothers. But it does seem that their company was less than two years old when it first received federal funds; that it has a grand total of two employees; and that it has estimated annual sales of $130,000.

And the grant does seem to have been the result of an earmark.

(Also, while it's admittedly not clear, I think this Russian site--translated by Google--may be making fun of them.)

Look: I understand that some Mainers will see the Howe brothers' federal jackpot as evidence of Sen. Collins' success at bringing money back to the state for local projects.

But here's the thing: There are a lot of worthy local projects.

So the real question is why the brothers and their fledgling $130,000-a-year business got 25 times that much money from the government when those funds could have gone to a weatherization pilot program.

Or to any number of other programs.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

Big Picture With Pictures

Maine Politics, Mike Tipping's return to the Maine blogging scene, surveys the state of the Allen-Collins race.

His discussion of the developments at Bath Iron Works--which we've given short shrift here--are particularly welcome.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

No Longer Operative

Remember the attempted video ambush of Maine House Majority Whip Sean Faircloth we highlighted last week?

It's now gone from Youtube, replaced (without explanation) with a new video that edits out the embarrassing bit about Employee Freedom Action Committee's funding sources.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

NRSC on EFCA

First it was one corporate-backed anti-union group. Then another. And now the Republican National Senatorial Committee is trying to spook voters about the Employee Free Choice Act:



That they feel the need to lie about card check legislation--it isn't a law "eliminating the secret ballot from union elections"--speaks to their desperate circumstances this cycle.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

Centrism Watch

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute
Bob Benenson brings up Sen. Collins for just two sentences in his latest column at CQ. But even in that short space, he feels the need to let us know that the junior senator has a "centrist profile."

Is he talking about her voting profile? Her political reputation? The way she would look on a coin?

It's unclear.

But the phrase almost seems constructed to gloss over the facts and give Benenson maximum wiggle room: You sort of know what he means, and yet he hasn't really committed to anything.

Why a reporter for an important, prestigious publication would choose to indulge a myth instead of debunking it--or at least steering clear of it--is a good question. But it's a topic for another time.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

Ramping Up

It's fundraising week at Collins Watch. So if you can give a few bucks, please do. Details here.

(Our fondness, as of late, for italicized red text will soon pass. Don't worry.)

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

More Poll Blogging

Gerald has some serious (and legitimate) issues with the Critical Insights poll--now available (.pdf) in full online.

The questions he raises make it even harder to understand why PPH would give the Collins-Allen results such prominent treatment after ignoring the last few Rasmussen surveys.

UPDATE: Looking at the survey data, the poll does seem to have oversampled Democrats, as one of our anonymous commenters suggested.

And the concerns raised by Gerald and the other Anonymous--about skewing by age, income and voter registration status--are also worrisome.

The bottom line is: This poll asked a host of questions on a variety of topics. It clearly wasn't designed to give the clearest possible picture of the Maine senate race, and the coverage in Maine papers should have reflected this.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

GOP? Who, Me?

Sen. Collins has voted for literally every one of the Bush administration's top priorities over the last eight years. She's an old friend of Karl Rove and former Sen. Rick Santorum's idea of a quintessential Republican team player.

And she's the favorite recipient of campaign donations from her GOP colleagues in the senate.

But amazingly: She won't be attending the Republican convention in Minneapolis.

Maybe she's not sure she could withstand the overwhelming outpouring of support and affection?

(Gerald has more.)

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

In The Field

Good to be here.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

Still Sketchy at PPH

PPH runs with the Critical Insights poll in this morning's print edition, teasing it on A1 and slapping the article on B1.

This after having ignored a recent Rasmussen result and despite the fact that the Critical Insights numbers are, on average, six weeks old.

Of course, that PPH would make such a dubious editorial decision is, unfortunately, no longer surprising.

On a related note: MaryEllen Fitzgerald, president of Critical Insights, confirms in an e-mail that the poll surveyed registered voters, rather than a wider pool of Maine adults or Maine residents--as the poll's data release implied. So the 14-point number isn't completely worthless.

But relegating the ten point "likely voters" spread to a footnote still strikes me as questionable news judgment.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

Talking EFCA at BIW

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute
That would be the Employee Free Choice Act and Bath Iron Works.

Not surprisingly, the take among Bath Iron Works employees is a bit different from the line being pushed by corporate front groups like Rick Berman's Employee Freedom Action Committee.



Sen. Collins doesn't seem to popular there either.

More videos here.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

Collins Astroturf: Lucky 13

Gerald spots at least the 13th pro-Collins letter that's made its way into a Maine paper without proper author identification of its author.

And he takes the time to explain why the charade has become so tiresome.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

They Write Op-Eds

Via BDN, here's Maine AFL-CIO President Edward Gorham on card check and the Employee Freedom Action Committee.

Didn't realize the paper had endorsed card check legislation.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

New Poll: 10 Points

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute
Critical Insights' "Spring 2008" survey is out and the numbers are interesting.

