When it came out that Kavanaugh, as a drunk teenager, groped another teenager I remember thinking “this is bad, but it was 30 years ago he could be an entirely different person”. Then in the modern day while trying to get into a position of power he lied about the event and *that* is when I knew he was a POS.
This totenkopf tattoo is the same thing. It’s clear as day he’s lying about it now. Didn’t know what it was? Bullshit, and his continued lying is a sign this is a man who doesn’t deserve our trust.
He’s better than Collins because she aids and abets a more dangerous and powerful liar, but I don’t like this Platner business. There’s a very real chance he ends up like Fetterman, a serious impediment to a functioning majority.
A bigger impediment to a functioning majority is Collins being reelected.
And bigger than that is the national Democrats being an alt-Republican party paid to have no interest in undoing much of the harm caused by Trump and the Roberts court.
Having known a thousand guys like this (and arguably been one at points in my youth), I feel secure in saying that he is not a Nazi. I also feel secure saying that that's the lowest bar one can clear.
Much like you, John, I don't trust him. And not only do I not trust *him,* I don't trust that he's a grown-up. Like, I genuinely worry that he isn't going to wake up in time for important early-morning votes. Whatever worries I would have about sending a teenager to the Senate—however precocious that teenager may be—are worries I have about sending Platner to the Senate, because he has consistently proven nothing if not his own arrested development.
Excellent stuff as always. The Dem primary was also a depressingly familiar clash of ‘populist’ dick head and almost comically grey, ancient, bloodless ‘establishment’ candidate. Why can’t Democrats find just some regular person who’s fine and normal.
Well, Gov. Mills is still on the ballot in the Maine Dem primary, so let's see if Mainers are ready to reconsider "authenticity" in favor of the Schumer candidate. I'm curious to see if the polling that greatly sided with Platner at the time of Mills' "suspension" of her run has significantly eroded by real vote-count.
And if so, will there be unrelenting pressure for Platner to in turn drop out? I mean, Collins this cycle is beatable, perhaps by either of the Dem candidates, but *realpolitik* may prevail, and Platner draws the short straw.
Collins is not beatable by Mills, who is an unpopular governor. If Platner were to survive the primary then drop out, even if replaced by someone who isn't Mills, that probably means giving up the chance at the seat. Voters in the primary finally have their chance to show their opinion about all these stories vs whatever his other qualities are on Tuesday, and unless something new comes out afterwards, his argument would be "this is all known and I still won the primary" (if he wins)
As a Jewish lady, it sure has been interesting to learn what I’m expected to put up with in service to some podcast bro’s idea of what makes a man! He knew it was a Nazi tattoo and he shut his girlfriend in a room. How many more handwringing think pieces (not you, John!) do I have to read?
I think I land in the same place, he seems hard to trust given his dissembling about the tatoo. But I don't believe he is a Nazi either. Regarding Platner's reliability as a Democratic vote and comparisons to Fetterman here in the thread, this may be less clear than the scandals suggest. The Fetterman drift came after his post-stroke cognitive changes, isolation from his original staff, and ideological flexibility masked by the "authenticity" brand. Platner's stated policy positions — universal healthcare, pro-union, anti-war — are further left than Fetterman's ever were. Fetterman was always more aesthetic than ideological, and he faced structural pressure Platner won't: winning and surviving in a state Trump carried twice. Whether Platner's commitments are more durable is unknown — he's never held office — but the structural incentives he'd face in a Democratic-leaning Maine point in a better direction than Fetterman's.
Fetterman was also known to be an Israel hawk before 2022, people were just able to look past it in a pre-Oct 7 world. Then, unluckily, it became basically the most salient issue and his stubbornness about being attacked drove him towards the right in many other ways. Platner, at least, doesn't have those political red flags -- many other red flags, but hey.
Really good point I missed entirely. This is now a wedge issue for both Republicans and Democrats who want to push back on US aid to Israel. Remember what happened to Malinowski and others, whose positions against writing blank checks to Israel generated massive funding blowback from AIPAC. Their positions are eminently reasonable and way more cautious than anything Platner has said. Compared to that mild heterodoxy, Platner's positions and statements make him a much bigger target and add another liability that Collins will surely exploit during the general election.
I agree there's not much to be learned from Fetterman.
Personality and behavior can change unbelievably drastically due to brain damage, dementia, mental illness, drug use, etc.
Many (most?) people have a hard time accepting this fact, in my observation. Abstractly, they might understand it, but in any specific case, they will always reach for other explanations first, somehow "forget" or fail to mention the medical problem, and so on. Thoughts about this aspect of the human experience demand repression.
