YES. The Republicans have no cause to celebrate the Platner debacle after they elected Trump - rape? check. Loves Fascists and dictators? Check. Plus pathological liar, cheat, and self-dealing.
Sadly, the media holds Republicans — especially Trump – to a different standard. And you do remember what happened right after those comments came out, right? There was a suspicious leak of material from Hillary's campaign insiders that many thought emanated from Russian hacks. And the media got distracted by this bright, shinty (although meaningless) thing, as Trump's backers, whoever they were, knew it would.
I never supported him and this does not surprise me in the least. And, the very idea that he would think he could choose his replacement. As Maya Angelou said, “when someone shows you who they are, believe them.”
Well, he won the primary. Doesn't that give him the right to input on his replacement? Obviously he's a very flawed person and should be out, but do we "cancel" him?
I’m glad that the Democratic Party is very clear that it doesn’t want or need an accused rapist to help pick their candidates. When men assault women, they disqualify themselves from having a say in the representation of women. He did this to himself. No one else is responsible. No, it doesn’t matter that he won the primary.
He won votes on wish-fulfillment and a generous electorate’s assumption of innocence that has now eroded by the sheer number and of allegations. Democrats should not aspire to the cyclical ruthlessness that led the GOP and its voters to elect the damning evidence of the Access Hollywood tape, much less the convictions for fraud, defamation, and sexual assault in his home state of New York, where his sociopathy was on display for 50 years. Moreover, elections are a not service to the candidate; they are about service to the constituency, voters especially, but also the state, nation, and party. And with so much at stake for the party on whose platform he chose to run, it has a say, too—and they are not obligated to provide financial support.
Platner wasn't just "flawed" (the usual epithet applied to every woman who runs for higher office), he was tainted. And given the Massachusetts primary, I really don't want to hear anymore about age.
Demanding to have input into his replacement is the height of arrogance. And who knows what he might expect as a quid pro quo? Some position of power and perks? No, he has to go back to his oysters.
He won the primary, and I don't believe the Party can actually force him out, unless he signed some contract that had something like a "morals clause".
DropnSite News was reporting before Platner dropped out that some Platner campaign workers were already working to find a candidate who would support at least some of Platner 's populist ideas.
Agree. When you find yourself engaging in mental acrobatics to excuse things about a candidate, there is something wrong there. While I don't expect humans to come without baggage, some things are just not excusable.
even if they reform, recover? had PTSD from 8+ years of war? even if they have good qualities?
This has happened before over sex- to Gary Hart, to Al Franken and others. *We* lose because we cannot forgive or give a chance to show growth. Meanwhile on the other side they keep on with the inexcusable, collecting "baggage" because they can. And they win.
I hear you, but there's more to it than that. If Platner had taken ownership of the things he did, thus demonstrating that he was a reformed character, that would be one thing. But, as Rubin pointed out, Platner never did take responsibility. The red flags have been all over the place for quite some time with him. Al Franken was quite a different case. It never really looked like he'd done more than used bad taste in some of his jokes as a professional comedian -- which IMO is true of practically every comedian out there.
I guess Rubin never listened to the grilling MS NOW hosts Jen Psaki and Chris Hayes gave Platner early in his campaign. Hayes in particular asked very specific questions. Platner did own up. And also denied, as he continues to do, the more damning accusations.
Thanks, sounds like it was an interesting interview they did. But here's the thing. When a person runs for office, I want to see that he or she has the right temperament. Especially now. Bad enough that we have a narcissist felon as president. We don't need more of those, not in either party. So, when I see someone with a troubled past who isn't yet ready to fully own up to all of it -- including the things he may have done while drunk -- to me that's a red flag. ALSO, I want to be sure that I'm not electing another Fetterman. Right? I don't think any of us want to elect some guy who's so unstable and ruled by his mental issues that he can't work cooperatively with other members of his party, and serve the public interest. Platner has pulled out, and I feel nothing but relief. I just wish he had pulled out sooner.
If only every candidate were examined as thoroughly, publicly, and without bias as Platner has been. Surely not all of the hundreds of Reps and Senators have stellar characters before—and after—taking office. I saw nothing amiss about his temperament in any of the many videos I saw. His past is the issue and the sincerity of his remorse is being decided by people who know nothing about him outside of what they read. Again, Mainers who have met him and do know him, voted for him. I trust their opinion.
I found the interview and read through the transcript. It's Platner saying what I've seen elsewhere -- that he went through a dark period and did things then that he wouldn't do now. He claims he didn't know he had a Nazi symbol on his chest and also claims no one told him it was. He did not have anything done about the tattoo until he learned it was going to be an election issue. About the sexting, it was his wife who reported that. It was *recent* -- not from the "dark period" -- and they are currently going through marriage counseling to resolve it. The note she takes is positive, but what else can a wife say when it's still ongoing? So, (IMO) lots of old and new red flags and not enough evidence that Platner truly has changed and matured into someone we can all depend on.
The New York Times interviewed six women who had been romantically involved with Platner. Three spoke highly of him, while the other three described his behavior as "unsettling" and characterized their relationships with him as toxic or volatile.
Lyndsey Fifield told the Times that Platner became rough with her and sometimes left marks when he grabbed her by the shoulders during their two-year, on-again, off-again relationship. Fifield said he never punched, hit or injured her. She disclosed that she has worked for conservative groups.
In response to the allegations Platner said, "Throughout this campaign, I've been open about what was a very dark period of my life where I struggled with undiagnosed PTSD, too often self-medicated with alcohol, and was a far from perfect boyfriend. I take responsibility for all of that, and wish I had been better," in a statement to Maine's Total Coverage. "Any characterization beyond that is false, and I believe, politically motivated. I'm not proud of who I was then, but I am proud of the work I've done since, and the movement we are building in Maine."
Yes there have been "red flags" check about what and from who and why. Some women have their antennae so tuned that this is the most important thing, nothing mitigating it. Others including those in the party establishment as well as in the other party are just looking for this.
I think your comment about "some women" does not say much for your own objectivity. As a matter of fact, I always look at all angles when these kinds of reports come out. The Al Franken case is an example. I looked and I really could not see any evidence of abuse on his part. But when it's there, it's there. I said lots of red flags. Platner wore a Nazi Totenkopf on his chest for 18 years. I understand a 16 year old having a tattoo like that for a year or two, but we're talking about a grown man and 18 years. How could he not have known? Someone would have pointed it out to him even if he hadn't. He knew. And the many things he said online that were inappropriate. Taking responsibility does not merely mean saying that you went through a dark period long ago. It means you have to admit that you at least *might* have physically abused some women -- more than one, btw. It wasn't just Fitfield. Someone who was drinking hard, which he admitted he did, could have done all sorts of things, and he must know that. But he absolutely denies "anything physical." What's more, he is now saying that the Democratic Party just doesn't want "anyone normal." Does he think his past is normal? I'm not saying he needs to go to jail. I don't know that. But I am saying the red flags are there and have been for some time.
