"Prior to the Tea Party movement, moderate members such as Sen. Susan M. Collins, Maine Republican, were only known back home. Today, they are household names and their telephone lines can be flooded at a moment’s notice with calls from activists--a move that can directly affect votes. It is akin to winning the war without firing a single shot, or spending a single dollar in those districts during an election year."
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Posted by Contrapositive at 2:03 PM
Friday, August 15, 2014
Sen. Susan Collins in a written statement:
"Increased foreign competition continues to present serious economic difficulties for the paper industry, which is why it’s absolutely essential that trade agreements be fair to American workers and open new markets for American products."
Posted by Contrapositive at 9:01 PM
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Even as Democratic challenger Shenna Bellows makes herself available for extended unscripted interactions with voters and the press during her much-publicized walk across Maine, incumbent Sen. Susan Collins has removed the "Events" tab from her campaign website.
This is actually part of a steady erosion of the utility of the Collins campaign site over the years: As technology has expanded the scope of what's possible, the Collins campaign has slowly reduced the amount of useful information on offer--from a 2002 site that provided issue positions and a biography through a 2008 version that at least feigned to care about policy to the current incarnation, virtually devoid of issue substance.
The site's superficiality underscores the content-free nature of the Collins political persona and the opacity of her views on many of the pressing issues of the day; the elimination of the "Events" tab in particular is a reminder of the senior senator's lack of transparency with Maine voters--not just during election season but year in, year out.
Posted by Contrapositive at 9:16 PM
Sunday, July 6, 2014
By way of comparison: Collins's 69% rating for 2013 put her 34th out of the 35 Senate and House members who represented New England during that year.
The text of the endorsement is worth reading, if only because it includes a claim that is verifiably--and obviously--false:
"[Collins] is always fighting for the people of Maine by supporting commonsense policies that promote the state's outdoor heritage and help protect our air, water and public health."
To be sure, Collins has taken more than a few environmentally-friendly votes over the years. But since when does 67% get rounded up to "always"?
In short, rather than candidly explain the bargain the group has struck by standing with a pol who supported what LCV itself called the ""most anti-environment bill signed into law in recent memory", the organization has instead sidestepped the ickiness of the situation by simply lying about Collins's record.
What's more, while the endorsement claims that "Collins is committed to finding bipartisan solutions that will safeguard our environment and combat climate change," the senior senators words and actions tell a much more complicated story.
Specifically, after backing climate legislation back in the mid-2000s when it had no chance of passing, Collins balked once President Obama took office--lamely blaming the economy--and ultimately refused to get behind the bill with the best chance of passing, even as she voted to block the EPA from regulating emissions.
She also pushed an amendment that would have stalled the tightening of clean air standards--a move that National Resouces Defense Council says would have resulted in over 17,000 avoidable heart attacks.
And here she is flogging a Koch-friendly, environmentally-reckless "regulatory time-out" in the Republican weekly address:
If safeguarding the environment is high on the list of concerns of the pol speaking above, there's no evidence of it.
Yes, Collins's history when it comes to the environment isn't all bad news. But it's the very murkiness of her record and rhetoric that makes LCV's claim to know what she's "committed to" laughable.
To that point: A week after LCV announced its support, Collins remains the only member of the Maine delegation not to have staked out a position on whether the EPA's new draft carbon regulations should be welcomed or overturned.
Draw your own conclusions.
ALSO: Expect light tweeting--and even lighter blogging--from Collins Watch for the month of July. We'll see you in August.
Posted by Contrapositive at 8:27 PM
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
In a move that's unsurprising but nonetheless troubling, Human Rights Campaign (HRC) endorsed Sen. Susan Collins in her bid for a fourth term earlier today.
Collins has been a trailblazer on gay rights issues among congressional Republicans. But her record pales in comparison to those of many non-Republican actors on the political stage, including Democratic challenger Shenna Bellows, who was a leader in the 2012 Maine marriage referendum fight and a stalwart supporter of the LGBT community during her years at the ACLU of Maine.
HRC made waves during the 2008 campaign when it backed Collins over a Democratic challenger who had a better record on LGBT issues according to HRC's own scorecard.
At the time, HRC defended the move on "bipartisanship" grounds in an e-mail to this blog:
HRC is a bipartisan organization. This is not an empty principle or a meaningless nod to an ideal we do not follow. We are bipartisan because equality knows no party, and because we simply cannot achieve justice for the entire GLBT community by conceding that only Democrats should care about us.
Of course, as I noted in the same post, "the onus should be on Republicans to sign onto HRC's agenda--rather than on HRC to bend its standards to accommodate members of the GOP."
But this time around, HRC or Collins--or both--took that advice to heart. Because just a few hours after the endorsement hit, news arrived that Collins now supports same-sex marriage, albeit in a limited, qualified sense:
"A number of states, including my home state of Maine, have now legalized same-sex marriage, and I agree with that decision."
[Collins spokesman Lance Dutson] said the senator had been silent on the issue previously because she believes it is the voters of each state--not U.S. senators--who should make the decision on marriage equality.
"What she has consistently said is she doesn't want to get involved in state-level referendum issues. She's a U.S. senator, and she stays within the purview of her office," Dutson said. "But when asked [today] about her personal stance on this issue, she said she supports it."
So it's a personal view: Collins isn't supporting a federal marriage right; or updating her dodge about the impact of the Defense of Marriage Act; or even divulging how she voted in the 2012 state referendum.
She's just saying she's cool with same-sex Marriage within the borders of Maine (something that's already on the books) from this day forward.
