New Poll: Collins+13

From Research 2000:

Rep. Tom Allen (D): 40 (38) (34)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-inc): 53 (57) (56)

The poll, in the field from October 14-15, was commissioned by Daily Kos. (But Research 2000 is a non-partisan pollster.) The numbers in parenthesis refer to polls from the same firm conducted September 8-10, 2008 and October 15-17, 2007, respectively.

UPDATE: As much as I respect Kos' knowledge and judgment when it comes to elections, I don't share his inference that these results come close to sealing the deal for Collins. And I'm pretty confident they're not doing victory dances at Collins HQ. There are three reasons.

1. The previous Research 2000 poll gave Collins a 19 point lead--six points more than the Rasmussen result from the same time frame. It was the largest lead any survey had produced for Collins in months, even taking into account a Survey USA poll in which 18-34 year-old respondents tilted overwhelmingly (and unrealistically) toward Collins.

Now, maybe Research 2000 is dead-on. But their work could also be an outlier. And if that's true, the new poll's trend--a six point smaller advantage than last time for Collins--suggests that her lead may actually be in the high single digits.

Hence the recent Collins +10 results from Rasmussen and the eight point lead found by the Mellman Group.

All things being equal, I'm inclined to trust Research 2000 over the DSCC-sponsored poll from Mellman. But the fact that no one else duplicated the 19 point spread found in Research 2000's September poll raises real doubts.

2. When you dig into the data, you learn that Collins builds her lead by earning the support of 32% of Democrats and 48% of CD-01 voters.

Both of those numbers are plausible. But the 32% figure among Democrats is much higher than what we saw in either the most recent Rasmussen survey or the Collins-friendly result from SurveyUSA.

That Survey USA poll also showed a mere four point spread between the performance of the candidates in CD-01 and CD-02. The Research 2000 poll shows an 18 point spread.

Clearly, someone is wrong here. But it will take more polling to find out who.

3. The poll appears to assume equal turnout in both congressional districts.

I don't have the time to look into this now, but my sense is that, historically, CD-01 has generated higher turnout. And in this election in particular, my assumption has always been that many more voters will go to the polls in CD-01 than in CD-02.

Bottom line: No one who thought this race was up for grabs yesterday has reason to think the result is a foregone conclusion today.

In most years--in a less volatile political climate in which there were fewer question marks--even a narrowing outside-the-margin-of-error lead 19 days before an election would be enough to make an incumbent feel safe.

But this isn't most years.

Below The Radar

In addition to her false and misleading radio ad, Sen. Collins apparently has up two TV ads that she's neglected to post to her website.

Anyone want to fill us in on what she's trying to hide?

Rhetorical Distance

Sen. Collins' decision to bemoan the McCain campaign's ugly tactics is of a piece with her political strategy over the last eight years. It's vintage Susan Collins.

Consider: The stunt costs her nothing. It compromises nothing in the way of her conservative ideology. And it puts no new distance between her and the McCain agenda.

And yet (if the Maine media is dumb enough to swallow it) it allows her to frame herself as a moderate to middle-of-the-road voters.

But think about what it means.

Two years into a campaign from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) full of irresponsible statements and troubling proposals, the one issue Collins has chosen to separate herself from him on has to do with tactics.

Not McCain's economic policy. Not his Iraq policy. Not his plan to tax health insurance benefits. Collins doesn't seem to have much problem with the substance of McCain's plans for America.

She just wants him to give them a softer sales pitch.

Collins on McCain's Dirty Campaign

Here's Sen. Collins talking about the latest nonsense from the McCain campaign:

"This kind of campaign [robo]call does not reflect the kind of leader that [McCain] is."

The idea seems to be that the ugly tactics Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has resorted to are beneath him.

And yet he's resorted to them just the same.

Look: It's interesting (and convenient) for Collins to try to put some daylight between herself and the McCain campaign less than three weeks before Election Day--just as her own race seems to tighten.

But at what point does Sen. Collins conclude that McCain and Gov. Sarah "great choice" Palin (R-AK) are part of the problem rather than the solution?

I mean, if "partisan rancor" is the single biggest problem in Washington today, why does Susan Collins continue to work to elect a Republican ticket that's waged one of the most bitter, negative and resentment-filled campaigns in recent memory?

WGME Debate Highlights

You can watch the full debate here.

A couple of notable moments, aside from Collins' flip-flop on the Iraq surge:

At 8:27: Rep. Allen says, "[Collins] said that the President didn't manage the war well. But the truth is that Senator Collins didn't manage the war well either."

At 23:50: Allen's answer on taxes was about as cogent an argument for his position as anyone is likely to squeeze into a two-minute debate format.

Collins Flip-Flops on Surge

At this week's WGME debate, Sen. Collins called General Petraeus' surge strategy the "right strategy" for Iraq.

At 7:08:



Not sure I've heard that language before. And, of course, Collins nominally opposed the troop surge last year.

If you're not sufficiently confused yet, it's worth revisiting this video from a committee hearing on September 11, 2007 in which Collins questioned Petraeus:



It's not clear how much political progress Collins thinks Iraq has made over the last thirteen months. But the clear implication of her question is that she believed the absence of "significant political progress" by September 2008 would militate in favor of withdrawal.

And yet here we are in October and she still supports an indefinite occupation.

Who woulda thunk it?

WGME Debate

Maine Politics posts this news story on the WGME debate, which took place earlier this week:



We still haven't seen the full debate--still trying to track down video.

Where Is This Race?

Granted, my rolodex isn't exactly huge. But when I talk to smart people about this race, I'm struck by how little confidence they have about where it stands.

Don't get me wrong: Everyone thinks Sen. Collins is leading. Some think the margin is smaller and some think it's larger.

But the opinions of the careful observers I talk to aren't firm. And to a degree you wouldn't normally expect less than three weeks out, there's a reluctance to venture predictions.

There are two key reasons:

1. The financial crisis and looming recession: It shakes up the race and plays into Rep. Allen's narrative. But since a Wall Street meltdown just weeks before Election Day puts us in virtually uncharted territory, to what extent it boosts Allen is hard to predict.

2. Turnout: Everyone agrees that Republicans are dispirited about the campaign Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has run--and that they're dispirited in general.

And everyone believes that Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) ground game will be very strong--and that it's being supplemented effectively by the Maine Dems.

But will this lead to a once-in-a-generation turnout surge? Or just a modest increase? Will young voters and new voters come out in unprecedented numbers? Or is it mostly hype?

This is the real wild card in the Allen-Collins race. And I suspect it's a topic we won't have much insight into until the polls open.

Collins' Biggest Mistake?

Here's the clip:

LCV In Perspective

It's not clear what impact, if any, the national LCV's endorsement of Sen. Collins will have on the race given the thin case that was made for the move, and given that it's been rejected by organization officials on the ground in Maine.

But it needs to be said: The national organization's decision to back Sen. Collins represents a fundamental betrayal of its values and its members.

After all, members expect the League to support candidates with strong environmental profiles over those who've fallen short of the group's standards. That's the whole point of an endorsement.

So when the group's leadership does the reverse--backing the obviously weaker candidate--it draws the League's entire mission into question.

Also worth noting: This endorsement doesn't appear to be an attempt--as these things sometime are--to curry favor with a powerful lawmaker on the verge of re-election.

Remember, Susan Collins just isn't that powerful. And her re-election is far from assured: Given the current political landscape, which grows bleaker by the day for Republicans, there just hasn't been enough polling on the Maine race for anyone to know with confidence how things will turn out.

