Dutson's Triumph

Just before we left town last week, we noticed Collins campaign consultant Lance Dutson complaining about Google's rejection of a few keyword ads that violated its policy toward trademarks.

Eight days later, it's worth taking a moment to examine how the Collins camp used that relatively mundane occurrence--something experienced by just about anyone who uses the Google's AdWords platform regularly--to kick up a right-wing media frenzy.

First, give Dutson et. al. credit: They understood that the rejection of Moveon.org-related keyword ads by Google feeds into--or could be portrayed to feed into--a pair of paranoid right-wing narratives that, while false, loom large in the Republican imagination:

1. That even though Republicans have been in control of all three branches of government for six of the last seven years, conservatives remain under the yoke of a corrupt, liberal-dominated establishment that won't give them a fair shake.

2. That (relatedly) secret, nefarious liberal alliances are plotting against them, conspiring to suppress their voices and undermine their interests.

As I say, these are both canards. But in certain circles, they're widely-believed canards.

So it couldn't have been hard for Dutson to place the story with Robert Cox, a right-wing blogger who, if I read him correctly, thinks that George W. Bush is basically a modern-day Abraham Lincoln.

And it couldn't have been hard for Cox to get the story into Examiner.com, an outlet owned by Discovery Institute-funding, Media Research Council-supporting, George W. Bush-admiring Philip Anschutz. From there, of course, it was just a hop, skip and a jump to Fox News.

That the legitimate media didn't take the bait is refreshing. But I doubt that was really even the Collins camp's hope. Instead, they were aiming (and succeeded) in portraying their candidate--who's never been a darling of the far-right--as under attack by the same evil forces that have it in for Rush Limbaugh, Vice President Dick Cheney, etc.

And you know what they say about enemies of enemies.

Whether this will work as a fundraising strategy is unclear. But it seems like a pretty savvy gambit to me.

Of course the downside, at least from a public interest perspective, is that the fake flap has nothing to do with the, y'know, issues.

Consider: Dutson has so far published eight separate blog posts about Google, but I only count one mention of the word "Iraq" on his entire front page.

Sen. Collins' own blog contains two mentions of Moveon.org, but her entire site contains not one mention of habeas corpus.

I guess this is the kind of campaign you run when your candidate is desperate not to talk about the issues. But it's not particularly edifying. And as things heat up--and the need to divert attention from the issues grows more intense--it ain't gonna be pretty.

Catching Up

We were away for the last few days, and there are a couple issues we'd like to get caught up on. But first an observation about the third quarter fundraising numbers.

While Sen. Collins retains a decisive lead--in both receipts and cash on hand--it seems clearer than ever that this race will not be decided by money.

Rep. Allen may not achieve one-to-one parity, but because he's also an incumbent--and because he'll likely be getting a fundraising hand from prominent blogs--he'll have no trouble bringing in plenty of money--more than enough to compete.

That sets the stage for a balanced race focused on the issues, at least if that's what both candidates want. Which is fantastic.

Of course, Sen. Collins and her team have demonstrated yet again in the last week that they're looking to discuss nearly anything but the issues facing Mainers.

More on that in the next day or two.

Q3 $$$ Totals

The AP delivers the goods:

Republican Sen. Susan Collins reported Monday she raised more than $1 million for her re-election campaign from July through September, bringing her total contributions to date to $3.6 million, with $3.1 million in cash on hand.

The campaign of Democratic challenger Tom Allen, the sixth-term congressman from Portland, reported receipts of $666,096 for the quarter, raising his total contributions for this election cycle to $2.2 million. Allen reported having $2.1 million on hand.

Moveon Again

Well, you knew it was coming: Sen. Collins is now using the Petraeus ad flap as part of a fundraising pitch.

It's entirely fair game, although one of the Collins camp's central charges is misleading: That "MoveOn.org has contributed more money to her opponent than all of the presidential candidates combined, $250,000 already."

Phrasing it that way conjures up images of a (nefarious) left-wing behemoth dumping a giant check on Rep. Allen.

But that hasn't happened--at least as far as I know. Instead, hundreds (thousands?) of individuals have responded to Moveon.org solicitations by making mostly small dollar donations to Allen's campaign.