I think if you read the NYT article you were not open to what it was saying. You made up your mind are just here to trash Platner and defend your view making your case as a lawyer would, not as someone on a jury. So my response is lawyerly as I can be too.
You confirm by your comment about me now saying "some women". I said "some women" to AVOiD saying women, avoiding speaking for all women, as you seem to. Some women are extremely sensitive to how men are with them, and others less so. This depends on their experience and nature. The article makes clear; not all women felt this way about the man. There are red lines, like physical *violence* not plain physical. And how does that get adjudicated? By sounding believable ( like so many are now saying- it sounds believable) ?..at this late date with issues about that? Who you think is lying has to do with your need to believe one or another. And that is too hot for this moment when we need to defeat Collins.
No question men and women clash and have issues since the beginning of humanity or the life on this planet. Everyone behaves differently depending on their nature and the encounter. SOME women were quite okay with Platner and others not. Maybe there were triggers- who knows? This whole case is so distorted at this point. With this pile-up there is no way even in 10 years Platner can serve politically
There's a reason why MANY women "have their antennae tuned to this." We deal with this every day — and right now along with constantly belittlement and threats to take away ALL our rights. This isn't some little side issue to most women.
Taking what some women or many deal with out on Platner is no more moral or right. You turn this issue into a general thing where women feel they can get satisfaction because of their problems with men. This is also about men being sent to war, to be violent and how they get traumatized. They act it out in their relationships until they get help. Women suffer this but must understand it too and not be used by politicians like this to get rid of a political threat. Some consciousness raising would help us all. Platner was asking for a chance to show he’s not that person from s few years ago and has excellent qualities experience and energy- youth. Many felt it different and valuable. Many now feel this is mostly our loss. The battle continues.
We have a large tent and represent a diverse cross section of the American population. We need to be able to present them and have vigorous debates about how to approach the depredations of tRump and the rethuglicans. Think about it! We have reformed and renovated Eisenhower Republicans like Adam Kinzinger and George Conway alongside Zorhan Mamdani and AOC. We have Ossoff. Warnock and Talarico bringing up the moral middle. They represent the best of us - what we are and speak to the new, improved Nation we seek and we should be proud to share a party with them!
One out of how many? And I missed the reference to AOC since he used the actual names of the men. How about Tammy Baldwin? Elizabeth Warren? Kathy Hochul? All of the women who have been slogging in the back and who (except Warren who at least has the ear of NPR) are sidelined or dismissed when they present uncomfortable truths.
This is a column, not a thesis. Democrats should not have a quota of women. Ketanji Brown Jackson is a superlative SC justice, but she was unfairly diminished by Biden's statement that he would only consider black women. We need to avoid that sort of thing.
Mentioning JUST AOC without the names of the numerous accomplished women in Congress is pretty thin. I know she's the prettiest and very outspoken, but when I look at what congresspeople like Melanie Stansbury, Shontel Brown, Becca Balint, Lauren Underwood and more are doing, they really deserve a shoutout too.
As does Graham Platner sport a penis. I took Mr. Brady's comment as a comparison to other males in politics that have managed their lives with integrity, not minimizing the women that have showed their moral and character integrity. I am not trying to put words in Mr. Brady's comments that aren't there. Off the top of my head I could name at least twenty women with moral and character integrity. For me, this is about Platner. I won't stick up for the MDP for a poor job of vetting Platner. But I for sure will not excuse Platner for his flat out dishonesty and lack of integrity he has displayed. It's a very bad time to be sloppy given what's at stake in this coming election. If the oligarchs let us have one.
The party does NOT get to choose the candidate. Bernie's voice is loud. Even Schumer wanting Mills to run brought screams from some in the party. Any citizen can theoretically choose to run.
Not true. The party does get to choose who represents them. Platner can still run: just not as a Democrat. As an independent. Anyone can run as an independent, or start their own party. But each party should have standards and should vet candidates very carefully before allowing them to represent the party.
I believe top politicians (senate, gov. President) should come up through the ranks not because that's perfect but because working your way to the top is vetting stage two. What if trump had to start at school board, or even Congress? It's the self funded famous person catapult that is a disaster. That path ensues hubris and lank of voter experience with what they are voting for.
No thank you. Obama spent comparatively little time in the ranks. He was the best president that I have seen in my lifetime. Character, intelligence, ability to communicate, depth of knowledge, empathy, and understanding of government & history are the prerequisites for a president.
I totally agree with what you believe. I have been saying the same thing since 2016. It should be mandatory for all presidential candidates to have had previous experience of holding political office. And, yes, for governor's, too.
Next time someone complains that “both” major political parties are “no different,” point out that while Democrats still abhor and drive away candidates (Platner, most recently) and even sitting officials (Al Franken) accused of sexual assault, Republicans choose to ignore sexual crimes and even elevate men (Trump) who boast of sexual assault to lead their party—and the country. That alone is a massive difference between practicing one’s values vs. merely proclaiming them.
The only reason that "the parties are the same" became a popular opinion is because news journalists repeated it regularly. Why have they been misinforming or lying to the public like this since Reagan? Because Reagan ended the Fairness Doc and the news media started replacing facts and evidence with opinions and beliefs. 95% of journalists have been increasingly in the pockets of GOP for many years. Scott Pelley alluded to it after leaving CBS. This did not start with Ellison & Weiss.
The 'news journalists' as you call them, are better referred to as media hacks. The real journalists were still speaking out and still are, though no longer on legacy media. The Fairness Doctrine would have to be re-written to cover all sources of the media. In its time, there was only the broadcast media to which it applied.
The 1st person I found who provided all the facts and evidence without bias was Heather Cox Richardson, a political historian.
The Fairness Doc applied to any news media - including newspapers.
Even those who left broadcast media failed to comment on the renewed racism OR the use of unregulated capitalism by every GOP admin since Reagan OR the lack of facts in mainstream news. They let the lies stand. They ignored the signs of Hitler's steps in GOP actions - starting with the Fairness Doc.
Jen Rubin left WAPO, but still holds on to a GOP bias and plays the blame game.