So this endorsement is almost certainly about something else: It looks very much like an attempt to reach out to Republican LCV donors, and to insulate the organization from criticism that it only backs Democrats.

(For the record, I'm still waiting for a return call from LCV's Washington D.C. office about its reasoning. I first contacted the organization for comment on the Senate race in Maine on May 9.)

Of course, LCV bills itself as a non-partisan organization. So it shouldn't be taking party affiliation into account in its endorsements. And the organization professes not to.

But it's hard to believe anything LCV says these days.

Collins vs. Collins

Sen. Collins has a surprisingly--stunningly--sane op-Ed in today's PPH about possible new regulations for Wall Street.

It's hard to make sense of the piece, but not because of anything it says. It's perplexing, instead, because the entire spirit and substance of its recommendation bear almost no resemblance to Collins' industry-friendly, GSE-scapegoating comments on the financial meltdown in the debates and in her campaign's statements.

So I really hope that the Susan Collins who wrote ("wrote"?) this op-Ed gets in touch with the Susan Collins we've been seeing on the campaign trail. She might learn a thing or two.

Allen: Collins Better Fit For Big Oil

From the Allen campaign:

Since Mainers re-elected Susan Collins on a promise to protect our air, water and scenic resources, Collins has instead voted against the environment and with the Bush Administration often enough to make us wonder whether her promise to show up for every vote is a promise or a threat.

After being dinged by the group for voting TWICE for the Bush Administration’s coastal drilling plan, [S. 3711, Vote #218, 7/31/06; S. 3711, Vote #219, 8/1/06; CQ, 8/1/06], three years after voting for the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill, [HR 6, Vote #213, 7/29/05] and four years after voting to slash funding to track down and prosecute polluters, [Senate roll call vote 58, 3/12/2004], the only people endorsing Collins should be the oil companies. [SCR 23, Vote #97, 3/25/03]

And in a way, the oil companies have, contributing more than $140,000 to Collins’ campaign.

LCV Breaks With Itself?

From the LCV's endorsement press release:

The non-partisan LCV National Environmental Scorecard is a nationally accepted yardstick used to rate Members of Congress on conservation and clean energy issues.

Nationally accepted--except, apparently, by LCV itself.

BREAKING: LCV For Collins

In a surprising move, the national LCV has endorsed Sen. Collins over Rep. Allen.

When asked about his organization's decision to back a candidate with a 68% lifetime rating who voted for the Cheney energy bill (which LCV called one of the most anti-environment bills in recent years) over a candidate with a 93% rating who opposed the Cheney bill, LCV spokesman Joshua McNeil paused for a solid seven seconds before stating: "I'm not an expert on this race."

After another pause, he rattled off a series of talking points about Collins' work on environmental issues over the last two years.

Even when pressed, he declined to comment on the discrepancy between Collins' 68% lifetime LCV rating and Rep. Allen's 93% score, or about their contrasting votes on the Cheney energy bill.

UPDATE: After declining to discuss the endorsement at any level of detail and promising a call back, McNeil e-mails a press release that does not mention Collins' vote for the 2005 energy bill or the yawning 25% gap in the lifetime ratings of the two candidates.

UPDATE UPDATE: To be clear, I don't mean to suggest above that I was timing McNeil's response or that I know for a fact that he paused for exactly seven seconds. It could have been six seconds or eight seconds.

What I might have said, instead, was that McNeil took an extended, unusually-long pause--so long that I felt compelled to ask if he was still on the line.

Reminder Time

New readers: If you use a newsreader, our feed is available here.

Maine readers: Remember that if you receive phone calls, mailers or flyers relating to the Allen-Collins race, we want to know about it.

Insiders (and others): Please send tips here.

Fellow bloggers: The Collins Watch Flickr pool is open for business. Check it out.

And while we're on the subject of sharing, remember that you can contribute to Collins Watch using the "Donate" button at right.

Obvious Questions

Sen. Collins professes to believe that "hyper-partisanship" has been at the root of the government's failures over the last eight years.

Not a failed Republican ideology. Not mismanagement. Not corruption.

Hyper-partisanship.

But if bipartisanship is as crucial as Sen. Collins makes it sound, why hasn't she stood together with Democrats and many Republicans against even one of the Bush administration's major initiatives?

And why did she stonewall her Democratic colleagues on the Homeland Security committee when they repeatedly reached across the aisle, imploring her to hold hearings on the Bush administration's corrupt, costly and dangerous Iraq war contracting practices?

Another Debate Thought

Sen. Collins continues to run on the strength of her (deceptive) moderate branding. And in yesterday's debate, she seemed to up the ante by citing "partisan rancor" as the key explanation for government's failures over the last eight years.

The implication, clearly, is that she's got what it takes to end the bickering.

This strikes me as a bizarre, tone-deaf re-election argument at a time when the nation is mired in two wars and the worst financial crisis in three generations.

But it's notable for another reason: The junior senator has no standing to make it.

First, consider: Collins has been talking about civility and comity for twelve years now. And Washington has become steadily more polarized over that period.

So clearly, her efforts thus far have been a total failure. What reason is there to think Collins will be more successful given another six years?

And second: When it comes to elevating the tone, Susan Collins has repeatedly been part of the problem.

Remember, this is a woman who took to the airwaves to allege that a former colleague had impregnated his mistress. And last year, she sponsored and circulated a hate video about her opponent.

In short, a paragon of civic virtue Susan Collins ain't.

Don't get me wrong: I understand why Collins doesn't want to talk about the issues. But she really should come up with a more plausible, compelling way to duck a discussion of them.

Today's Debate

You can watch the whole thing here.

Collins' Biggest Mistake? Cuba

From today's debate: Collins says her biggest mistake in Congress was in 1997 or 1998. And it was on Cuba.

She really said that. I swear.

Collins Q3: $1 Million

From the AP:

The figures to be filed with the Federal Election Commission show [Sen Collins] raised $1 million in the period that ended Sept. 30 and that she has $3.3 million in cash in hand.

That's about twice as much cash on hand as Rep. Allen.

Allen Q3: $1.0 Million

From Rep. Allen's campaign:

Fundraising receipts for the quarter totaled almost $1 million for a total of more than $5.7 million for the cycle for the period ending Sept. 30. The quarter's total was $995,688.75.

Cash on hand for the third quarter report was almost $1.7 million at $1,669,835.

Almost half of the contributions for the quarter came from Maine contributors at $483,311. The average contribution was $178.95 and the most common was $50. On-line contributors accounted for 25 percent of the quarter's total.

Chairman Mao Would Be Proud

It's hard to know where to begin with this piece of propaganda masquerading as a news article.

Suffice it to say that it's a great fit for a newspaper that, in recent days, has proven itself not just indifferent but actually corrosive to Maine's democracy.

Question of the Day

PPH is holding a debate tomorrow.

Since the paper's coverage has gone out of its way to avoid focusing on the substantive differences between the candidates--and Sen. Collins' record in particular--it will be interesting to see how the debate unfolds.

Will Collins be asked detailed questions about particular votes? Will she be forced to confront the specifics of her record? Or will it be yet another session dominated by generic, open-ended queries?

Lieberman Picks His Battles

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is now defending Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) from charges that he dropped the ball on Iraq oversight during his tenure as the top Republican on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

But as far as I can tell, Lieberman has refrained from mounting a parallel defense of Sen. Collins' tenure as chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee.

Of course, Lieberman was basically pleading with Collins to hold Iraq war contracting hearings all the way back in September 2003. And more than three years later--with the situation in Iraq having deteriorated and billions of dollars up in smoke--the junior senator had still taken no action.