I thought Platner's excuses for the Totenkopf tattoo were so absurd that they should have been disqualifying. "Yeh, I got an SS death's head tattoo, but
a) I was so drunk that I didn't know what I was doing b) despite being a well-educated US Marine veteran, I didn't think about the Totenkopf tattoo enough until I began my US Senate campaign to *realize what it was*" Both of these statements are so ridiculous for all the reasons that Ganz points out and more that the smarmy mendacity, the rancid, childish opportunism, are just too much like Trump and Vance (among all other reasons) to be part of the dossier of a Senate candidate. He's not what we need. I'd find him a tedious and flimsy performer as a bartender. Too much about him lights the "dubious compensations for Oedipal issues" warning lamp. /
Throughout his (long, video) interview with Lulu Garcia-Navarro with the NYT, he had the air of a prep school kid who had been invited by the Vice Principal for a "how are things, Graham, really" conversation who was worried she might somehow know about his pyromania.
It betrays a fundamental insecurity. Someone with confidence would just say "yeah I was an edge lord moron" but his recent treatment of women suggests he needs a lot more therapy.
As a recent survivor of domestic violence, I saw him immediately as an abusive type. The stories of violence and intimidation recounted by his exes in the Times piece, the tendency to blame his mistreatment on his past traumatic experiences or his alcohol use, the infidelity, the warmth and charm experienced by women who only dated him for a short while, the generally disrespectful comments about women - these are all hallmarks of abusive partners. I suspect other domestic violence survivors will recognize his type too.
You really got to the core on this one, great piece. It’s disheartening that the image people have of ‘working class’ is a type of guy. Especially since an enormous part of the actual working class imo is a predominantly female, nonwhite, queer and immigrant labor force in care work. And we’re probably going to take heat for his unseriousness. (Shoutout to all the amazing men in care work as well.)
You're quite right about the actual working class. But that's not what mainstream journos mean when they say "working class." They almost invariably mean "white noncollege." Mainstream journalists are in the obfuscation business. When they say "technology," they mean either "informatics industry" or "billionaire not wearing a suit," depending on context. (A stone axe is a friggin' technology!) Similarly, "controversial" means either "asshole" (if a person) or "discreditable" (if a person or idea.) Etc.
Although I do admit that the business press is marginally better.
This Platner business raises two issues: First. Platner strikes me as the poster boy for the sad state of today’s Democratic Party. Is the best the Party can come up with is a 78 year cut from the same worthless cloth as Chuck Schumer or Hakeem Jefferies, or a guy like Platner who is as phony as a three dollar bill? If so, then the Democratic Party is even worse off than I thought it was. More to the point, If Platner is lying about the tattoo, which it is clear he is, what else is he lying about? Maybe his progressivism ? Second. The timing of these revelations is suspicious. If Platner is the real deal do do these allegations reveal how far corporate liberals are prepared to go, to lose a senate seat, in order to keep progressives from ever gaining power and actually changing things?
Ah, Missouri's last gasp of sanity. A really remarkably not-close election given this state was already trending in its current direction, with Romney beating Obama by 9. (This after McCain squeaked out a victory over Obama by fewer than 4,000 votes four years earlier. Those were different times.)
As an indirect counterpoint, consider this piece by Daniel Barkuff. A fellow GWOT combat veteran who has had a much more steady path in life after the GWOT. He is now an ER doc in Vermont and a continued supporter of Platner. Given their comparative experiences as veterans, when considering Barkuff's current path and writings, I am curious on what response you may have to his insights on Platner as a candidate and the lingering echos of being a combat vet. I endorse neither camp - for or against Platner- because I am not Maine constituent, but I am the son of Vietnam combat vet who was in some of the more horrific battles of that war. And can attest to how misunderstood such men can be. Regardless, I am curious if you would have a response to Barkuff's eloquent defense of Platner. https://substack.com/inbox/post/200627811
Are you implying that combat veterans are categorically war criminals ? Maybe pose a more disciplined question free of oblique ideological accusation and you will receive a more thoughtful response.
The point is that you can't just excuse all matter of indiscretion based on adverse experiences in combat, especially combat that Platner volunteered to participate in.