So they're the ones doing the giving. Moveon is just using their megaphone--and their web platform--to draw attention to the race.

It's a subtle distinction, especially if you don't follow these types of things closely. But it's an important one. And it's why the National Republican Senatorial Committee, for example, has been careful to characterize the donations as "conduit donations" and to describe them as having been given "through"--rather than "by"--Moveon.org.

In any case, Lance Dutson and the Collins camp are making no such distinctions.

Speaking of Dutson, he's shocked and scandalized about Google's rejection of a few keyword ads that he tried to buy for Sen. Collins.

The story has been bouncing around the right-wing blogs all day, often with intimations that it amounts to some kind of conspiracy. (Paranoid, anyone?)

But as someone extremely familiar with Google AdWords from my real job, I think I can safely say that what Dutson encountered is pretty typical: Google rejects ads all the time, for a host of reasons--and often without the kind of consistency you might expect.

It's an inevitable upshot of managing a giant advertising platform in a litigious society.

In any case, the idea that a huge corporation--with hundreds of thousands of advertisers and billions in revenue--has singled out Dutson or Sen. Collins for unfavorable treatment isn't just silly. It's bonkers.

"Little Interest" in Oversight?

Steve Benen brings us a snippet from an article on Iraq oversight in today's (subscription-only) Roll Call:

The day news broke that the Iraqi government was revoking the license of Blackwater USA over a questionable Baghdad shootout that killed 17 civilians, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) announced plans for hearings to probe the State Department’s reliance on private security contractors.

On that same day--Sept. 17--Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) announced two firefighting grants for the towns of Bolton and Willington in his home state.

Though the two committees have similar investigative powers and mandates to uncover waste, fraud and abuse of government funds, Waxman has held eight hearings on Iraq and contracting abuses this year, while Lieberman has held only one on reconstruction challenges in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

And though Waxman rarely has missed an opportunity to fire off angry letters to the administration over potential waste, fraud, abuse and misconduct among government contractors, Lieberman--along with his predecessor and current ranking member, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)--has shown relatively little interest in tackling those issues.

But at least she's never missed a vote!

BDN On Habeas

Bangor Daily News editorializes in favor of habeas corpus. And give the editorial board credit for detailing the junior senator's embarrassing record on the issue:

The 2006 Military Commissions Act was intended to assure the end of habeas corpus for "enemy combatants," by setting up military commissions at Guanatanmo to hear detainees cases rather than using the federal court system. Before the final vote, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., tried to remove a section prohibiting any federal court from hearing habeas corpus appeals. But his amendment lost, 48 to 51. Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins voted no. Sen. Olympia Snowe, absent for a family funeral, did not vote. Sen. Collins voted for the unchanged bill, as did Sen. Specter, although he called the measure unconsitutional [sic]. Sen. Snowe again did not vote.

Sens. Specter and Pat Leahy, D-Vt., raised the issue again last month, introducing a bill to restore habeas corpus. The vote of 56 to 43 lacked the necessary 60 votes needed to block a filibuster. Sen. Collins voted against cutting off debate. Sen. Snowe, with five other Republicans, voted with the Democrats to allow a vote on the bill.

So let us ask again:

What does Sen. Collins understand about human freedom and dignity that she thinks the Founders overlooked?

As we've said in the past, this issue isn't about conservatives versus liberals. It's about conservatives and liberals versus reactionaries.

It's about the rule of law versus creeping lawlessness.

UPDATE: BDN rightly focuses in on the contrast between Sen. Collins' votes and the actions of Sen. Snowe (R-ME) and Sen. Specter (R-PA).

But it might also have been worth noting (space permitting) that Rep. Allen voted against the Military Commissions Act and, unlike Collins, supports the Specter amendment.

Knowing The Shot

Bill Nemitz explores the Collins camp's nasty, disingenuous attack on Rep. Allen for votes he missed while attending a funeral here.

He makes a point that's obvious but worth underscoring:

Before you publicly hammer someone with the question, "Where were you?" you'd best find out the answer in advance.

Or, as Ricky Roma put it in Glengarry Glen Ross:

Never open your mouth until you know what the shot is.

Change of Address

News reader users take note: Our feed has moved to

http://feeds.feedburner.com/collins_watch

The old address automatically forwards posts to the new one. So feed subscribers shouldn't have to take any action. At least that's what we've been assured.