So it would be hard for Lieberman to argue, credibly, that he approved of Collins' decision to sit on her hands.

But that hasn't exactly stopped him before.

Gov. Palin In Maine

This Thursday. (Via Turn Maine Blue.)

Will Sen. Collins--state co-chair of the McCain campaign--appear with her? One would expect so: Just a couple of weeks ago, Collins called Gov. Palin "a great choice."

Remember, this is a woman who presided over a town with a policy of billing rape victims for rape kits. A politician who, just three days ago, was found to have unlawfully abused her power as governor.

That Sarah Palin.

NRSC To The Rescue?

The Washington Post reports that the cash-strapped National Republican Senatorial Committee is plunking down $150,000 in support of Sen. Collins. TV ads are slated to begin running this week.

Given the NRSC's cash woes and the long list of seats that Senate Republicans are struggling to defend, this is a significant move--and one that speaks volumes. It's the first sign we've seen in a long time that the national GOP is jittery about Collins' prospects.

UPDATE: The Washington Post now says it was wrong:

The NRSC did buy time on Friday in the Portland, Maine media market, a move that when we learned of it, led us to conclude that the committee was set to go on television in support of Collins.

What we failed to realize (dumbly) is that the Portland, Maine media market also reaches into parts of New Hampshire where Sen. John Sununu (R) is fighting for his political life against former governor Jeanne Shaheen.

The time the NRSC bought in Portland then was for the New Hampshire race NOT the Maine race. It's a rookie mistake and one that we simply should not make.

Thought it was a bit of an odd move given that it would have reinforced Collins' connection to the Republican brand.

Separately, I wonder what impact, if any, seeing those New Hampshire ads has on Portland-area voters.

Candor and Self-Respect at PPH

It can't be stressed enough that PPH's endorsement of Sen. Collins represents a devastating abdication of professional responsibility.

But let me be clear: I'm not saying the endorsement is egregious and unprofessional because PPH chose to back a senator who has enabled just about all the Bush administration's illiberal, reactionary policies over the last eight years.

Rather, it's an abdication because it refuses to defend those policies. Or contextualize them. Or explain why they were less important than something else.

PPH simply ignores them. It's as if the editorial was written in a parallel universe where Susan Collins played no role in the Iraq war, the ballooning national debt or the country's steady drift away from the rule of law.

Simply put: By adopting the language of a Collins camp press release and shirking its journalistic duty to provide a frank and independent assessment of the race, the PPH editorial board showed that it has no self-respect.

And by refusing to talk to its readers candidly about its reasons for backing Susan Collins, the paper confirmed that it has no respect for them either.

Photo of the Week

(We've added a larger version of this snapshot to the Collins Watch Flickr pool.)

Propaganda Victory

Estate tax repeal supporter Susan Collins gets the nod from Portland Press Herald, owned by one of the richest families in the country.

Of course, the editorial doesn't mention the estate tax--it doesn't mention taxes at all. It also doesn't mention Collins' vote for the Iraq war. Or her vote for the unconstitutional Military Commissions Act. Or her record on the environment, abortion and judges.

It's designed, in other words, to distract rather than inform.

Because of this, the editorial is a betrayal of the paper's readers. It's a breathtakingly irresponsible piece of misdirection--and a disgrace to the cause of journalism. (Though the folks at Xinhua News Agency, would probably find much to admire.)

Jeannine Guttman should be ashamed and her colleagues at PPH should be embarrassed.

But they've had cause to be embarrassed by the paper's coverage of the Senate race for months now.

Conservation Voters

Just a few days ago, Planned Parenthood stood up and told the truth to Mainers about Sen. Collins' record.

And yesterday's, a "who's who" of Maine environmentalists--led by Dan Amory, Board Chair of the Maine League of Conservation Voters (LCV)--endorsed Rep. Allen.

So what to make of the fact that LCV itself has yet to weigh in on the race?

Remember, Allen has a lifetime LCV rating of 93% compared to 68% for Collins.

And Collins voted for the Cheney energy bill that LCV called the "most anti-environment bill signed into law in recent memory."

Now, if I was in charge of choosing between two candidates for valedictorian, I'm pretty sure I'd go with the A student who passed the most important test of the year--not the D student who flunked it.

But maybe that's just me.

I spoke to the Maine LCV yesterday, and was told that the national LCV is in charge of endorsements in federal races--the local chapter has no say. (An odd way of doing things?)

So I've put in a call to the LCV headquarters in Washington to find out their thoughts on the Senate race in Maine. Still waiting for a return call.

PPH To Show Its Hand

We learn here that PPH will make its endorsement in this week's Maine Sunday Telegram.

Let me state the obvious: It would be stunning--shocking--if the paper did anything other than endorse Sen. Collins.

The kindest thing you can say about PPH's coverage of the Allen-Collins race is that it's been grudging. (I've said less kind things here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

And sure--the paper is in the middle of some serious turmoil.

But when a local weekly delivers more incisive, illuminating coverage of a race in a single article than a major newspaper has produced over an entire election cycle, it's pretty clear that something else is at work.

And that's before you even consider the editorial page's near-silence about Susan Collins' reactionary, illiberal votes over the last couple years, the paper's refusal to fact-check Collins' lies and distortions, and the absence of any genuinely progressive commentary about the race on its op-Ed page.

In short, it's pretty clear how this thing turns out.

(Photo by Willow Lawson.)

Can't Stop Fibbing?

Gerald tallies up a few more, um, exaggerations.

Meanwhile, as far as I know, Sen. Collins' radio ad--which contains a blatant, demonstrably false attack remains on the air.

Apparently, Collins knows the Maine press won't hold her accountable. So she just continues to make stuff up.

Question of the Day

Sen. Collins talks a lot about Rep. Allen's record of voting with the Democratic party pretty much all the time.

But then she goes ahead and parries Allen's criticism of her vote for the Cheney energy bill--which Allen opposed--by noting that prominent Democrats in the Senate supported it.

Anyone else see a contradiction here?

Is This So Hard?

The Portland Phoenix delivers a nuts and bolts rundown of the voting records of Sen. Collins and Rep. Allen on a whole spectrum of issues.

In most contexts, this kind of piece would be utterly unremarkable. But because the article is full of the kind of detail that's been so conspicuously absent from major outlet coverage of this race, it feels revelatory.

And given how little genuine scrutiny the records of the two candidates have received so far, it's a small but essential corrective. Or at least a step toward a corrective.

Putting together this kind of piece takes work. Still, if journalism is what you do for a living, it's not that hard. And for any news outlet that sees its mission as providing the public with an accurate picture of the world, running something along these lines soon--within the next week or so--is absolutely essential.

Will we see more coverage like this in the coming days? If the editors and producers in news rooms across the state have any respect for their profession, we will.

More Radio Fibbing

Gerald has the details.

It's incredible that Sen. Collins continues to pay no price in the Maine media for these gross distortions.

But even more incredible is something else that's been missing in local coverage since the bailout package was first introduced.

Namely: Over the last two weeks, you'd never know from reading PPH and BDN (or listening to MPBN) that one of these candidates--Susan Collins--is closely aligned with the powerful industry associations in Washington that want fewer rules and mandates for business. And that Rep. Allen is vigorously opposed by those forces.

You'd never know that Collins routinely scores huge ratings from the pro-business lobbies while getting low scores from consumer groups.

Or that Rep. Allen's record is the reverse.

And you'd have no way of knowing which candidate's contributions are represented by this chart:


(It's Susan Collins.)