The poll, conducted June 1-27, found the following:

Tom Allen (D): 40 (34)

Susan Collins (R-inc): 50 (54)

Numbers in parenthesis are from Critical Insights' last poll, conducted Oct. 12-30, 2007.

Curiously, several Maine news outlets are reporting a 14 point spread, which refers--as far as I can tell--to an unscreened pool of Maine residents.

But the 50%-40% spread represents the result among likely voters, which is obviously the more important number. It's the number we focused on when the last Critical Insights' poll was released. And the "likely voters" number is the one that was widely reported at that time.

Of course, screening for "likely voters"--or at least "registered voters"--is pretty standard among pollsters.

So why are outlets going with the 14-point number, and ignoring the 10 point spread? Your guess is as good as mine.

In any case, looking at the Critical Insights result in the context of the last three independent polls leaves us with the following:

Critical Insights (July) (June) Collins +10
Rasmussen (July) Collins +7
Pan Atlantic (June) +25
Rasmussen (June) +7

It now seems more likely that the Pan Atlantic poll is an outlier. And it seems pretty clear that we've got ourselves a race.

UPDATE: The data that Critical Insights includes with the results doesn't appear to be restricted to likely voters, so it's not as helpful as it might be.

But it is notable that there's only a slight discrepancy in outcomes between the first and second congressional districts: Collins does just three points better in the second than in the first.

Also of note: Allen gets only 65% of Democratic votes, according to Critical Insights. That number is sure to rise--and perhaps substantially--as voters begin to educate themselves about Collins' performance in office over the last six years.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

Why Not Now?

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute
Last week, TMB flagged the astounding New York Times story about faulty electrical work by KBR at US military bases in Iraq: Electrocutions and electrical fires have resulted in at least fifteen solider deaths.

We've long known that Sen. Collins' refusal to perform oversight of no-bid Iraq war contracting as chair of the Homeland Security Committee was an important and devastating moral failure, and that the absence of oversight lead to the loss of American lives.

And in general, when it comes to Iraq, it's long been clear that when Mainers and Americans desperately needed Collins to be the serious-minded, hardworking, independent-thinking legislator that she professes to be, she instead kept her mouth shut and toed the Republican line.

But here's my question--and one Gerald asks, implicitly, in comments at the TMB post referenced above: What about now?

Sen. Collins is still the senior Republican on the Homeland Security Committee. And from the Times article, we now know that there were an alarming 283 electrical fires at American military bases in Iraq between August 2006 and January 2007. And that:

A log compiled earlier this year at one building complex in Baghdad disclosed that soldiers complained of receiving electrical shocks in their living quarters on an almost daily basis.

So why isn't Sen. Collins using her position, today, to fix this pressing problem?

Mainers and other Americans are clearly hungry to root out waste and malfeasance in Iraq--especially when it threatens our women and men in uniform. So in her capacity as a representative of the people, why isn't the junior senator using her clout to get to the bottom of this dangerous situation?

Why isn't she doing it right this minute?

I don't think we've heard anything resembling to an answer to this question. I'm not even sure Collins has been asked it.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

Alito: US v. Rybar

(This is the fourth in our series of posts on Justice Samuel Alito. Read the first three posts here, here and here.)

US v. Rybar [link]

The background: Raymond Rybar, Jr. was convicted of violating a federal law criminalizing possession of machine guns. He appealed, challenging the law on constitutional grounds.

The question: The court had to decide whether a law making it, "unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun" was outside the scope of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

And it had to decide this in the context of a new Supreme Court precedent, US v. Lopez, which held that Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce was limited to activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce, rather than a merely incidental effect.

The question had ramifications far beyond guns laws. For example: Laws designed to protect the environment--to protect clean water, clean air and endangered species--all depend on the commerce clause as a source of authority.

And while these laws all have important implications for commerce, a narrow reading of what counts as a "substantial" commercial effect could render them unconstitutional.

The decision: Two of the court's three members upheld the machine gun ban on the grounds that preventing widespread machine gun possession was likely to have a "meaningful" effect on interstate commerce--by preventing violent crime--and that Congress had the authority to act on that basis.

But not Alito. As in Sheridan v. Dupont he used the ambiguity in the case law as a chance to champion the interpretation most in sync with conservative ideology.

In a dissent, he wrote:

We are left with no congressional findings and no appreciable empirical support for the proposition that the purely intrastate possession of machine guns, by facilitating the commission of certain crimes, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and without such support I do not see how the statutory provision at issue here can be sustained.

In short, he felt no one had proved a relationship between economic activity on a national scale and machine gun crime, and accordingly, wanted the law struck down.

The majority countered:

Nothing in Lopez requires either Congress or the Executive to play Show and Tell with the federal courts at the peril of invalidation of a Congressional statute.

Lopez required a substantial effect on commerce, they argued, not a scientific study of that effect; Alito was distorting the precedent.