But if you run into trouble, try redirecting your reader to the above url.

(If this all sounds like gobbledygook, ignore it. And don't feel bad: This stuff is over our heads too.)

Sullivan on Torture

Andrew Sullivan makes a prediction:

The way in which conservative lawyers, and conservative intellectuals, and conservative journalists aided and abetted these war crimes [relating to America's ban on torture]...the way in which Republicans and Democrats in the Congress pathetically refused to stand up to these violations of American honor and decency in any serious way...these will go down in history as some of the most shameful decisions these people ever made.

(Sen. Collins voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act. Rep. Allen didn't.)

In The Papers

Didn't realize that MaineToday.com had a political blog. But it does. And Susan Cover has picked up the Allen funeral story.

(Unfortunately, she doesn't dig any deeper.)

In other news, Sen. Collins is calling the President's veto of S-CHIP "a tremendous mistake."

They Release Statements

According to a press release from Valerie Martin, Rep. Allen's campaign manager:

Two of Monday's missed votes named post offices in other states. The third honored a National Guard unit from another state.

If this is true (and as far as I know, the Maine GOP hasn't produced any information to the contrary) then the Collins campaign is indeed guilty of launching a cheap shot attack on Allen.

Look: It's important for legislators to show up. But the job of a representative is to advance the interests of his or her constituents--not to a pursue perfect attendance record as an end in itself.

If Sen. Collins thinks attendance matters above all else she should say that. If she thinks this election should turn on the fate of legislation naming out-of-state post offices, she ought to explain why.

Apology?

As the incisive Senate Guru notes, Maine GOP chair Mark Ellis' press release update--the one acknowledging that Rep. Allen was at a family funeral in Bangor during three House votes Ellis accused him of skipping--contains nothing resembling an apology.

(How did I miss that?)

So important questions remain: Does Ellis believe Allen abrogated his obligation to his constituents by attending the funeral? Does Sen. Collins--whose campaign took the lead in disseminating the original attack--think an apology is in order?

Or does she concur with Ellis that Allen's absence--for a family funeral--indicates that the six-term Democrat "seems to have lost interest in showing up to work."

And does anyone in the Maine press corp find any of this salient enough to be worth a couple hundred words?

Oops

From the Collins campaign, via its internet guru Lance Dutson, we get wind of this Maine GOP press release:

Congressman Tom Allen missed each of the three votes the House of Representatives held yesterday, bringing his missed votes total to 132...

Maine Republican Party Chairman Mark Ellis said, "Congressman Allen really seems to have lost interest in showing up to work. At the very least, he should tell his constituents why he is choosing to leave them unrepresented in Congress less than a year after he was reelected. For these and the many other days that Tom has skipped votes, Mainers deserve to know the answer to the question: Where was Tom?"

Later amended as follows:

“It has come to our attention that Congressman Tom Allen was in Bangor on Monday attending the funeral of a family member. Without question, the most difficult times in our lives are those in which we grieve for the loss of family or friends. Our thoughts are with Congressman Allen and his family during this difficult time,” said Maine Republican Party Chairman Mark Ellis.

Look, I'm agnostic on the Collins camp's "missed votes" allegation, at least until I see some hard data: If Allen missed close-call votes on important issues, then he certainly deserves to be taken to task.

On the other hand, if what we're talking about is mostly near-unanimous resolutions, procedural votes and the occasional post office naming, then it's a silly, distracting charge.

So it's time for Collins and her Maine GOP allies to show their cards here, and tell us why these particular votes were so important.

Otherwise, they wind up looking petty or callous. Or--as they do in this case--both.

UPDATE: I seem to have picked nearly the same headline as Kos, who I think may have beaten me to the punch by an hour or two.

That'll teach me not to leave the house...

The Freedom Agenda

The more I think about Sen. Collins' habeas votes, the more convinced I become that they'll come back to bite her during the campaign. And not just because the more recent vote exposed a widening rift between the junior senator and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

Allow me to explain.

For those who are a little fuzzy on their high school civics, habeas corpus is the right to challenge one's imprisonment in a court of law.

Or to put it even more plainly: When the government knocks on your door and takes you away, habeas is what entitles you to tell a judge "Wait a second. They got the wrong guy."