One would think that such basic facts--such essential pieces of background information--would at least come up in the coverage.

And yet they haven't.

Planned Parenthood: Oh Really?

Here's Chris Quint, Director of Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. Via e-mail:

It has been our understanding all along that Sen. Collins wanted and was seeking our endorsement in this election cycle.

Regardless, it is unfortunate that Sen. Collins does not want the support from an organization that is the most trusted provider of reproductive health care in our state and country. Planned Parenthood is proud of our record of bi-partisan support over the years and proud of our support of Congressman Allen in this election.

Collins Didn't Want PP Endorsement?

That's the natural conclusion to draw from the Collins camp's fatuous response to Planned Parenthood's endorsement of Rep. Allen.

But what kind of pro-choice candidate wouldn't want the endorsement of the preeminent pro-choice organization in the country?

It suggests Collins is being dishonest--a habit of late--or she doesn't take reproductive freedom all that seriously.

For what it's worth, we think it's probably the latter. It would help explain why Collins has so often voted the preferences of anti-abortion groups in recent years.

Quote of the Day

Christian Potholm, in his 2003 book The Splendid Game:

"In the 1996 senatorial race...[BDN] again [intervened] on behalf of Collins on both its editorial page and in its reporting and analysis.

Cynics of all party affiliations could see a pattern in subsequent events. The managing editor of BDN, Mark Woodward, went on after the election to become communications director for Senator Collins--although he soon returned to the old job."

Supposedly Pro-Choice

The Portland Phoenix coins a term.

Light Posting Ahead

Probably not as much action as usual here during the day tomorrow. But we'll be back at it on Friday--and straight through till Election Day.

(If you'd like to contribute to our efforts, please click on the orange "Donate" button at right.)

The Tank Gets Bigger

Let's be blunt: Everyone paying attention knows that BDN is in the tank for Sen. Collins.

The paper has a long, sordid history of twisting its coverage to support Collins. It almost always gives the junior senator more prominent placement than Rep. Allen in its stories.

And its coverage works assiduously to collapse any distinction between Allen and Collins that works to her disadvantage.

It's an ugly reality and a threat to Maine's democracy. And it isn't much discussed publicly. But that makes it no less true.

In any event: It's bad enough to have one of the state's two largest papers working to manipulate its readers. Now Blethen--which owns both PPH and Kennebec Journal--is publishing BDN stories on the Senate race.

This is like CNN airing clips from Fox News or The Financial Times running wire reports from WorldNetDaily.

Of course, that assumes PPH is a journalistic organization in the mold of CNN and The Financial Times--that it's at least trying to get things right.

Regular readers know that we've had our doubts for some time.

Let's just say this latest move isn't exactly reassuring.

Question of the Day

According to SurveyUSA, pro-choice voters make up 60% of the total pool of "actual and likely voters" in Maine.

And the September SurveyUSA poll put Sen. Collins support among those pro-choice voters at 45%.

Anyone else think that number just took a big hit?

Peeling Back The Facade

In the minds of many voters, a politician's views on abortion function as a proxy for a whole range of social issues. And abortion can be a lens through which the rest of a candidate's views are evaluated.

Local and national media reinforce the practice: Reporters are always looking for ways to distill the national political debate down to a clash on one or two subjects. And almost inevitably, abortion becomes part of the shorthand.

Sen. Collins has always been keenly aware of this dynamic. And throughout her career, she's been deft at using her pro-choice branding as a shield against claims that she's just another right-wing Republican.

Up until now, reporters have largely accepted her narrative. (Consider this July report from ABC News, which stakes Collins' entire moderate image on a single vote she cast five years ago.)

But one reason Planned Parenthood's rejection is significant is that it raises serious questions about the story Collins has been telling about herself all these years.

Planned Parenthood's decision to endorse her opponent--and its suggestion that the stakes in this election are especially high--may not just put distance between ardently pro-choice voters and Collins. There's a chance it will prompt the entire range of moderate and independent voters to peel back Collins' moderate facade.

And if that facade does in fact get peeled back, independent voters aren't going to like what they see.

Planned Parenthood: It Was Unanimous

In a formal statement, Planned Parenthood is now confirming what we reported earlier.

The release is notable for its forceful language, which frames the Allen-Collins race as a crucial battleground in the fight to protect the rights and health of Maine women.

It opens by underscoring just how stark the choice was between the two candidates:

The national Planned Parenthood (PPAF) Action Fund board unanimously voted to endorse Congressman Tom Allen in his bid to unseat Senator Susan Collins.

The DC-based Planned Parenthood Action Fund--which focuses on federal elections--made their decision to endorse Allen following a unanimous vote by the Planned Parenthood of Northern New England Action Fund (PPNNE AF) board, the political and advocacy arm of the regional affiliate.

The language that follows, while focusing on Allen, can't be read as anything but a scathing rebuke to Collins:

We need a leader who will represent the interests of the thousands of Mainers served by Planned Parenthood...We need someone in the Senate who understands prevention and who will support quality, affordable health care...Planned Parenthood wholeheartedly agrees that Tom Allen is that leader."

And:

[Allen's] record proves he will support and protect a woman's right to make personal childbearing decisions...This election is absolutely pivotal for our organization and the people who count on us. We look forward to doing whatever we can to ensure the people of this state know who they can trust to protect their rights, protect our courts, and protect the health and safety of all Mainers."

The statement could obviously have been framed differently. It could have characterized the choice between the two candidates as difficult. Or tacked on a few kind, diplomatic words about Susan Collins and her 12 years in office.

That it does neither of these things speaks volumes about just how unfriendly Collins has been to family planning and health care access over the last six years.

Planned Parenthood's message is clear: Susan Collins isn't a leader; she doesn't support quality, affordable health care; and she can't be trusted to protect the rights of Mainers.

The question, now, is whether Mainers will hear that message. Or--more to the point--whether the Maine media will permit that message to be heard.

BREAKING: Planned Parenthood For Allen

In a precedent-setting move with national ramifications, Planned Parenthood has broken decisively with Sen. Collins, and will endorse Rep. Allen's bid to unseat her.

The decision to intervene in the race--coming from the nation's most important and respected pro-choice organization--sounds an urgent warning to pro-choice Collins supporters, admonishing them to take another look at the junior senator's record.

And because Planned Parenthood backed Collins in 2002 (and frequently endorses Republicans) its support for Allen represents a serious, non-partisan challenge to Collins' carefully-cultivated "moderate" image.

The landmark nature of the decision underscores just how far Collins has strayed on abortion, privacy and related issues over the last several years:

--This is the first time Planned Parenthood has backed the challenger to a senator it had previously endorsed.

--This appears to be the first time Planned Parenthood has backed a Senate challenger over an incumbent who identifies as pro-choice.

Of course, in one sense, Planned Parenthood's hand was forced: Sen. Collins has been pro-choice in name only over the last six years.

By casting a critical vote to put Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court (and backing the nominations of other activist, right-wing judges like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown) she's helped bring Roe v. Wade to the brink of obliteration.

Tellingly, she's never voiced misgivings about her Alito vote, or about his opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart--a verdict which brings us a step closer to a Roe reversal.

(Collins also sided with pro-life forces on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a backdoor attempt to undermine Roe. And she refused to join supporters of reproductive freedom in speaking out against a new Bush administration rule that gives health care providers wide latitude to deny services to women on a case by case basis.)

So given Collins' anti-choice record (and Rep. Allen's rock-solid history on reproductive health) Planned Parenthood had little choice.