The Fairness Doctrine is a complicated case. It’s fundamentally about presenting opposing viewpoints equally, so that uninformed americans can be presented with information. It is NOT actually about “facts.” Here’s one of many websites that discuss the Doctrine and possibilities for its revival and retooling: https://uslawexplained.com/fairness_doctrine
True, It was "flawed" in the same way that our laws can be flawed. If a person intending harm chooses to twist what was intended, it is easily done. In other comments, I've said we need to create another one that is clear and states the need for facts & evidence directly.
The Fairness Doctrine did not apply to newspapers. They aren't under the auspices of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) which regulates broadcast media. Cable, satellite services and websites would not have been either as they didn't exist when the doctrine was enacted.
If you don't recognize that Jennifer Rubin has changed, too bad. You might also read what Dan Rather, an honorable journalist, still has to say.
I'm almost 80. It was ALWAYS possible to find journalists who were trustworthy, who stuck to facts & analysis, who investigated all types of situations including the Nixon led burglary and Agnew's corruption.
This increasingly disappeared after Reagan ended the Fairness Doc AND allowed Murdoch's Fox News to go on air. Most people didn't notice the change in approach in mainstream news in contrast to what Fox did.
Could the GOP and news media have gotten away with this before the Fairness Doc was ended? i don't think so.
However, IF we get our democracy back, there does need to be a strict Fairness Doc requiring facts and evidence.
At 78, I have lived through and watched all of these changes too. Not mentioned was the corporate swallowing up of newspapers, going for clicks and profit instead of just responsibly reporting the news. When the word 'media' replaced honest reporting was when the change started, when we veered off from truth not supporting political and business agendas.
I DO recognize that Ms Rubin has changed. It is not a surprise or a terrible thing that some of her bias remains. Dan Rather grew up, as I did, with journalists with integrity. Cronkite stopped his broadcast and informed us that his next statement was a personal opinion and NOT part of the news. It was HIS reaction to the assassination of JFK.
One of the questions that I frequently ask before writing a post: Is this my bias or can this be supported with evidence?
I do miss Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Eric Severeid and that age of reporters who supported good journalism. What we are fed now is, for the most part, sensationalism and opinions.
I don't believe she was "the first" although she does do a good job. She's not one of my chosen subscriptions because so many of her columns are historical, but if that's your interest, she does a good job.
Doesn't it strike all of you Contrarian readers of the unbelievable ability of us Americans to pontificate about Platner's unworthiness to be a Senator when our sitting POTUS is a convicted sex offender and a felon?? I mean what type of drug or poison have they put into the water to make us all so pitifully tolerant of djt. Why doesn't the Maine Democratic Party "Ask E Jean" or even Angus King the ethical independent Senator from Maine about the right thing to do here?
We should be doing far more. WE HAVE MEN WOMEN & CHILDREN BEING TREATED CRUELLY IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Albanians otoh have been out in the streets for 30+ days to stop the Kushners from taking a part if their country.
Who says we tolerate him? Short of taking potshots at him, most of us have done everything in our power to get rid of him, now and before he was elected again.
Read the NYT article this morning about how Platner was selected, groomed, and his candidacy cultivated in the first place. That raises alarm bells about the whole process. A man selected for how his appeal could be manufactured rather than by what he had accomplished in public life.
Yes, it is also alarming how easily Dems fall into the circular firing squad.
You're correct but this is nothing at all new. And it is certainly not limited to Democrats. I seem to remember that the GOP powers-that-be picked Dan Quayle because they thought he was "handsome" and would appeal to female voters. And can we overlook Sarah Palin, chosen by the McCain campaign? Not sure exactly why. She was "cute"? Had nice legs? Wore those snazzy red shoes?
If you wanted an honest answer from me about whether or not we still have a government "of the people", I'd have to say "whatever we had is on the verge of disappearing completely". But, I have to explain the context which is, quite simply, corporate and wealthy members of our society have been increasingly greedy about insuring our government is more concerned about them than the vast majority of people. And this has led us down paths that are not good for the health of our citizenry nor the health of our government. The best evidence for this is the fact that over 30% of our country's wealth is held by the top 1% while the bottom 50% of the country holds only 2.5%. That means that 1.5 million households hold an average wealth of over $16 million while the bottom half, over 67 million households, only average $60,000 in net wealth.
If you don't think things are getting worse, just look at Trump who has increased his wealth while president by over $2 billion. If the Democrats can't come up with a general platform that makes these points clear and promises to fix them, they are never going to gain the confidence of a significant majority of our country. It's way past time for Democrats to jettison the powers that be in their own party and start recruiting people who have the brains to understand just where we're at these days and get this message out to the people who need to hear it the most.
Are you not aware that the GOP has used unregulated capitalism since Reagan in order to enrich the rich, while the Dems have used regulated capitalism - fixed GOP financial messes, improved the economy AND cut the deficit? No, because the news media has been in the pockets of the GOP since Reagan ended the Fairness Doc. News journalists STOPPED investigating any political situations, stopped using facts & evidence and instead (just like social media)used opinions and beliefs in persuasive articles - NOT analytical articles.
Obama, HRC, and Biden all gave clear warnings about the GOP.
I'm well aware of what Nixon, Reagan, et al, brought to the table. I can't be concerned about what happened and how it happened, which is a subject far larger and complex than this venue can accommodate, when we're facing the very extinction of the worlds first and greatest democracy. My point is, Democrats cannot relay solely on criticism of Trump for their success in the midterms. First of all, such criticism will receive nothing but blowback from those whose source if info is strictly Fox News. Secondly, both parties sit in the same boat when it comes to "approval" ratings, the low to mid-30's. To repair this dismal rating, Democrats must be become believable and that only comes from a recognition of the problems (favoritism of wealthy via their lobbyists) and a general acceptance of a platform that makes sense and doesn't pit their own party against each other. At the moment, I don't see much of that happening.
I agree with your point on criticism of T being ineffective as well as your suggestions for the strategies that Dems need to use.
Both parties are rated the same because of the lack of facts coming from the news media which has been assisting the GOP's spread of misinformation since Reagan.
It is a challenge to inform people about what has occurred AND to do it without pushing them away. That is what Bernie did. He ranted about capitalism being the problem and continued using the word socialism. This turned people off for 2 reasons. They believe in the opportunity to be able to start and profit from one's own business. Additionally, the Heritage Society ensured that public programs and programs for the needy put in place by TR, FDR et al were "socialist" programs and that this socialism was a part of communism. The GOP party has continued this mantra.
Citizens need to know the difference in what parties have done. In turn, citizens need to be aware of what all the terms being used actually mean. For Example, hey have no idea that there are 2 types of capitalism or that the GOP uses unregulated and Dems use regulated. AOC and Mamdani are best at this because they explain in terms of what citizens experience and what corporate owners do that hurts them. AOC's questioning of Healthcare corporate owners like CVS was perfect.
