For months, many Democrats, “progressives,” leftists, and media figures stood by, or ran interference for, Graham Platner. They didn’t waver, even in the face of his Nazi tattoo, his verifiable lies about said Nazi tattoo, the contents of his appalling online footprint, his bogus “blue-collar” credentials, the sexting revelations, and even a New York Times story alleging abusive and predatory behavior toward multiple women.
Indeed, loud whispers hinted that the worst was yet to come — a fairly open secret that reportedly led a number of Democratic senators to pepper their party’s would-be nominee from Maine with awkward questions about additional accusations and sexual assault during a pre-primary emergency meeting in Washington, D.C.
Recommended Stories
Platner is said to have assured them that nothing else was looming, just as he had done in previous interviews, after which various looming shoes then dropped.
Pine Tree State Democrats witnessed all of this, took it in, and were apparently satisfied-to-thrilled with what they saw. They overwhelmingly nominated Platner for the U.S. Senate on June 9, just weeks ago. He carried nearly three-quarters of the vote.
Then the Politico story arrived, as a follow-up to the scandalously framed and soft-pedaled New York Times piece. The rape allegation became public. Many of the aforementioned Democrats, “progressives,” leftists, and media figures pretended to be shocked — shocked! — and appalled that their man in Maine was a degenerate.
One by one, they dropped him. His position became untenable. Within days, he was forced out of the race.
So, once again, the self-appointed “Party of Democracy” will nullify the results of one of its own elections after the electorate’s choice was deemed politically inconvenient. And once again, the candidate switcheroo will occur after many warning signs were blithely or indignantly ignored, and after the votes were cast and counted.
It’s extraordinary how many officials and apparatchiks within this party obviously consider their own elections to be exhibition games that don’t really count.
Perhaps the most grating element of the whole nasty spectacle has been legions of endorsement rescinders congratulating themselves over their own moral superiority. Unlike those grubby Republicans, we are principled and take out our trash, they gush in self-celebration.
Set aside any number of counterexamples. Set aside everything they were evidently willing or eager to excuse about Platner before they decided his mess was no longer politically survivable. Instead, consider a comparison that’s been made to buttress this preposterous conceit.
One of its prominent purveyors was former New York Times columnist Charles Blow, who turned up on MS Now to make a point about a phenomenon he has referred to as an “era of asymmetric warfare on allegations of sexual misconduct”:
“We continue to have a situation where Democrats and Republicans are playing by a completely separate rulebook. … Christine Blasey Ford gave, I thought, compelling testimony against Brett Kavanaugh about what she said — she was raped. He was still confirmed by Republicans in the Senate. We are just on two different ball fields when it comes to cases like this, situations like this in politics.”
Of course, since the #MeToo moment, it has generally been the Left’s preening standard to “believe all women” — jettisoned as necessary, especially if the women in question are conservative or otherwise unhelpful to their ideological project — while many on the Right have quite rightly rejected that unjust and simplistic framework.
To that extent, the asymmetry has been invited by the Left’s dubious and malleable “rules” on such things. But by dredging up the false smear of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Blow and others defeat their own attempted argument.
Kavanaugh was never credibly accused of sexual assault or misconduct. There is precisely zero evidence that Kavanaugh ever even met Ford. A longtime sexual crimes prosecutor told senators that Ford’s uncorroborated story was rife with glaring inconsistencies. All three named attendees of the supposed party at which Ford claimed her alleged assault occurred said they had no memory of the gathering whatsoever.
Ford’s star witness, a female friend, eventually concluded that she didn’t believe Ford’s account, telling the FBI that Ford’s associates tried to threaten and coerce her into lying in order to harm Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The Senate voted to confirm Kavanaugh because there was no credible evidence against him.
By contrast, Platner’s accusers are his ex-girlfriends. They have, unequivocally and undeniably, spent significant amounts of time with him. In various ways, they each documented his abusive behavior — and, importantly, did so before he ever approached the political limelight or sought high office.
One told multiple friends about his aggression. Another warned a friend of hers to avoid getting involved with him because of his consent issues, especially when drunk.
Within the crucial realm of available evidence, Blow is correct that the Kavanaugh and Platner fact patterns are “on two different ball fields.” Just not the way he thinks.