Nonetheless, it's a watershed development: The organization has drawn a clear line in the sand, putting future Senate and House candidates across the country on notice that it isn't acceptable for elected officials to maintain a rhetorical commitment to reproductive freedom while casting votes that undermine it.

Planned Parenthood is telling wobbly pols that their actions matter, and that it won't hesitate to back challengers of former allies who have abandoned their principles.

Of course, when it comes to the Maine senate race, Susan Collins is banking on Mainers paying more attention to her deceptive branding than her performance in office.

But with the Supreme Court one vote from overturning Roe--and Collins on record supporting nominees who would overturn it and the presidential candidate who has vowed to appoint them--that strategy is starting to look at least a tad shaky.

Planned Parenthood clearly sees the urgency, and appears ready to play the role of truth teller.

Let's hope it tells those truths loudly.

Question of the Day

Sen. Snowe has opened her wallet this election cycle. And the Maine press routinely implies (incorrectly) that she and Sen. Collins are ideological twins and staunch allies.

So could it really be true that not a dime of Snowe's $5600 in GOP donations this cycle has gone to the junior senator?

Another Debate Thought

I could be wrong about this. But my recollection is that in both debates so far, there has been a question about "term limits."

And each time, it seemed like an awkward, backdoor attempt by the moderator to raise the issue of Sen. Collins airtight pledge to serve two terms and come home.

But why not just ask Collins a point-blank question about breaking her promise? Why not tackle the issue directly? You almost get the sense that these debate moderators think it would be unseemly to mention Collins' lie to her face.

If that's what has been going in, it needs to stop.

Look: Susan Collins made a blanket commitment to voters. She made a contract with them. And she's gone ahead and broken that contract.

It matters. It's salient. And asking about it isn't unseemly, partisan or anything else.

If reporters and debate moderators lack the guts to confront a public servant directly about a broken promise, they should get out of the business. And be quick about it.

A Simple Point

Some debate moderators and reporters think the most important thing to know about Sen. Collins and Rep. Allen is what each of them wants to do about health care, taxes and Iraq. But that's actually a terrible way to get at the choice in this race.

Because neither Susan Collins nor Tom Allen is going to be in a position to frame policy any time soon.

Remember, Susan Collins is a weak senator. And if she wins she'll almost certainly be in the minority. A victorious Tom Allen, by contrast, would be a majority senator with no seniority.

What's more, we'll have a new president in January. Whoever he is, he'll enter office with something approximating a popular mandate to enact his agenda.

So the real question is how Allen and Collins would vote on that agenda.

The real question, in other words, is whether Susan Collins will vote up or down on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) tax plan and his universal health coverage plan. And whether she'll vote for Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) attempts to tax health insurance benefits and cut corporate taxes.

Tom Allen has been clear on these topics: It's pretty apparent, from his public comments, that he would support Obama on taxes, health care and Iraq while opposing McCain's policies in these three areas.

Collins, on the other hand, has been coy when these topics have come up. In the last debate she simply refused to answer about taxes.

But the history is pretty clear: Sen. Collins has had no problem supporting Republican tax policy, economic policy and Iraq policy over the last eight years. Yet she has resisted Democratic efforts in these areas, even when it put her on the right-wing fringe of the Republican party.

Is there's any reason to think that, having won another six year term, she'll change her tune?

Should Social Security Buy Stocks?

Sen. Collins thinks it's worth considering:

Some have proposed investing a portion of the Social Security trust fund in the stock market as a means of building up reserves and addressing or delaying the Social Security shortfall. These investments could be made directly by the government--like our State retirement funds--or they could be made by individuals through what have come to be known as "personal retirement accounts."

Collins proceeds to say that, "I would not support an effort to privatize the Social Security system."

But as Maine Politics notes, revamping Social Security to include separate personal accounts that invest in stocks is exactly what proponents of privatization were arguing for...until they realized that "privatization" was unpopular.

Then they started calling their plan something else.

Collins' position is certainly in line with her supporters at NFIB. But do Mainers want the Social Security trust fund investing in the stock market?

Preemption Doctrine

I've now heard the Collins radio ad (the one with the lies) and a reliable source has confirmed it's currently on the air.

You don't learn much by listening to the spot. But until I heard it out loud, I missed an obvious point: By lying about Allen--and painting him as a pledge breaker--Collins isn't just (falsely) attacking her opponent's character.

She's also trying to preempt charges about her own big lie.

Remember, one of the candidates in this race really has broken a pledge. And the truth is available for all to see:



The Collins camp desperately wants voters to forget that Susan Collins made a public promise to Maine voters. They want to hide the fact that, through her actions, Collins is making that promise a lie.

And if voters can't be made to forget Collins' betrayal, the junior senator's team wants Mainers to think Allen is equally dishonest--even though that's plainly not the case.

Will voters be fooled? Will the contrast be clear?

I'll say this: If, on Election Day, Maine voters see Allen and Collins as equally guilty of going back on their word, Sen. Collins' opponents will have only themselves to blame.

The Card Check Smears

Let's not forget the true motive behind the anti-Allen card check smears: To preserve the wealth of profitable companies and those who run them.

The folks at the National Federation of Independent Business may be concerned about the Employee Free Choice Act. But they're not that concerned: Nearly 60% of their members have 1-5 employees.

So card check is hardly their top issue.

It's just happens to be more palatable, in an electoral context, for them to focus on card check than to howl for lower taxes for millionaires. Or rail against environmental standards. Or complain about the Family Leave Act.

And one of the reasons it's more palatable is that pro-business, anti-regulation groups have perfected the dark art of dressing up their card check attacks in faux-populism and disingenuous concern for the plight of average workers.

But make no mistake: These ads, four weeks before Election Day, are about rich people trying to keep more of their money while keeping the government off their backs.

If Susan Collins wins, there's a better chance they'll get their wish. It really is that simple.

Pro Bailout Group Spends For Collins

Via The Maine Race, we learn that with Sen. Collins losing ground in the latest polls, another business lobbying group is coming to her aid--with a big TV ad buy.

The organization in question actually bills itself as a small business lobby. But the National Federation of Independent Business was a "staunch supporter" of the recent Wall Street bailout.

And three of their other top issues are the repeal of the estate tax, freezing the minimum wage and privatizing Social Security.

So they seem to have a lot in common with their big business, corporate brethren. And with the anti-regulation folks that run a Republican party focused on securing the interests of billionaires.

It's hardly surprising, then, that they're supporting a stalwart ally like Susan Collins. Or that they've given Collins twelve awards.

New Poll: Collins +10

Rasmussen has new numbers out, and the big news is that they would seem to corroborate the DSCC result:

Tom Allen (D): 43 (42) (38) (42) (42) (42) (38)

Susan Collins (R-inc): 53 (55) (53) (49) (49) (52) (54)

(Figures in parenthesis represent results from previous months.)

The new numbers suggests that the race has narrowed modestly. But the most salient thing about the poll is something the analysis barely mentions: That the same survey sees only a five point advantage for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in the presidential race.

That's a narrower result than almost anyone is predicting, and it suggests Obama has gained virtually no ground since mid-September in Maine--a finding that's hard to believe in the context of the other state and national polls produced during that period.

Now, maybe Obama is up only five points--maybe the race is evolving in Maine in a way that's at a variance with both the national numbers, the new DSCC Maine number (Obama +17) and nearby states like New Hampshire.

But you can be sure that the folks at Collins HQ aren't betting on a tight presidential race to help get them over the line.

If the Rasmussen sample is off--if Obama is really up 10-12 points--it probably means Collins is up mid-to-high single digits, as the Mellman Group poll says.