So we're talking about something pretty basic here. And while I'm no expert, it seems safe to call habeas a foundational principle of Western law and culture--the kind of basic minimum standard that helps us tell the difference between societies that respect individual autonomy and those that don't.

So Collins' votes against habeas are a stark reminder of which side she's been on these last few years in the battle between the rule of law and creeping autocracy.

They're a clear example--in the way the Iraq war, with its various nuances and complexities, isn't--that when it's mattered, Sen. Collins has helped advance the slow march toward lawlessness and national disrepute rather than confronting it.

And there's nothing "moderate" or "centrist" about that.

But more than that: There's nothing "conservative" about stripping people of core legal rights, or about refusing an opportunity to undo the wrong one year later.

The truth is, stripping habeas was a radical, reactionary step, undertaken by people who think that the Magna Carta and the US Constitution got things fundamentally wrong.

And in standing with the Bushes and Cheneys and Gonzaleses of the world--rather than the Arlen Specters and Colin Powells and Olympia Snowes--Sen. Collins enabled, supported and participated in their radical agenda.

That she did this without (at least to my knowledge) so much as issuing an explanatory press release underscores the junior senator's stunning disrespect for basic human freedoms.

It's a remarkable turn of events, and one I wish the Maine press would explore--or at least touch on. In any case, it's a topic I'll be returning to as the campaign unfolds.

Layers of Meaning?

Given the opportunity to host a Washington D.C. film screening (at the invitation of The Week magazine), Sen. Collins--together with her friend Rep. Jane Harman--selected THELMA AND LOUISE.

An interesting choice, to be sure. Make of it what you will.

They Write Letters

As the kids say, read the whole thing:

The Washington Post story published in the Sept. 20 Portland Press Herald erroneously reported that Sen. Susan Collins voted against cloture on a bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter allowing terrorism detainees the right of habeas corpus.

Unlike Sen. Olympia Snowe, Sen. Collins shamefully voted in effect to deny detainees this historic right, which dates to 1215 and the Magna Carta. She ignored the plain language of the Constitution, which allows suspension of this right only "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Sen. Patrick Leahy made clear the bill's significance by saying: "Casting aside the time-honored protection of habeas corpus makes us more vulnerable as a nation because it leads us away from our core American values and calls into question our historic role as a defender of human rights around the world."

Characterizing the fight against terrorism as a "war," with its implications for presidential powers not otherwise allowed by the Constitution, is at the root of this country's current constitutional crisis.

A "war" against ill-defined enemies and of indefinite length provides a pretext for un-American abuses of the kind regularly employed by dictators.

The "war" argument was central to the opposition to this bill, as enunciated by Sen. Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama: "This is purely a matter of congressional policy and national policy on how we want to conduct warfare now and in the future."

I urge Mainers not to re-elect Sen. Collins, who blatantly rejects our basic constitutional values.

Meredith N. Springer

Peaks Island

The Unnameable

For the second time in recent months, the word "Iraq" does not appear in Sen. Collins' eNewsletter.

But readers do learn that:

Senator Susan Collins recently attended the Lewiston MAINEiacs home opener at the Colisée in Lewiston.

and that:

Senator Collins recently visited the Gulf of Maine Research Institute in Portland where she met with approximately 50 elementary and middle school students from Nobleboro Central School, Hope Elementary School, and Oxford Hill Christian Academy.

Exclusive: Tom Allen Interview

We spend nearly all our time here at Collins Watch focusing on Maine's junior senator. And for good reason--it's what we're all about.

But with the 2008 race coming into focus, we thought it would be worth shifting our attention, at least briefly, to her Democratic opponent, Congressman Tom Allen.

So we reached out to his campaign, which graciously set up an interview. On Monday, we sat down with Allen, who has represented Maine's first district since 1996.

Our discussion lasted about an hour, covering topics ranging from Iraq to Sen. Collins' perfect voting record to Moveon.org.

Here's what we learned.

On Iraq: Allen told us without hesitation that, "setting a deadline is the best way" to move forward.

When asked about Sen. Collins' continued unwillingness to support a withdrawal timetable--in the context of her repeated calls for a change in mission--he said, "the bottom line is, Susan wants to maintain an open-ended commitment in Iraq. And that's the President's policy."