I do think many in the Dem party are learning to cooperate more. It's a gargantuan issue with so many different points of view. People today are noticing that Bernie said nothing about Platner's latest issue. And there are Dem socialists, like David Hogg, who also need to step up and cooperate. I believe Schumer is realizing that the party is changing.
Last minute "fill in" candidates rarely do well at the polls, no matter how qualified they may be. Kamala Harris is a living example.
Beyond that all I can say is that Susan Collins was eminently beat-able, but her chances just improved a lot. She's got to be the luckiest human on the planet right now.
sorry that woman really got raped of course, I am not a conspiracy person, but why did she come forward NOW instead of when platner was running ??? why now when he was probably going to win ??? we may have lost the senate in the wake of his crimes.
The situation is complicated. Of course any rape allegation should be investigated. The judge and jury should NOT be social media, or posters on Substack. But I wonder, why is this woman being given far more credibility than the woman who testified about sexual assault by Bret Kavanaugh?
We have not "lost the senate" because of Platner. I've been leaving him out of my calculations since the primary. Now? She said because although she was mentioned in The NY Times story, she was justifiably leery about sharing details, because women are ALWAYS trashed and disbelieved widely. But she saw the woman whose story led the NYT piece trashed and disbelieved because she was a Republican and felt that someone who was also a progress needed to step up.
The entire Platner debacle demonstrates that the Dems, almost as much as the Rethuglicans, want to sideline women when they present uncomfortable truths until the allegations become so revolting that they are forced to act. Far too many men are narcissist arseholes who think that women's bodies are always permeable and that they can get away with it simply because [1] they always have, and [b] they are confident that the women will be scoffed at, belittled, and ridiculed. It is far past time for all of us to rise up and demand that ovaries as well as penises have a real seat at the table as equal partners. Remember: 53% of the American population is female. We outnumber the boyz. And the sexual harassment and assaults women routinely experience (and the numbers of actual cases of both are far, far higher than the reported cases--I challenge any woman to deny that they have experienced one and/or the other) must be acknowledged and MEN taught to behave themselves.
I think it's interesting that Platner was romanced by out of-state consultants who told him he was a "hero" and a "historical figure." I think he was gullible enough to fall for it.
The life of a Democracy involves agreeing, disagreeing, and making compromises. It does not involve kneeling or genuflecting. Those looking for that kind of government have found it in the Trump Regime. Soon we will make that Regime a thing of the unpleasant past.
From your lips....As long as we don't get sidtracked in the mire of propaganda, and keep working for our liberties and freedoms, we will defeat this abomination.
I am more optimistic on how this will turn out than many here are.
This isn't the same as Harris after Biden, this is race in a sparsely populated, largely homogeneous state with a unique and tightly knit culture overall, where the incumbent remains very unpopular and will be tied to Trump's endless failures no matter what she does, in a year that is heavily favoring Democratic challengers, the opposite of 2024.
And now, Maine has a chance to have an actual competition for the nomination, even if it in every short time, as opposed to Schumer's strategy of pushing an uninspiring candidate who would have been 85 by the end of her term if she would have won (another examples of Schumer's 'leadership' - this factor in Platner's rise is still being glossed over). The leading candidates so far are all well known to Mainers and IMO a few of them have a very good chance at beating Collins.
If anything good came from Platner's campaign, it's that he has shown what Maine Dem voters want to see. Like many Democratic voters everywhere, they want a real fight against AI and crypto takeover, against billionaire power and PAC influence, against genocide, and for public health care, affordability, and a humane and just immigration system. Platner's message resonated - he was the wrong messenger.
It's also fortunate at least that Platner pulled out now with only days left until it would have been too late. There's nothing good about these allegations of course, he absolutely needed to go. But it could have been worse if the Dems were stuck with him after these latest charges became public (or , maybe even if these latest charges hadn't become public at all, he was already sliding in polls).
As a woman, I think rape abhorrent. I would not want it to happen to myself, my daughter, or my granddaughters, or any other woman. I see, however, a country so hypoocritical that it would elect a President who has been accused and found guilty of similar allegations - who, even when ordered by a court to pay up the fines he was found liable for, refuses to to date to pay the woman in question. Like Platner, he claims he was not guilty. Yet he was elected President - our moral leader.
There was a lot of negative information about him out there for a while. I find it hard to give kudos to his party backers now that they having an oh no moment , in light of all that. I find it difficult to believe that this came as a surprise to them.
I agree that Platner needed to withdraw. But what about Corey Booker? He has supported the killing of 10's of thousands of Palestinian women. Surely that should disqualifying him too.
1. who said anything about AIPAC? 2. This convo is about the Democratic Party and its candidates, if you hadn't noticed 3. The GOP is beyond redemption, which is obvious to most people reading here.
You are equating votes on policy to killing AND BLAMING ONLY the DEMOCRATS? GOP members have ALSO been aided by AIPAC, The entire GOP & GOP MOC are still in control and have spent $103B so far in bombing (at NETANYAHU's request) to aid N's war on Gaza & Lebanon. DO SOME RESEARCH and find out just how much AIPAC has been entangled in and influenced our government for DECADES. I was astonished. AIPAC itself is NOT just 1 organization. There are 100's of AIPAC pacs in the US.
While you are WRITING IN ALL CAPS as if that helps make your point, note that these are comments about an article explicitly and entirely focused on Democrats.
Note also that you are the only person to even mention AIPAC. The initial comment was about the long term Democratic support for mass killings of Palestinians, which is indisputable. Israel's genocide and apartheid was fully funded and politically supported by Biden and virtually all the elected Democratic leadership for 15 months (and before that really), and still continues.
If it necessary to add in the GOP< ok yes the GOP has supported genocide too. Happy? That is obvious and well known to Contrarian readers...what is less obvious and much less mentioned here is the full support given by much of the Democratic Party, despite what its base supports.
It's pretty obvious. The notion of scandal, or red lines, is incredibly subjective., and not just with the GOP that has no lines at all.
Platner needed to go, no doubt, as did Eric Swalwell...and of course, trump never should have been near the WH,.
But when both leading GOP and Dem officials openly , enthusiastically, emphatically support the mass murder of men, women and children with financial, military and political support...is this a 'scandal' or just regular ol politics? Why are these leaders not forcefully condemned for supporting such horrible crimes, that continue to this day?
This is also (again, obviously ) relevant because this support for genocide has enraged Democrats voter across the country. Being firmly against genocide shouldn't be a high bar, but apparently it is for many.