And that means we may have ourselves a race after all.

Quote of the Day

Commenter chickpea at Turn Maine Blue:

The gaffe by the PPH, inconsequential as it may appear to people who spend a lot of time sucking up information online, is a symptom of something very serious. Markets, be they stock markets or real estate markets, or the markets that are called elections, depend for their validity on accurate information.

Journalists love to quote Thomas Jefferson about his preference for "newspapers without government rather than government without newspapers." However, the context of that quote is that he assumed a literate electorate and a free flow of information from competing sources, which people could use to make their democratic decisions.

PFAW Slams Collins On Alito

It's hard to know how seriously to take the new poll showing an eight point spread between the candidates.

But the Collins camp's decision to launch a stealth radio spot featuring transparent lies makes it clear that they think this race is still up for grabs. They're clearly worried that, given Sen. Collins' close ties to Wall Street and corporate America, the ongoing financial crisis has the potential to shake up the contest.

The decision by People For The American Way to spend money in Maine would appear to underscore that possibility. It suggest that insiders are taking a fresh look at the race.

Listen to the PFAW ad here.

About That Radio Ad

A left-of-center source sends me the Collins radio ad script. Here's the beginning of the spot, which has been on the airwaves in recent days:

Where do you begin with Tom Allen? There's the hypocrisy. Allen holds a press conference denouncing negative ads, and then conveniently forgets his pledge and attacks Susan Collins.

Then there are the countless distortions. In his new ad, Allen incredibly blames Susan Collins for the financial meltdown. But the one who voted against stronger financial regulation is Tom Allen.

While I'd usually prefer to wait for aural confirmation of the ad's existence before commenting on it, the Collins campaign isn't exactly rushing to take responsibility for their handiwork here. So I'll just dive in.

Reading the copy, my original suggestion, yesterday, that the ad contains a bald-faced lie now seems misleading, or at least incomplete.

Because the spot actually contains two whoppers.

First: The notion that Allen has "[forgotten] his pledge" is a blatant lie. The pledge itself is a fabrication--Allen never pledged to refrain from criticizing Collins' record. So that's just plain false.

Allen did call on third party groups to keep their ads positive. But that's obviously very different from promising not to draw contrasts with your opponent.

Conflating those two stances--one of which Allen backed and one which he didn't--is disingenuous and deceitful.

It's the campaign equivalent of perjury.

Second: The notion that, of the two candidates, Allen is "the one who voted against stronger financial regulation" is almost equally egregious. It's probably short of an outright lie--there's probably some vote Allen cast that could conceivably be portrayed as having been against a regulation touching on financial matters.

But both in terms of specifics and on the big picture level, the charge is an exercise in up-is-downism.

At the level of specifics: The one piece of financial regulation Susan Collins has said might have helped avert the financial meltdown is the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act. But Allen actually voted for that bill. It died in the Senate, according to former Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH), its author, because of opposition from the White House. The Financial Times notes that the bill also "lacked a champion in the Senate." (Too busy holding hearings about Great Lakes Restoration Management, Sen. Collins?)

If Collins has another bill in mind, she ought to say so. But simply calling Allen a foe of regulation, in the absence of evidence, is more smear than critique.

So that takes care of the legislative minutiae.

In terms of the big picture: Look, Susan Collins is the candidate who, in the midst of a historic Wall Street meltdown, insisted that more regulation isn't the answer and tried to shift the discussion from her Wall Street allies and patrons to government-sponsored entities that were only peripherally involved in the crisis.

She routinely votes the interests of multinational corporations, Wall Street and the insurance industry--and in return, they distort her opponent's positions and shower her with their financial support.

So let's get real: Susan Collins is a dream candidate for the anti-regulation forces that have dominated our political system for the last eight years.

Her opponent, meanwhile, has been part of a team fighting the corporate agenda.

If you're Susan Collins, that's certainly not a convenient state of affairs four weeks from election day. But pretending the opposite is preposterous. And Collins can't be allowed to get away with it.

New Dem Poll: Collins +8

The DSCC has a brand new poll out, conducted by the Mellman Group, with the following results:

Tom Allen (D): 41

Susan Collins (R-inc): 49

The poll of 600 likely voters has a margin of error of +/- 4 percent.

Partisan polls are always worth treating with some skepticism: The DSCC press release doesn't list the survey's partisan weighting or break down any of the demographics. And since the DSCC doesn't release all its polls the way a non-partisan firm would, it's not clear where this fits in with their earlier numbers.

Still, the poll isn't exactly a comfort to Collins. And it helps explain the radio ad that we alluded to yesterday.

Also notable is that the same poll shows a 17 point advantage for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in the presidential race (52-35). That number makes at least as much sense to me as the narrow, 4-5 point gap that we've seen in recent public polling.

The implication is that, if Obama winds up with a solid, double-digit win in Maine, the Senate race will be closer than recent independent surveys have suggested.

Fibbin On The Radio?

Is Sen. Collins running a new radio ad that contains an outright lie about Rep. Allen? That's what we're hearing.

UPDATE: Funny, I can't find the ad on the Collins campaign blog or on the campaign's YouTube channel, even though previous spots have been posted in both places.

Maybe the Collins camp isn't particularly proud of this one?

Photo of the Week

(We've added a larger version of this snapshot to the Collins Watch Flickr pool.)

Collins Dollars To Frary

Sen. Collins has signed on (via her PAC) as a financial supporter of John Frary, the eccentric, long shot Republican candidate in the second congressional district.

Frary, you'll remember, has kicked up some dust in recent months--as a result both of his unconventional views and his unconventional campaign.

He's also called Susan Collins' approach to reducing high oil prices "idiotic." (The riff starts at 4:40. But it really is worth watching the whole thing.)



More proof, as if it were needed, that Susan Collins is a stalwart Republican team player.

Yesterday's Debate

TMB has video.

UPDATE: Sen. Collins says she won't endorse the tax plans of either Sen. McCain (R-AZ) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).

But look at her record. Look at her backers: It's abundantly clear that if McCain wins, she'll vote for his plan. And it's just as clear that if Obama wins, she'll oppose his.

Her refusal to say so points to the fundamentally deceptive nature of her political identity, disingenuous to its core.

Who's Right?

In today's PPH, Matt Wickenheiser writes:

Collins said the country hasn't struck the right balance in regulation. She charged that Allen opposed two amendments in 2005 that would have strengthened regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Allen responded that the bill passed the House, with his vote, but died in the Senate.

There are two options possibilities.

1. Collins and Allen are talking past each other--they're referencing different bills.

2. One of them is lying.

Why won't PPH tell us which one it is? Is everyone over there too overworked to think straight? Is it laziness? An indifference to the truth?

Fudging The Numbers

In yesterday's debate, Sen. Collins seems to have conveyed an impression about federal budgeting that is pretty much the opposite of the truth.

It's worth noting that this is not the first time Susan Collins has taken liberties with numbers in an effort to deceive voters.

Remember when her campaign tried to portray a potential small reduction in our Iraq spending as tantamount to repealing the costs of the war?

Or when she called for a repealing farm subsidies--a tiny slice of the federal budget--as a way to close what is now a $10 trillion national debt?

Collins has demonstrated that she's perfectly happy to make things up. And it's not hard to understand why: No one in the Maine press calls her on it.

Until that happens, no doubt she'll keep right on doing it.