"Changing the mission," he argued, "is just relabelling the mission."

He rejected, specifically, Collins' contention that redefining our military aim in Iraq as "counter-terrorism" would result in a changed role for US forces ("fighting terrorism is what we're doing now") or that it would necessarily cause a troop draw down.

And he characterized the limited troop reduction that Collins seems to be contemplating as a potential "worst of both worlds" scenario because the US presence would remain large enough to be seen by Iraqis as an occupying force, and yet the American military would have a tougher time policing Baghdad because of reduced troop levels.

He also dismissed the charge that he and other Democrats are arguing for an "abrupt" or "precipitous" withdrawal, countering that "nobody who understands the mechanics of pulling troops out safely" is calling for a lightning-fast process, and that a safe, orderly redeployment of troops and equipment would take about a year.

Allen conceded that the next step for withdrawal timeline supporters isn't clear. He speculated that the House might take up the Webb amendment, but acknowledged that the failure of Levin-Reed in the Senate means that progress toward a revamped Iraq policy has stalled for now.

On fighting for Maine's interests: "Susan Collins has supported the entire Bush economic agenda--she's voted for every tax cut. The result is less money in Maine for healthcare, environmental protection, headstart" and other programs. "When you give billions to the wealthiest, there's a lot less for domestic priorities."

Predicting that Democrats would hold or expand their congressional majorities, he argued that seniority--one of the reasons Collins has used to justify breaking her promise to serve only two terms--is less helpful for the state than having a senator who is a member of the majority party.

On the subject of Collins' pledge, Allen called Collins' newfound appreciation for the importance of seniority politically expedient but "not credible" given her decade of experience on Capitol Hill as a staffer for former Senator William Cohen.

On habeas corpus: "It is fundamental to a free society that if the government locks you up, you have the right to an attorney and a right to a hearing before a judicial officer. [Collins] disagrees...Civil rights issues are a major point of difference between us."

On Supreme Court vacancies: "I want very intelligent people, but also wise men and women--people who've had the right kind of life experience." He also cautioned against nominees "married to a particular ideology" and those with an expansive view of executive branch power.

On Justice Alito: "Alito had a record as an ideological partisan that stretched back for years. So it's no surprise that he's been a key vote in enhancing executive power" or that he's voted to uphold a ban on late term abortions and to make it harder to challenge workplace discrimination.

On Mukasey: Allen said he'd like to hear more about the President's nominee for Attorney General, and that his record "bears some close examination" given this story in yesterday's New York Times.

On Sen. Collins' perfect voting record: "Not important. I think there are seven people in the House this year who haven't missed a vote. If you have the kind of record I do, which is a 98 percent voting record over a decade, what's important is what you vote for, what you fight for, not the difference between 98[%] and 100[%]."

"If she missed the vote on the 2003 tax cut," Allen quipped,"the country would have been better off."

Moveon.org and the Petraeus Ad: "I don't think it was a wise ad," Allen told us. "I disagree with it." He later called it "over the top."

At the same time, he maintained that, "the people who attack Moveon.org attack it because of its politics" and that "there's nothing wrong with essentially small dollar contributions from large numbers of American citizens."

Allen distanced himself from the Senate resolution condemning the organization, asserting, "you won't see me criticizing a conservative group that raises money from conservative American citizens."

Watch This Space

As Atrios and others have noted, Sen. Collins said this in March:

"My vote against this rapid withdrawal does not mean that I support an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq," Collins said in a statement issued after the vote.

If Bush's strategy in Iraq does not show "significant results" by fall, "then Congress should consider all options including a redefinition of our mission and a gradual but significant withdrawal of our troops next year."

Well, it's now officially fall.

And Sen. Collins is still rejecting all legislative attempts to mandate the very "gradual but significant withdrawal" she promised she would consider.

Surprised? I'll confess that I am, at least a bit: A few months back, I was almost sure that Collins would have pivoted on Iraq by now.

Meanwhile, we're gearing up for a busy Monday here at Collins Watch: We hope to serve up some exciting content--and maybe even break a little news--in the next day or two.

So tune in early and often.

Still No Hits

According to Google, the word Bush is still nowhere to be found on SusanCollins.com.