If that is what was discussed in the Barkuff piece, then I would find agreement with you. But that was not his point. His point was quite the opposite. One can take issue with the tattoo, though I personally find Barkuff's attempt at providing context convincing. What I don't find convincing is Platner's continued claim of ignorance of the symbol's meaning in the timeline he provides. That may prove more telling of his character than his getting the tattoo in the first place. As far as your reference to supposed Israeli war criminals, that is such a broad swipe that I would be surprised if your views on the matter proved morally, let alone factually, coherent. I would refer you to Sam Harris's take as a good baseline for discussing that issue. That, however, is peripheral to the issue of this original post. https://substack.com/home/post/p-200794273
The willful suspension of logical thinking and excuse making for a guy with no track record or qualifications has been amazing and very depressing to behold.
This is the best take that I've seen on all this. I've met people like this too and generally find them annoying. Sometimes they're fun to hang out with at a backyard barbecue or whatever, but not someone I would trust to do anything responsible.
Its a really difficult thing to judge. I’d think nearly all of us of us reading JG are sympathetic to Platner’s apparent flaunting of many norms. But I’ll admit I got burned on Fetterman’s hoodie aesthetics. I gave to his campaign. And now regret it. Conor Lamb would not be an AIPAC bitch and Maga apologist.
I’m a private school guy myself, and one who mostly eschews norms (and co-own an oyster farm like Platner too.) i’d like to think people mostly like me are decent and have conviction in their morality. But that is wishful thinking. JG brings up the red flags I see too. Philandering and military service (after private school is weird tbh) and the questionable tattoo. So, is there poor judgement and a lack of conviction here? A lack of seriousness and competence? I think that is likely. Seems like a Fetterman.
I read the other day too how he failed to take down social media posts that were costing his campaign much grief - again, strikes me as unserious or incapable.
So, yeah, we need this Senate seat badly. So I won’t criticize too loudly, but I am nervous about the guy
Nobody has mentioned his sexting while married, and I think that gives a clue to his character as well. Did he cheat? Not, perhaps, by the literal definition, but he set up the conditions for cheating and then lied about that too. I don’t trust him, I’m glad not to live in Maine, and good luck Mainers.
When it came out that Kavanaugh, as a drunk teenager, groped another teenager I remember thinking “this is bad, but it was 30 years ago he could be an entirely different person”. Then in the modern day while trying to get into a position of power he lied about the event and *that* is when I knew he was a POS.
This totenkopf tattoo is the same thing. It’s clear as day he’s lying about it now. Didn’t know what it was? Bullshit, and his continued lying is a sign this is a man who doesn’t deserve our trust.
He’s better than Collins because she aids and abets a more dangerous and powerful liar, but I don’t like this Platner business. There’s a very real chance he ends up like Fetterman, a serious impediment to a functioning majority.
A bigger impediment to a functioning majority is Collins being reelected.
And bigger than that is the national Democrats being an alt-Republican party paid to have no interest in undoing much of the harm caused by Trump and the Roberts court.
Having known a thousand guys like this (and arguably been one at points in my youth), I feel secure in saying that he is not a Nazi. I also feel secure saying that that's the lowest bar one can clear.
Much like you, John, I don't trust him. And not only do I not trust *him,* I don't trust that he's a grown-up. Like, I genuinely worry that he isn't going to wake up in time for important early-morning votes. Whatever worries I would have about sending a teenager to the Senate—however precocious that teenager may be—are worries I have about sending Platner to the Senate, because he has consistently proven nothing if not his own arrested development.
Excellent stuff as always. The Dem primary was also a depressingly familiar clash of ‘populist’ dick head and almost comically grey, ancient, bloodless ‘establishment’ candidate. Why can’t Democrats find just some regular person who’s fine and normal.
The answer is they don’t want to. They want Mills and Joe Crowley.
So the only option for fine normal people is to be the insurgent candidate. Sometimes you get an AOC sometimes you get a Platner.
Well, Gov. Mills is still on the ballot in the Maine Dem primary, so let's see if Mainers are ready to reconsider "authenticity" in favor of the Schumer candidate. I'm curious to see if the polling that greatly sided with Platner at the time of Mills' "suspension" of her run has significantly eroded by real vote-count.
And if so, will there be unrelenting pressure for Platner to in turn drop out? I mean, Collins this cycle is beatable, perhaps by either of the Dem candidates, but *realpolitik* may prevail, and Platner draws the short straw.
Collins is not beatable by Mills, who is an unpopular governor. If Platner were to survive the primary then drop out, even if replaced by someone who isn't Mills, that probably means giving up the chance at the seat. Voters in the primary finally have their chance to show their opinion about all these stories vs whatever his other qualities are on Tuesday, and unless something new comes out afterwards, his argument would be "this is all known and I still won the primary" (if he wins)
What fine and normal person runs for office. You've got to have some divergent need to want to fight the political fight.