OFFS. That is them most absurd and baseless claim yet from the so-called "pro-Palestinian" movement. I could say anyone who squawks "AIPAC AIPAC" at any candidate they don't like is an anti-Semite and should shut up and go away. It would make as much sense. Sheesh.
" [Platner] announced he would pull out of the race, allowing the state party to devise a process for filling the vacancy".
Yes.
That's it.
He's out and now get someone better and get going to win this race.
Exactly what should have happened after the Access Hollywood comment came out in 2016.
The problem is that for the GQP, bad behavior is a feature, not a bug.
So it would seem. The Democrats have a stronger commitment to integrity and sense of propriety that this iteration of the Republican Party.
Republicans don’t see sexual predators as a problem if they’re “electable”…..
YES. The Republicans have no cause to celebrate the Platner debacle after they elected Trump - rape? check. Loves Fascists and dictators? Check. Plus pathological liar, cheat, and self-dealing.
We said the same exact thing at our house.
Sadly, the media holds Republicans — especially Trump – to a different standard. And you do remember what happened right after those comments came out, right? There was a suspicious leak of material from Hillary's campaign insiders that many thought emanated from Russian hacks. And the media got distracted by this bright, shinty (although meaningless) thing, as Trump's backers, whoever they were, knew it would.
I never supported him and this does not surprise me in the least. And, the very idea that he would think he could choose his replacement. As Maya Angelou said, “when someone shows you who they are, believe them.”
Certainly the alarm bells were sounding for quite a while. It's a classic case of "drip...drip...drip....BOOM!"
It's enough to make me miss the smoke-filled room.
Well, he won the primary. Doesn't that give him the right to input on his replacement? Obviously he's a very flawed person and should be out, but do we "cancel" him?
I’m glad that the Democratic Party is very clear that it doesn’t want or need an accused rapist to help pick their candidates. When men assault women, they disqualify themselves from having a say in the representation of women. He did this to himself. No one else is responsible. No, it doesn’t matter that he won the primary.
Think of him as a husband you just divorced.
Would he have the right to input on his replacement?
🎯
Sometimes we need to simplify these things, even dumb them down a bit.
Love the analogy!
Thank you, Patricia. The voice of experience. 😉
He won votes on wish-fulfillment and a generous electorate’s assumption of innocence that has now eroded by the sheer number and of allegations. Democrats should not aspire to the cyclical ruthlessness that led the GOP and its voters to elect the damning evidence of the Access Hollywood tape, much less the convictions for fraud, defamation, and sexual assault in his home state of New York, where his sociopathy was on display for 50 years. Moreover, elections are a not service to the candidate; they are about service to the constituency, voters especially, but also the state, nation, and party. And with so much at stake for the party on whose platform he chose to run, it has a say, too—and they are not obligated to provide financial support.
Yeah...The voters wished they didn't have to choose between a 78 year old establishment centrist an a young flawed progressive sexist....
If you are talking about Susan Collins, she is NOT a centrist. She is a liar. She has always voted with the GOP and with T.
I am talking about Janet Mills..... In the Primary.....
Platner wasn't just "flawed" (the usual epithet applied to every woman who runs for higher office), he was tainted. And given the Massachusetts primary, I really don't want to hear anymore about age.
Elected officials never get to appoint their own replacements. The voters decide, or in certain weird situations, a governor appoints a replacement.
I never said he should select his replacement. Input is different.
See above: Simply Susan's comment!!!
Demanding to have input into his replacement is the height of arrogance. And who knows what he might expect as a quid pro quo? Some position of power and perks? No, he has to go back to his oysters.
He won the primary, and I don't believe the Party can actually force him out, unless he signed some contract that had something like a "morals clause".
DropnSite News was reporting before Platner dropped out that some Platner campaign workers were already working to find a candidate who would support at least some of Platner 's populist ideas.
Agree. When you find yourself engaging in mental acrobatics to excuse things about a candidate, there is something wrong there. While I don't expect humans to come without baggage, some things are just not excusable.
even if they reform, recover? had PTSD from 8+ years of war? even if they have good qualities?
This has happened before over sex- to Gary Hart, to Al Franken and others. *We* lose because we cannot forgive or give a chance to show growth. Meanwhile on the other side they keep on with the inexcusable, collecting "baggage" because they can. And they win.
I hear you, but there's more to it than that. If Platner had taken ownership of the things he did, thus demonstrating that he was a reformed character, that would be one thing. But, as Rubin pointed out, Platner never did take responsibility. The red flags have been all over the place for quite some time with him. Al Franken was quite a different case. It never really looked like he'd done more than used bad taste in some of his jokes as a professional comedian -- which IMO is true of practically every comedian out there.
I guess Rubin never listened to the grilling MS NOW hosts Jen Psaki and Chris Hayes gave Platner early in his campaign. Hayes in particular asked very specific questions. Platner did own up. And also denied, as he continues to do, the more damning accusations.
Thanks, sounds like it was an interesting interview they did. But here's the thing. When a person runs for office, I want to see that he or she has the right temperament. Especially now. Bad enough that we have a narcissist felon as president. We don't need more of those, not in either party. So, when I see someone with a troubled past who isn't yet ready to fully own up to all of it -- including the things he may have done while drunk -- to me that's a red flag. ALSO, I want to be sure that I'm not electing another Fetterman. Right? I don't think any of us want to elect some guy who's so unstable and ruled by his mental issues that he can't work cooperatively with other members of his party, and serve the public interest. Platner has pulled out, and I feel nothing but relief. I just wish he had pulled out sooner.
If only every candidate were examined as thoroughly, publicly, and without bias as Platner has been. Surely not all of the hundreds of Reps and Senators have stellar characters before—and after—taking office. I saw nothing amiss about his temperament in any of the many videos I saw. His past is the issue and the sincerity of his remorse is being decided by people who know nothing about him outside of what they read. Again, Mainers who have met him and do know him, voted for him. I trust their opinion.
I found the interview and read through the transcript. It's Platner saying what I've seen elsewhere -- that he went through a dark period and did things then that he wouldn't do now. He claims he didn't know he had a Nazi symbol on his chest and also claims no one told him it was. He did not have anything done about the tattoo until he learned it was going to be an election issue. About the sexting, it was his wife who reported that. It was *recent* -- not from the "dark period" -- and they are currently going through marriage counseling to resolve it. The note she takes is positive, but what else can a wife say when it's still ongoing? So, (IMO) lots of old and new red flags and not enough evidence that Platner truly has changed and matured into someone we can all depend on.