Not exactly crusading for the cause. But good enough for HRC apparently.
Still, the story is cringeworthy for a reason having nothing to do with the half-heartedness of the message or the fecklessness of HRC. Namely: Why did Collins decide to go out of her way to make her about-face on marriage appear to be a quid pro quo?
I can't think of a precedent for the kind of juxtaposition we saw today, and it's not hard to understand why: When you announce a change of heart on a profound issue of conscience just a few hours after receiving an endorsement from an organization that focuses on the issue in question, it can't help but read as a transactional, even mercenary move.
Surely, there's got to be some plausible reason for why Maine's senior senator chose to time things this way. But I can't seem to come up with any compelling theories.
Posted by Contrapositive at 8:46 PM
Monday, June 23, 2014
Paul Krugman tells an inconvenient truth:
Given the state of U.S. politics today, climate action is entirely dependent on Democrats, With a Democrat in the White House, we got some movement through executive action; if Democrats eventually regain the House, there could be more. If [former Treasury Secretary Hank] Paulson believes that he can support Republicans while still pushing for climate action, he's just delusional.
Posted by Contrapositive at 9:52 AM
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Hard to reconcile the new Press Herald numbers with the previous Collins-Bellows poll: With no major news developments, did Maine's senior senator really gain 19 points on her Democratic challenger in eight weeks?
It seems unlikely, but it's a mostly academic question. Sen. Susan Collins is way out in front. It would take something dramatic to make this race competitive.
Posted by Contrapositive at 8:50 PM
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Monday, June 2, 2014
Both of Maine's Democratic House representatives welcomed the new [EPA rules regulating carbon dioxide], as did independent Sen. Angus King. Maine's other senator--Republican Susan Collins--issued a statement saying she was still carefully evaluating them.
Posted by Contrapositive at 9:23 PM
Monday, May 12, 2014
Thursday, May 8, 2014
In the Senate, the Republican threesome of John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who often speak from the same playbook on foreign policy, are among those who talk about Benghazi the most, along with fellow Republicans Susan Collins of Maine and Ted Cruz of Texas.
Posted by Contrapositive at 8:59 AM
Monday, May 5, 2014
Friday on Ken and Mike's WGAN radio show, Sen. Susan Collins backed into a revealing explanation of her thinking about the minimum wage [7:06]:
I was so frustrated that those of us who want to see an increase in the minimum wage but believe that $10.10 would actually harm the very people we're trying to help were not given an opportunity to offer alternatives.(Emphasis added.)
During the interview, Collins never qualifies or expands on her view that boosting the minimum wage to $10.10 in three phases between now and 2016 would be, essentially, a self-defeating policy.
But that's a controversial stance--or ought to be.
Because while there are plausible (if mostly weak) arguments to be made about the downsides of a significant minimum wage increase, harm to the workers themselves isn't one of them.
After all, the very Congressional Budget Office study that Collins cites approvingly in the interview projects that a $10.10 minimum wage would lift 900,000 out of poverty and boost wages for 16 million Americans. It also estimates a loss of 500,000 jobs, but as center-right economics writer Josh Barro notes, that's a trade well-worth making:
For every person put out of work by the minimum wage increase, more than 30 will see rises in income, often on the order of several dollars an hour. Low--and moderate--income families will get an extra $17 billion a year in income, even after accounting for people who get put out of work; for reference, that's roughly equivalent to a 25% increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit.
In the context of those numbers, the only way to oppose a $10.10 minimum wage based on its impact on workers is to maintain that any job loss is unacceptable. But if that's the new standard, Washington should simply throw in the towel on policy-making altogether. Because all legislation--even something as benign as expanding access to the potato in federal nutrition programs--is bound to affect some workers negatively in an economy as large, complicated and interconnected as ours.
Which is why policies should be evaluated on the basis of their overall impact rather than a single cherry-picked statistic.
Collins knows this, of course. So when she talks about $10.10 harming "the very people we're trying to help" it seems safe to say that something other than a neutral cost-benefit analysis is at work.
Specifically, this looks an awful lot like a Washington veteran and a friend of the restaurant lobby straining to conflate the narrow legislative aims of a privileged constituency with the economic interests of Americans more broadly.
Granted, accepting that what's good for McDonald's is good for its workers requires a certain amount of tortured thinking. But when you spend decades ensconced in the beltway, giving disproportionate attention to the most powerful corporate voices at the expense of the regular people, it's the sort of argument that you can't help but find yourself spouting.
Posted by Contrapositive at 1:03 PM
Monday, April 28, 2014
Allahpundit at Hot Air on Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY):
Backing [Sen. Susan] Collins so effusively when he could have demurred with a simple “I always support Republicans over Democrats” might have been the last straw, definitive proof that he’s "over-correcting."
Posted by Contrapositive at 8:15 PM
Collins (R) 60%
Bellows (D) 24%
This is a real shot in the arm for Collins and unwelcome news for the Bellows camp: After six months in the race--including some stunningly positive press coverage and surprisingly strong grassroots funding--Bellows and her team are bound to be discouraged to have narrowed their deficit by just three points since the race's only prior poll.
On the other hand, Rasmussen is a right-leaning outfit with a history of GOP-friendly bias, so it would be useful to have these numbers corroborated by another pollster with a better track record.
Either way, this result confirms that Collins isn't just ahead; she's well ahead. If the race stays on its current trajectory, she cruises to victory.
Posted by Contrapositive at 7:17 PM