As a Jewish lady, it sure has been interesting to learn what I’m expected to put up with in service to some podcast bro’s idea of what makes a man! He knew it was a Nazi tattoo and he shut his girlfriend in a room. How many more handwringing think pieces (not you, John!) do I have to read?
I think I land in the same place, he seems hard to trust given his dissembling about the tatoo. But I don't believe he is a Nazi either. Regarding Platner's reliability as a Democratic vote and comparisons to Fetterman here in the thread, this may be less clear than the scandals suggest. The Fetterman drift came after his post-stroke cognitive changes, isolation from his original staff, and ideological flexibility masked by the "authenticity" brand. Platner's stated policy positions — universal healthcare, pro-union, anti-war — are further left than Fetterman's ever were. Fetterman was always more aesthetic than ideological, and he faced structural pressure Platner won't: winning and surviving in a state Trump carried twice. Whether Platner's commitments are more durable is unknown — he's never held office — but the structural incentives he'd face in a Democratic-leaning Maine point in a better direction than Fetterman's.
Fetterman was also known to be an Israel hawk before 2022, people were just able to look past it in a pre-Oct 7 world. Then, unluckily, it became basically the most salient issue and his stubbornness about being attacked drove him towards the right in many other ways. Platner, at least, doesn't have those political red flags -- many other red flags, but hey.
Really good point I missed entirely. This is now a wedge issue for both Republicans and Democrats who want to push back on US aid to Israel. Remember what happened to Malinowski and others, whose positions against writing blank checks to Israel generated massive funding blowback from AIPAC. Their positions are eminently reasonable and way more cautious than anything Platner has said. Compared to that mild heterodoxy, Platner's positions and statements make him a much bigger target and add another liability that Collins will surely exploit during the general election.
I agree there's not much to be learned from Fetterman.
Personality and behavior can change unbelievably drastically due to brain damage, dementia, mental illness, drug use, etc.
Many (most?) people have a hard time accepting this fact, in my observation. Abstractly, they might understand it, but in any specific case, they will always reach for other explanations first, somehow "forget" or fail to mention the medical problem, and so on. Thoughts about this aspect of the human experience demand repression.
I thought Platner's excuses for the Totenkopf tattoo were so absurd that they should have been disqualifying. "Yeh, I got an SS death's head tattoo, but
a) I was so drunk that I didn't know what I was doing b) despite being a well-educated US Marine veteran, I didn't think about the Totenkopf tattoo enough until I began my US Senate campaign to *realize what it was*" Both of these statements are so ridiculous for all the reasons that Ganz points out and more that the smarmy mendacity, the rancid, childish opportunism, are just too much like Trump and Vance (among all other reasons) to be part of the dossier of a Senate candidate. He's not what we need. I'd find him a tedious and flimsy performer as a bartender. Too much about him lights the "dubious compensations for Oedipal issues" warning lamp. /
Throughout his (long, video) interview with Lulu Garcia-Navarro with the NYT, he had the air of a prep school kid who had been invited by the Vice Principal for a "how are things, Graham, really" conversation who was worried she might somehow know about his pyromania.
It betrays a fundamental insecurity. Someone with confidence would just say "yeah I was an edge lord moron" but his recent treatment of women suggests he needs a lot more therapy.
As a recent survivor of domestic violence, I saw him immediately as an abusive type. The stories of violence and intimidation recounted by his exes in the Times piece, the tendency to blame his mistreatment on his past traumatic experiences or his alcohol use, the infidelity, the warmth and charm experienced by women who only dated him for a short while, the generally disrespectful comments about women - these are all hallmarks of abusive partners. I suspect other domestic violence survivors will recognize his type too.
You really got to the core on this one, great piece. It’s disheartening that the image people have of ‘working class’ is a type of guy. Especially since an enormous part of the actual working class imo is a predominantly female, nonwhite, queer and immigrant labor force in care work. And we’re probably going to take heat for his unseriousness. (Shoutout to all the amazing men in care work as well.)
You're quite right about the actual working class. But that's not what mainstream journos mean when they say "working class." They almost invariably mean "white noncollege." Mainstream journalists are in the obfuscation business. When they say "technology," they mean either "informatics industry" or "billionaire not wearing a suit," depending on context. (A stone axe is a friggin' technology!) Similarly, "controversial" means either "asshole" (if a person) or "discreditable" (if a person or idea.) Etc.