The New York Times interviewed six women who had been romantically involved with Platner. Three spoke highly of him, while the other three described his behavior as "unsettling" and characterized their relationships with him as toxic or volatile.
Lyndsey Fifield told the Times that Platner became rough with her and sometimes left marks when he grabbed her by the shoulders during their two-year, on-again, off-again relationship. Fifield said he never punched, hit or injured her. She disclosed that she has worked for conservative groups.
In response to the allegations Platner said, "Throughout this campaign, I've been open about what was a very dark period of my life where I struggled with undiagnosed PTSD, too often self-medicated with alcohol, and was a far from perfect boyfriend. I take responsibility for all of that, and wish I had been better," in a statement to Maine's Total Coverage. "Any characterization beyond that is false, and I believe, politically motivated. I'm not proud of who I was then, but I am proud of the work I've done since, and the movement we are building in Maine."
Yes there have been "red flags" check about what and from who and why. Some women have their antennae so tuned that this is the most important thing, nothing mitigating it. Others including those in the party establishment as well as in the other party are just looking for this.
I think your comment about "some women" does not say much for your own objectivity. As a matter of fact, I always look at all angles when these kinds of reports come out. The Al Franken case is an example. I looked and I really could not see any evidence of abuse on his part. But when it's there, it's there. I said lots of red flags. Platner wore a Nazi Totenkopf on his chest for 18 years. I understand a 16 year old having a tattoo like that for a year or two, but we're talking about a grown man and 18 years. How could he not have known? Someone would have pointed it out to him even if he hadn't. He knew. And the many things he said online that were inappropriate. Taking responsibility does not merely mean saying that you went through a dark period long ago. It means you have to admit that you at least *might* have physically abused some women -- more than one, btw. It wasn't just Fitfield. Someone who was drinking hard, which he admitted he did, could have done all sorts of things, and he must know that. But he absolutely denies "anything physical." What's more, he is now saying that the Democratic Party just doesn't want "anyone normal." Does he think his past is normal? I'm not saying he needs to go to jail. I don't know that. But I am saying the red flags are there and have been for some time.
I think if you read the NYT article you were not open to what it was saying. You made up your mind are just here to trash Platner and defend your view making your case as a lawyer would, not as someone on a jury. So my response is lawyerly as I can be too.
You confirm by your comment about me now saying "some women". I said "some women" to AVOiD saying women, avoiding speaking for all women, as you seem to. Some women are extremely sensitive to how men are with them, and others less so. This depends on their experience and nature. The article makes clear; not all women felt this way about the man. There are red lines, like physical *violence* not plain physical. And how does that get adjudicated? By sounding believable ( like so many are now saying- it sounds believable) ?..at this late date with issues about that? Who you think is lying has to do with your need to believe one or another. And that is too hot for this moment when we need to defeat Collins.
No question men and women clash and have issues since the beginning of humanity or the life on this planet. Everyone behaves differently depending on their nature and the encounter. SOME women were quite okay with Platner and others not. Maybe there were triggers- who knows? This whole case is so distorted at this point. With this pile-up there is no way even in 10 years Platner can serve politically
There's a reason why MANY women "have their antennae tuned to this." We deal with this every day — and right now along with constantly belittlement and threats to take away ALL our rights. This isn't some little side issue to most women.
Taking what some women or many deal with out on Platner is no more moral or right. You turn this issue into a general thing where women feel they can get satisfaction because of their problems with men. This is also about men being sent to war, to be violent and how they get traumatized. They act it out in their relationships until they get help. Women suffer this but must understand it too and not be used by politicians like this to get rid of a political threat. Some consciousness raising would help us all. Platner was asking for a chance to show he’s not that person from s few years ago and has excellent qualities experience and energy- youth. Many felt it different and valuable. Many now feel this is mostly our loss. The battle continues.
from the NYTimes June 4th (should be a gift article) https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/us/politics/platner-maine-senate-girlfriends-relationships.html?unlocked_article_code=1.wVA.VNPS.8HUTQwsG2oNG&smid=url-share
We have a large tent and represent a diverse cross section of the American population. We need to be able to present them and have vigorous debates about how to approach the depredations of tRump and the rethuglicans. Think about it! We have reformed and renovated Eisenhower Republicans like Adam Kinzinger and George Conway alongside Zorhan Mamdani and AOC. We have Ossoff. Warnock and Talarico bringing up the moral middle. They represent the best of us - what we are and speak to the new, improved Nation we seek and we should be proud to share a party with them!
I find it interesting that all of your heroes sport penises.
I don't think AOC sports a penis.
One out of how many? And I missed the reference to AOC since he used the actual names of the men. How about Tammy Baldwin? Elizabeth Warren? Kathy Hochul? All of the women who have been slogging in the back and who (except Warren who at least has the ear of NPR) are sidelined or dismissed when they present uncomfortable truths.
This is a column, not a thesis. Democrats should not have a quota of women. Ketanji Brown Jackson is a superlative SC justice, but she was unfairly diminished by Biden's statement that he would only consider black women. We need to avoid that sort of thing.
Yes, but neglecting to mention the many fabulous women we have in office once again sidelines them, and they've been sidelined too much.
Mentioning JUST AOC without the names of the numerous accomplished women in Congress is pretty thin. I know she's the prettiest and very outspoken, but when I look at what congresspeople like Melanie Stansbury, Shontel Brown, Becca Balint, Lauren Underwood and more are doing, they really deserve a shoutout too.
As does Graham Platner sport a penis. I took Mr. Brady's comment as a comparison to other males in politics that have managed their lives with integrity, not minimizing the women that have showed their moral and character integrity. I am not trying to put words in Mr. Brady's comments that aren't there. Off the top of my head I could name at least twenty women with moral and character integrity. For me, this is about Platner. I won't stick up for the MDP for a poor job of vetting Platner. But I for sure will not excuse Platner for his flat out dishonesty and lack of integrity he has displayed. It's a very bad time to be sloppy given what's at stake in this coming election. If the oligarchs let us have one.
JFK
Those were different times. Also I don't think JFK was accused of rape.
true, I meant he was a player
The party does NOT get to choose the candidate. Bernie's voice is loud. Even Schumer wanting Mills to run brought screams from some in the party. Any citizen can theoretically choose to run.
Not true. The party does get to choose who represents them. Platner can still run: just not as a Democrat. As an independent. Anyone can run as an independent, or start their own party. But each party should have standards and should vet candidates very carefully before allowing them to represent the party.
Susan Collins. Kristi Noem. Pam Bondi.
These three women are example that having female genitalia does not guarantee superior morality.
