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.)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

The Portland Phoenix coins a term.

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.)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.