Enviro Group Chides Collins

It's hard to get a sense--at least quickly--of how strong a grassroots presence Friends of the Earth Action has in Maine. But their endorsement of Rep. Allen is notable for its language about Sen. Collins:

"Maine residents deserve an A voter in the Senate, not someone who scores a C- through her career but then gets green the year before an election," said Dr. Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth Action.

And:

"The future of the Supreme Court is one of the most crucial issues for those of us focused on clean air, clean water and the climate crisis," said Friends of the Earth Action board member and Maine resident Michael Herz. "Unfortunately Susan Collins voted to confirm both of George Bush's right-wing Supreme Court nominees, jeopardizing numerous environmental protections."

Collins Bailout Primer

Here's a rundown of Sen. Collins' evolving stance on the bailout bill over the last eleven days:

--Sept. 21: In the first debate of the Senate race, when asked about the deepening crisis, Susan Collins cautions that more regulation isn't the answer. She calls for "extensive oversight hearings" and "market discipline."

--Sept. 22: Collins says she's against "a rush to act on this bill so we can adjourn this weekend." She adds: "We've got to carefully look at what happened and why."

Her main substantive proposal is for the bailout legislation to include tighter regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, even though neither entity is party to the bailout. She doesn't explain why focusing on these institutions--only peripherally related to the expanding Wall Street meltdown--would prevent the crisis from boiling over.

--Sept. 23: Collins blames Democrats for the crisis. She cites the Senate's failure to pass the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act--which Rep. Allen voted for in the House.

(At the time, this charge had already been rejected by the bill's author, former Rep. Michael Oxley (R-CA). He blames the White House for the bill's failure.)

--Sept. 24: Collins lays out requirements for the bailout legislation, calling for executive compensation curbs, oversight and "protections for taxpayers. (Those requirements echo a set of principles spelled out days earlier by Rep. Allen.)

--Oct. 1: Ten days after she called for extensive oversight hearings that haven't materialized and nine days after she stressed the importance of including tighter regulation for Freddie and Fannie regulation in the bailout--a measure that appears not to have made it into the legislation--Collins announces that she will support the bill.

She does so just hours before a vote on the bill was scheduled, and only minutes after the bill's details are made public.

Later in the day, it emerges that the bill includes billions of dollars in provisions unrelated to the bailout, including tax breaks for "motor-sports racing tracks, makers of wooden arrows for children, and the rum excise tax for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands."

Her vote can be viewed here.

The Senate Version

Gerald looks under the hood of the Senate version of the bailout bill.

It doesn't look pretty.

Collins: Yes On Bailout

As expected, Sen. Collins has come out in favor of the Wall Street bailout that the Senate will vote on later tonight:

Collins said [the bailout] is worth supporting "to prevent catastrophic consequences for our entire economy."

Collins...said she pushed for changes to the proposal so it would include taxpayer protections, limitations on CEO pay, and oversight.

She talked about small business owners, young couples, auto dealers and older workers who have watched their retirement savings lose value.

"I share the anger of many of my constituents over this crisis," she said. "I subscribe to many of the principles they invoke."

Quote of the Day

Sen. Susan Collins:

When [Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)] tackles a problem, he does not let go until he has identified a plan for solving it."

Odds and Ends

Sen. Collins has received three times as much from lobbyists as Rep. Allen has? She's received more lobbyist contributions than all but six congressional candidates nationwide? Not surprising.

On the other hand: Foster's Daily Democrat calling Tom Allen a visionary? That caught me off guard.

"Great" For Who?

When Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) was mayor of Wasilla, the policy in her town was for rape victims to be billed for their own rape kits.

According to the governor at the time, Wasilla was "unique" in this respect. And even after the policy generated criticism from elected officials, it stayed in effect--until state lawmakers saw no choice but to pass a law barring it.



But Susan Collins thinks Sarah Palin was a "great choice."

Now It's Collins' Turn

It looks increasingly likely that the Senate bailout bill, which Sen. Collins votes on tonight, will be worse than the House legislation.

Specifically: Even though Monday's version of the Wall Street bailout was conceived by the Bush administration and shepherded through negotiations by the former chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, it's apparently now perceived in Washington as having been insufficiently friendly to the corporate world.

So it's being larded up with tax breaks for business and other inducements to get Republicans on board.

When you think about it, it's sort of incredible.

Collins hasn't yet stated her intentions, but she's come awfully close. Expect her to vote for the bill.

Collins Hits Back

I've only found one on-the-record response from the Collins camp to the Allen ad on the economy. And sure enough, it's all bluster and misdirection. No attempt at an actual rebuttal.

Sen. Collins has also launched two new ads (here and here) that aim to blunt Rep. Allen's attack with a mix of gauzy, bipartisan language and misleading statements.

To wit: "She voted to increase the minimum wage." You mean at least once? Sure, fine. But she's also cast at least one downright ugly vote against it.

Specifically: She was one of just 16 senators to oppose both the early-2005 minimum wage increase plan put forward by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and the Republican substitute.

It's a vote that, as far as I know, she's never explained. Even though it puts her well to the right of former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) on the issue.

Of course, Sen. Collins is more popular on Wall Street--and in corporate boardrooms--than Santorum ever was. It's not hard to see why.

UPDATE: Kevin Wack says it's "disingenuous" for Democrats to criticize Collins for voting against the Santorum substitute...because Democrats themselves opposed it.

Um, no. Either Wack is unfamiliar with the context of Collins' hypocritical vote, described at the bottom of this post, or he and I have different opinions about what the word "disingenuous" means.

What's really disingenuous, of course, is portraying yourself as a defender of working people while voting for policies that help make the gap between the rich and poor wider than it's been since the Great Depression.

Allen 'Yea' On Bailout?

The New York Times links to this page for the House bailout roll call.

The bill's title appears to be wrong, but the vote tally seems correct. So it's hard to know what to conclude.

We're waiting for official word.

UPDATE: Maine Politics links to this article. Allen voted for it.

Allen Steps Up

Rep. Allen has an ad up that is (finally) telling the truth about Sen. Collins:



It will be interesting to see how the Collins camp responds to the ad since the spot's two-fold central claim is hard to dispute:

1. Most people understand that the Bush administration's economic and regulatory policies have led us into the current disaster.

2. From the beginning, Susan Collins has been an unwavering supporter of President Bush's economic policies.

So it's hard to see what the substantive case against the ad's argument looks like.

What we're likely to get, instead, are attempts to distract and mislead. And to shift the discussion from substance to tactics.

Collins camp, what say you?

How Will She Vote?

Still no word from either candidate on the Wall Street bailout bill. That's understandable--the language wasn't finalized until about twelve hours ago.

While it's always risky to try to infer Sen. Collins' position on legislation from her public statements, here's a stab at it.

First, to recap: After several days of flailing, Collins began parroting Rep. Allen's talking points on the bailout bill. She followed Allen in calling for curbs on executive compensation, taxpayer protections and more oversight.

It was a transparent effort by her camp to eliminate any daylight between the candidates on the issue.

But on one point, she was unwilling to echo Allen. And it leads to a conspicuous difference.

Namely: From the beginning, Allen had asked for a "lifeline" for homeowners. He later spelled out that criteria, calling for the legislation to include--in the words of PPH reporter Matt Wickenheiser--"authority for bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages on first homes."

It's not hard to understand why Collins refused to parrot that demand: For her friends in the real estate, financial and construction industries, it crosses a bright line.

And guess what: The real estate, banking and construction industries won. After heavy lobbying, the bankruptcy provision was excised. It didn't make it into the final draft.

So Allen has plenty of reason to vote against the legislation. By contrast, all of the principles Collins enunciated have been met.