We have AOC, Nancy Pelosi, Christine Whitmer and other female politicians who have moderate/liberal/progressive cred
Really? Just what is AOC sporting. I also support Elizabeth Warren, Mary Peltola, and Deb Halland!
I find it interesting that you find it interesting. This is also where we are at.
Thanks for this thorough analysis. Platner lost me at the Nazi tattoos. But then I'm the daughter of a mother who survived Auschwitz.
I believe top politicians (senate, gov. President) should come up through the ranks not because that's perfect but because working your way to the top is vetting stage two. What if trump had to start at school board, or even Congress? It's the self funded famous person catapult that is a disaster. That path ensues hubris and lank of voter experience with what they are voting for.
No thank you. Obama spent comparatively little time in the ranks. He was the best president that I have seen in my lifetime. Character, intelligence, ability to communicate, depth of knowledge, empathy, and understanding of government & history are the prerequisites for a president.
Illinois State Senate. U.S. Senate, POTUS.
True, thus I used the phrase "comparatively little time".
Little vs none. A world of difference.
I totally agree with what you believe. I have been saying the same thing since 2016. It should be mandatory for all presidential candidates to have had previous experience of holding political office. And, yes, for governor's, too.
Unfortunately, Eric Swalwell.
Next time someone complains that “both” major political parties are “no different,” point out that while Democrats still abhor and drive away candidates (Platner, most recently) and even sitting officials (Al Franken) accused of sexual assault, Republicans choose to ignore sexual crimes and even elevate men (Trump) who boast of sexual assault to lead their party—and the country. That alone is a massive difference between practicing one’s values vs. merely proclaiming them.
The only reason that "the parties are the same" became a popular opinion is because news journalists repeated it regularly. Why have they been misinforming or lying to the public like this since Reagan? Because Reagan ended the Fairness Doc and the news media started replacing facts and evidence with opinions and beliefs. 95% of journalists have been increasingly in the pockets of GOP for many years. Scott Pelley alluded to it after leaving CBS. This did not start with Ellison & Weiss.
The 'news journalists' as you call them, are better referred to as media hacks. The real journalists were still speaking out and still are, though no longer on legacy media. The Fairness Doctrine would have to be re-written to cover all sources of the media. In its time, there was only the broadcast media to which it applied.
The 1st person I found who provided all the facts and evidence without bias was Heather Cox Richardson, a political historian.
The Fairness Doc applied to any news media - including newspapers.
Even those who left broadcast media failed to comment on the renewed racism OR the use of unregulated capitalism by every GOP admin since Reagan OR the lack of facts in mainstream news. They let the lies stand. They ignored the signs of Hitler's steps in GOP actions - starting with the Fairness Doc.
Jen Rubin left WAPO, but still holds on to a GOP bias and plays the blame game.
It is good that she is balanced by Ira Levin.
The Fairness Doctrine is a complicated case. It’s fundamentally about presenting opposing viewpoints equally, so that uninformed americans can be presented with information. It is NOT actually about “facts.” Here’s one of many websites that discuss the Doctrine and possibilities for its revival and retooling: https://uslawexplained.com/fairness_doctrine
True, It was "flawed" in the same way that our laws can be flawed. If a person intending harm chooses to twist what was intended, it is easily done. In other comments, I've said we need to create another one that is clear and states the need for facts & evidence directly.
The Fairness Doctrine did not apply to newspapers. They aren't under the auspices of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) which regulates broadcast media. Cable, satellite services and websites would not have been either as they didn't exist when the doctrine was enacted.
If you don't recognize that Jennifer Rubin has changed, too bad. You might also read what Dan Rather, an honorable journalist, still has to say.
I'm almost 80. It was ALWAYS possible to find journalists who were trustworthy, who stuck to facts & analysis, who investigated all types of situations including the Nixon led burglary and Agnew's corruption.
This increasingly disappeared after Reagan ended the Fairness Doc AND allowed Murdoch's Fox News to go on air. Most people didn't notice the change in approach in mainstream news in contrast to what Fox did.
Could the GOP and news media have gotten away with this before the Fairness Doc was ended? i don't think so.
However, IF we get our democracy back, there does need to be a strict Fairness Doc requiring facts and evidence.
At 78, I have lived through and watched all of these changes too. Not mentioned was the corporate swallowing up of newspapers, going for clicks and profit instead of just responsibly reporting the news. When the word 'media' replaced honest reporting was when the change started, when we veered off from truth not supporting political and business agendas.
I DO recognize that Ms Rubin has changed. It is not a surprise or a terrible thing that some of her bias remains. Dan Rather grew up, as I did, with journalists with integrity. Cronkite stopped his broadcast and informed us that his next statement was a personal opinion and NOT part of the news. It was HIS reaction to the assassination of JFK.
One of the questions that I frequently ask before writing a post: Is this my bias or can this be supported with evidence?
I do miss Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Eric Severeid and that age of reporters who supported good journalism. What we are fed now is, for the most part, sensationalism and opinions.
I don't believe she was "the first" although she does do a good job. She's not one of my chosen subscriptions because so many of her columns are historical, but if that's your interest, she does a good job.
Doesn't it strike all of you Contrarian readers of the unbelievable ability of us Americans to pontificate about Platner's unworthiness to be a Senator when our sitting POTUS is a convicted sex offender and a felon?? I mean what type of drug or poison have they put into the water to make us all so pitifully tolerant of djt. Why doesn't the Maine Democratic Party "Ask E Jean" or even Angus King the ethical independent Senator from Maine about the right thing to do here?
We are not all so tolerant of Trump, but as a member of the minority party at present, we are limited in what we can do.
We should be doing far more. WE HAVE MEN WOMEN & CHILDREN BEING TREATED CRUELLY IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Albanians otoh have been out in the streets for 30+ days to stop the Kushners from taking a part if their country.
Who says we tolerate him? Short of taking potshots at him, most of us have done everything in our power to get rid of him, now and before he was elected again.
Out, out black spot....
Read the NYT article this morning about how Platner was selected, groomed, and his candidacy cultivated in the first place. That raises alarm bells about the whole process. A man selected for how his appeal could be manufactured rather than by what he had accomplished in public life.
Yes, it is also alarming how easily Dems fall into the circular firing squad.
You're correct but this is nothing at all new. And it is certainly not limited to Democrats. I seem to remember that the GOP powers-that-be picked Dan Quayle because they thought he was "handsome" and would appeal to female voters. And can we overlook Sarah Palin, chosen by the McCain campaign? Not sure exactly why. She was "cute"? Had nice legs? Wore those snazzy red shoes?