The reaction: Rybar helped persuade the Sierra Club that Alito, "doesn't believe Congress should have the authority to pass laws that protect most of our streams and wetlands--or that citizens have a right to ensure our government enforces Clean Air and Water laws." And that:

We need Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to protect Maine's water and Ed Muskie's legacy--by opposing the nomination of Sam Alito. There's just too much at stake to give Alito a lifetime seat on America's highest Court."

Earthjustice agreed, concluding that Alito "would support Commerce Clause challenges by polluters and developers to public health and environmental laws."

Meanwhile, conservative magazine Human Events noted approvingly, in a discussion of Rybar: "No liberal would have written that dissent. Nor would any judge who fears the scorn of the liberal establishment."

And Jeffrey Rosen, legal affairs editor of The New Republic opined that the views articulated in Alito's Rybar dissent were "far more troubling" than his views on abortion.

But it was the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence that put Alito's dissent in context:

Judge Alito's conclusion that the machine gun ban violates the Commerce Clause...has been rejected by every other federal appellate court that has considered the issue, including the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits. The Supreme Court has been asked to review lower court decisions on this issue six times and has declined in each case.

Alito was all alone.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

Collins on the Air Tonight

From her campaign site:

The Collins for Senator campaign will begin running television ads on the evening Wednesday July 23.

Here's one of the two ads:


UPDATE: A couple of points.

First, this is a big deal. Remember, a mere six weeks ago Sen. Collins was saying that campaigns are too long and that Mainers don't want to hear about politics until after Labor Day.

Clearly, that's out the window. Unprompted by Rep. Allen, Collins apparently now feels it's essential to start her general campaign immediately. Even at the cost of contradicting herself. And even though there are millions of dollars being spent by her allies to attack Allen.

So what's changed? Obviously, Collins' team would have preferred Allen to have finished more than seven points back in the last two independent polls.

But it's got to be more than that: They must be seeing something in the data or in the field that's making them awfully nervous.

Second, on the substance of the ad: This is Collins' standard, form-over-substance message. (Even if she does throw in a few perfunctory, misleading claims about her legislative accomplishments).

Will this approach work in 2008? Would Mainers rather have a senator who plays nice or one who'll help push through universal health care and end the war in Iraq?

It's still not clear. But it looks like that's the choice voters will be offered.

support Collins Watch -- click 'Donate' at right to contribute

Help Us Surge

You may have noticed that we've accelerated the rate of posting here at Collins Watch over the last couple weeks.

Naturally, we're excited about the Maine senate race. And we've got big plans for the next few months, including a couple of new features. We're also gratified by the steady rise in readership and humbled by the kind things readers have said in e-mails and comments here and elsewhere.

But ramping up coverage comes at a cost. And that's where you come in: We're asking for your financial support.

Put it this way: If everyone who reads this blog at least once a week--even excluding campaign staffers and fellow bloggers--were to give an average of $15, that would pay for all the projects we've got planned between now and November.

To put it in perspective $15 comes to about a dollar a week up through Election Day.

If you can afford it, please consider clicking on the "donate" button at right. (Caveats and fine print here.)

Thanks for your support.

Collins' McCain Introduction

Sen. Collins: I'd "go to the ends of the earth for John McCain."



Apparently she'll also campaign for him in July, even though Mainers don't want to hear about electoral politics until the fall.

(Video courtesy of PolitickerME.com.)

Fact Checking CDW

Here's a no-nonsense "reality check" of an ad from Coalition for a Democratic Workplace currently running in Minnesota:



The piece, from a Minneapolis local news broadcast, doesn't mince words--it's aggressive and direct in a way you rarely see in the Maine media.

When similar ads start running in Maine, will we'll see similarly vigorous fact-checking on TV, on the radio and in print?

Union Foes To Spend Huge in Maine

So says CongressDaily:

This summer, a coalition of business groups is spending millions of dollars on ads in Maine and Minnesota in support of vulnerable incumbent Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine. Coleman and Collins voted against card check legislation in the Senate.

The group, called the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, will spend $6 million-$8 million on the first round of ads, an industry source said.

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace shouldn't be confused with the Employee Fredom Action Committee, which has an Allen-bashing radio ad on the air. And it's also not to be confused with Freedom's Watch, which is robocalling Mainers in support of Collins.

This money represents new spending--above and beyond what those two corporate-backed front groups are shelling out.

UPDATE: This column names Wal-Mart and an association of anti-union contractors--the Associated Builders and Contractors--as two of CDW's backers. The group was formed by the US Chamber of Commerce.

Faircloth Asks a Question

Maine House Majority Whip Sean Faircloth takes a different tack with Employee Freedom Action Committee ambushers:



Notice the sudden reticence of his interrogator once the conversation turns to the subject of UnionFacts.com's funders.

Incidentally: Why does EFAC keep posting these clips? Do they really think the videos put their organization in a good light?

Quote of the Day

Sam Collins, brother of the junior senator:

"Personal attacks are upsetting, and something we don’t believe in,” Sam said. “It’s difficult to see negative ads and read planted Letters to the Editor, but you deal with it. It’s politics."