What's more, the bill is quintessentially bipartisan: It's an almost paradigmatic example of centrist legislation, crafted with strong input from both sides of the aisle and the White House.

In short, it's the product of just the kind of consensus-building process that Collins has made a career out of fetishizing. So it's hard to see how the junior senator could avoid voting for it.

Of course, it also gives Collins' big business allies and patrons most of what they want. And after spending eight years enthusiastically supporting economic policies designed to widen the gap between the rich and everyone else, it would seem like election year pandering for her to turn around and abandon her Wall Street friends.

So Collins looks like a likely bailout supporter to us. Allen has a bit more room to maneuver, but it would make plenty of sense for him to oppose it.

We'll know where things stand soon enough.

Question of the Day

Why isn't someone running this several times a day, every day, on Maine's television and radio stations?

Collins: Palin "A Great Choice"

I missed Tuesday night's edition of Nightline. But I caught up with it this morning.

About two minutes in to the eight minute clip (-06:12 on the clock at lower right) the discussion turns to drilling, and to Gov. Sarah Palin.

Note that the above quote is actually stronger and more unambiguously laudatory than the language Collins used immediately after the Palin choice was announced. The impression that's left is that the nomination has, if anything, grown on Collins.

Let me say this: After what we've seen from Palin since her selection, and given that her running mate is a 72 year-old cancer survivor, I find it utterly unconscionable that an informed, patriotic American adult could believe what Collins professes to.

I'll leave it at that.

Photo of the Week

(We've added a larger version of this snapshot to the Collins Watch Flickr pool.)

Quote of the Day

Christian Potholm, in his 2003 book The Splendid Game:

"In the governor's race in 1994...BDN turned true objective reporting upside down in a desperate effort to find some reason why Susan Collins could and should win. Their tortured machinations the last two weeks of the campaign were only matched by the very one-sided presentation provided by the Portland Press Herald."

Collins and Birth Control

We still have no idea where the junior senator stands on the Bush administration's controversial new health care regulation.

Question of the Day

So, the man that Sen. Collins has for years wanted to be president is in the middle of a bizarre, slow-motion tantrum that looks very much like a mental breakdown.

Anyone feel like asking the junior senator for her thoughts?

Turning Maine Red?

Sen. Collins continues to run away from the big issues. Her campaign homepage doesn't mention the fact that she's a Republican. And her corporate allies are appropriating Obama for President's branding and graphic design on her behalf.

So does it really make sense for her campaign to reinforce its red state aspirations on all its t-shirts, signs and paraphernalia?

Distract and Deceive

Sen. Collins is still harping on the role of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the current crisis. But it's a dodge.



Don't get me wrong: Those companies were guilty of serious excesses over the last several years. You won't see me defending them.

But they're not what the current crisis is about. And they've got nothing to do with the the Bush administration's $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan.

Rather, the plan is targeted to Wall Street institutions that packaged home mortgages into exotic (unregulated) securities; sold them to each other; and then made disastrous, leveraged bets based on their holdings.

If only the mortgages themselves were a problem, we wouldn't be facing a global financial crisis. We certainly wouldn't be talking about a $700 billion bailout.

It's not exactly a lie for Sen. Collins to continually place Freddie and Fannie at the center of the crisis. But it is an attempt to deceive. And to distract attention from the main culprits here--the huge multinational corporations that have pretty much run Washington over the last eight years of Republican domination.

Those companies are now, of course, receiving a barrage of criticism.


But not from Susan Collins.

BDN Shills For Collins

Yesterday, we noted that Sen. Collins was working to collapse any space between her and Rep. Allen on the $700 billion Bush bailout for Wall Street. And now, BDN is doing that work for her.

Check out this lede:

Maine’s U.S senators and representatives all share the same point of view on the $700 billion bailout plan and the Bush administration’s efforts to have it approved by the end of the week: The Congress should not act in haste.

It's true that all of Maine's reps are calling for deliberation. But it's completely wrong to imply that they've all responded to this crisis in the same way.

In fact, it's nearly the opposite of the truth.

Naturally, in its survey of the state's four representatives, BDN gives Collins the most--and most prominent coverage. Rep. Allen is quoted only once--in paragraph eight--after Rep. Michaud gets a chance to weigh in. (Collins is quoted in paragraphs four, 12 and 21--where she gets the last word.)

Biased coverage in BDN isn't unexpected or unusual. Far from it. But this piece is about as brazen as anything we've seen from them this cycle.

More on the SUSA Poll

Kevin Wack points to a purported 46% gap among the 18-34 demographic--in Collins' favor. And Survey USA's companion poll on the presidential race has Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) up 12 points with the same demographic.

To be blunt about it: There's just no way that these numbers are accurate.

So it's probably worth taking both polls with a grain of salt.

New Poll: Collins +16

Survey USA is out with a new poll that has Sen. Collins up 16 points:

Tom Allen (D): 39 (38)

Susan Collins (R-inc): 55 (55)

Numbers in parenthesis represent results from a Survey USA poll conducted October 26, 2007.

Clearly, the figures have barely budged. And at first glance, that looks like more lousy news for Rep. Allen. But once you wade into the polling data, the situation becomes a bit murkier.

Because while the poll's partisan breakdown is 35-34-28 among Dem-Rep-Ind, the latest figures show that Maine's actual breakdown is 32-27-38.

In other words, the poll overweights Democrats and Republicans--but it overweights Republicans disproportionately.

When the results are re-weighted to bring them in line with Maine's current partisan profile, the gap shrinks to about 12 points.

That's still leaves Allen with quite a task in front of him. (He still needs, for example, to cut into Collins' 24% share among Democrats--which is lower than we've seen in other surveys, but still way too high for him even to come close to victory.)

But overcoming a low double-digit deficit in six weeks is the kind of thing that does happens in congressional races with some frequency.

On the other hand, the closer things get to twenty points, the more far-fetched the scenarios become.

Follow The Follower?

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has suspended his presidential campaign and appears to be pulling his ads off the air. This is a dumb move--politically and every other way.

But will Sen. Collins close ranks behind her party's nominee? And if so, will Rep. Allen be foolish enough to follow her lead?

Eye On The Prize

Thus far, the only thing resembling a substantive criticism of the Bush administration's $700 billion Wall Street bailout from Sen. Collins is her complaint that it doesn't include curbs on executive compensation.

But as Kos suggests, that's really the least of it.

I don't want to send thousands of dollars to Wall Street in exchange for a rejiggering of the way financial companies compensate their employees. I wouldn't be in favor of sending Wall Street ten dollars to accomplish that. And I suspect you feel the same way.

No, the real issue is the $700 billion: Who gets it, to what end, and what we all get in return. Those are the things to keep your eye on.

Keeping Current

New readers: If you use a newsreader, our feed is available here.

Maine readers: Remember that if you receive phone calls, mailers or flyers relating to the Allen-Collins race, we want to know about it.

Insiders (and others): Please send tips here.

Fellow bloggers: The Collins Watch Flickr pool is open for business. We'll be adding copyright-free photos there as the campaign proceeds. Check it out.

And while we're on the subject of sharing, remember that you can contribute to Collins Watch using the "Donate" button at right.

Federal Assistance

Long time readers will have fond memories of the Howe Brothers. (Also see here.)

Looks like they're getting another $3.5 million cash infusion courtesy of Sen. Collins. That's almost 30 times the company's reported annual sales.

Does anyone seriously think that money wouldn't be better spent on a weatherization pilot program? (I mean, other than the Howes themselves. And Susan Collins.)