Although I do admit that the business press is marginally better.
This Platner business raises two issues: First. Platner strikes me as the poster boy for the sad state of today’s Democratic Party. Is the best the Party can come up with is a 78 year cut from the same worthless cloth as Chuck Schumer or Hakeem Jefferies, or a guy like Platner who is as phony as a three dollar bill? If so, then the Democratic Party is even worse off than I thought it was. More to the point, If Platner is lying about the tattoo, which it is clear he is, what else is he lying about? Maybe his progressivism ? Second. The timing of these revelations is suspicious. If Platner is the real deal do do these allegations reveal how far corporate liberals are prepared to go, to lose a senate seat, in order to keep progressives from ever gaining power and actually changing things?
At the end of the day there's an 0.1% chance this is the next Trump, electorally speaking, and a 99.9% chance this is the next Todd Akin.
Ah, Missouri's last gasp of sanity. A really remarkably not-close election given this state was already trending in its current direction, with Romney beating Obama by 9. (This after McCain squeaked out a victory over Obama by fewer than 4,000 votes four years earlier. Those were different times.)
This type is usually intimidated by women deep down, which doesn't bode well for politics.
As an indirect counterpoint, consider this piece by Daniel Barkuff. A fellow GWOT combat veteran who has had a much more steady path in life after the GWOT. He is now an ER doc in Vermont and a continued supporter of Platner. Given their comparative experiences as veterans, when considering Barkuff's current path and writings, I am curious on what response you may have to his insights on Platner as a candidate and the lingering echos of being a combat vet. I endorse neither camp - for or against Platner- because I am not Maine constituent, but I am the son of Vietnam combat vet who was in some of the more horrific battles of that war. And can attest to how misunderstood such men can be. Regardless, I am curious if you would have a response to Barkuff's eloquent defense of Platner. https://substack.com/inbox/post/200627811
Are you implying that combat veterans are categorically war criminals ? Maybe pose a more disciplined question free of oblique ideological accusation and you will receive a more thoughtful response.
The point is that you can't just excuse all matter of indiscretion based on adverse experiences in combat, especially combat that Platner volunteered to participate in.
If that is what was discussed in the Barkuff piece, then I would find agreement with you. But that was not his point. His point was quite the opposite. One can take issue with the tattoo, though I personally find Barkuff's attempt at providing context convincing. What I don't find convincing is Platner's continued claim of ignorance of the symbol's meaning in the timeline he provides. That may prove more telling of his character than his getting the tattoo in the first place. As far as your reference to supposed Israeli war criminals, that is such a broad swipe that I would be surprised if your views on the matter proved morally, let alone factually, coherent. I would refer you to Sam Harris's take as a good baseline for discussing that issue. That, however, is peripheral to the issue of this original post. https://substack.com/home/post/p-200794273
Well I totally misread your views on the matter. Thanks for the exchange and sorry for the hard opening.
The willful suspension of logical thinking and excuse making for a guy with no track record or qualifications has been amazing and very depressing to behold.
This is the best take that I've seen on all this. I've met people like this too and generally find them annoying. Sometimes they're fun to hang out with at a backyard barbecue or whatever, but not someone I would trust to do anything responsible.
Great take and similar to my own.
Its a really difficult thing to judge. I’d think nearly all of us of us reading JG are sympathetic to Platner’s apparent flaunting of many norms. But I’ll admit I got burned on Fetterman’s hoodie aesthetics. I gave to his campaign. And now regret it. Conor Lamb would not be an AIPAC bitch and Maga apologist.
I’m a private school guy myself, and one who mostly eschews norms (and co-own an oyster farm like Platner too.) i’d like to think people mostly like me are decent and have conviction in their morality. But that is wishful thinking. JG brings up the red flags I see too. Philandering and military service (after private school is weird tbh) and the questionable tattoo. So, is there poor judgement and a lack of conviction here? A lack of seriousness and competence? I think that is likely. Seems like a Fetterman.
I read the other day too how he failed to take down social media posts that were costing his campaign much grief - again, strikes me as unserious or incapable.
So, yeah, we need this Senate seat badly. So I won’t criticize too loudly, but I am nervous about the guy
Nobody has mentioned his sexting while married, and I think that gives a clue to his character as well. Did he cheat? Not, perhaps, by the literal definition, but he set up the conditions for cheating and then lied about that too. I don’t trust him, I’m glad not to live in Maine, and good luck Mainers.