If you wanted an honest answer from me about whether or not we still have a government "of the people", I'd have to say "whatever we had is on the verge of disappearing completely". But, I have to explain the context which is, quite simply, corporate and wealthy members of our society have been increasingly greedy about insuring our government is more concerned about them than the vast majority of people. And this has led us down paths that are not good for the health of our citizenry nor the health of our government. The best evidence for this is the fact that over 30% of our country's wealth is held by the top 1% while the bottom 50% of the country holds only 2.5%. That means that 1.5 million households hold an average wealth of over $16 million while the bottom half, over 67 million households, only average $60,000 in net wealth.
If you don't think things are getting worse, just look at Trump who has increased his wealth while president by over $2 billion. If the Democrats can't come up with a general platform that makes these points clear and promises to fix them, they are never going to gain the confidence of a significant majority of our country. It's way past time for Democrats to jettison the powers that be in their own party and start recruiting people who have the brains to understand just where we're at these days and get this message out to the people who need to hear it the most.
Are you not aware that the GOP has used unregulated capitalism since Reagan in order to enrich the rich, while the Dems have used regulated capitalism - fixed GOP financial messes, improved the economy AND cut the deficit? No, because the news media has been in the pockets of the GOP since Reagan ended the Fairness Doc. News journalists STOPPED investigating any political situations, stopped using facts & evidence and instead (just like social media)used opinions and beliefs in persuasive articles - NOT analytical articles.
Obama, HRC, and Biden all gave clear warnings about the GOP.
I'm well aware of what Nixon, Reagan, et al, brought to the table. I can't be concerned about what happened and how it happened, which is a subject far larger and complex than this venue can accommodate, when we're facing the very extinction of the worlds first and greatest democracy. My point is, Democrats cannot relay solely on criticism of Trump for their success in the midterms. First of all, such criticism will receive nothing but blowback from those whose source if info is strictly Fox News. Secondly, both parties sit in the same boat when it comes to "approval" ratings, the low to mid-30's. To repair this dismal rating, Democrats must be become believable and that only comes from a recognition of the problems (favoritism of wealthy via their lobbyists) and a general acceptance of a platform that makes sense and doesn't pit their own party against each other. At the moment, I don't see much of that happening.
I agree with your point on criticism of T being ineffective as well as your suggestions for the strategies that Dems need to use.
Both parties are rated the same because of the lack of facts coming from the news media which has been assisting the GOP's spread of misinformation since Reagan.
It is a challenge to inform people about what has occurred AND to do it without pushing them away. That is what Bernie did. He ranted about capitalism being the problem and continued using the word socialism. This turned people off for 2 reasons. They believe in the opportunity to be able to start and profit from one's own business. Additionally, the Heritage Society ensured that public programs and programs for the needy put in place by TR, FDR et al were "socialist" programs and that this socialism was a part of communism. The GOP party has continued this mantra.
Citizens need to know the difference in what parties have done. In turn, citizens need to be aware of what all the terms being used actually mean. For Example, hey have no idea that there are 2 types of capitalism or that the GOP uses unregulated and Dems use regulated. AOC and Mamdani are best at this because they explain in terms of what citizens experience and what corporate owners do that hurts them. AOC's questioning of Healthcare corporate owners like CVS was perfect.
I do think many in the Dem party are learning to cooperate more. It's a gargantuan issue with so many different points of view. People today are noticing that Bernie said nothing about Platner's latest issue. And there are Dem socialists, like David Hogg, who also need to step up and cooperate. I believe Schumer is realizing that the party is changing.
Exactly. Follow the money
Last minute "fill in" candidates rarely do well at the polls, no matter how qualified they may be. Kamala Harris is a living example.
Beyond that all I can say is that Susan Collins was eminently beat-able, but her chances just improved a lot. She's got to be the luckiest human on the planet right now.
Easy as ABC -- anbybody but Collins, aligned with Trump's position about 93% to 95% of the time.
sorry that woman really got raped of course, I am not a conspiracy person, but why did she come forward NOW instead of when platner was running ??? why now when he was probably going to win ??? we may have lost the senate in the wake of his crimes.
The situation is complicated. Of course any rape allegation should be investigated. The judge and jury should NOT be social media, or posters on Substack. But I wonder, why is this woman being given far more credibility than the woman who testified about sexual assault by Bret Kavanaugh?
I do think women believed her...mostly men in confirming positions, xcpt collins
I think a lot of people believed that Christine Blasey Ford was credible — just not GOP Senators.
We have not "lost the senate" because of Platner. I've been leaving him out of my calculations since the primary. Now? She said because although she was mentioned in The NY Times story, she was justifiably leery about sharing details, because women are ALWAYS trashed and disbelieved widely. But she saw the woman whose story led the NYT piece trashed and disbelieved because she was a Republican and felt that someone who was also a progress needed to step up.
Or Platner's candidacy had been enabled by the GOP.
This is a radically different situation. We're talking about 700,000 voters as opposed to 154 million. And still a longer time frame.
The entire Platner debacle demonstrates that the Dems, almost as much as the Rethuglicans, want to sideline women when they present uncomfortable truths until the allegations become so revolting that they are forced to act. Far too many men are narcissist arseholes who think that women's bodies are always permeable and that they can get away with it simply because [1] they always have, and [b] they are confident that the women will be scoffed at, belittled, and ridiculed. It is far past time for all of us to rise up and demand that ovaries as well as penises have a real seat at the table as equal partners. Remember: 53% of the American population is female. We outnumber the boyz. And the sexual harassment and assaults women routinely experience (and the numbers of actual cases of both are far, far higher than the reported cases--I challenge any woman to deny that they have experienced one and/or the other) must be acknowledged and MEN taught to behave themselves.
We have given our country away to Autocratic Fascists.
I see many who care little.
I think it's interesting that Platner was romanced by out of-state consultants who told him he was a "hero" and a "historical figure." I think he was gullible enough to fall for it.
The life of a Democracy involves agreeing, disagreeing, and making compromises. It does not involve kneeling or genuflecting. Those looking for that kind of government have found it in the Trump Regime. Soon we will make that Regime a thing of the unpleasant past.
From your lips....As long as we don't get sidtracked in the mire of propaganda, and keep working for our liberties and freedoms, we will defeat this abomination.
I am more optimistic on how this will turn out than many here are.
This isn't the same as Harris after Biden, this is race in a sparsely populated, largely homogeneous state with a unique and tightly knit culture overall, where the incumbent remains very unpopular and will be tied to Trump's endless failures no matter what she does, in a year that is heavily favoring Democratic challengers, the opposite of 2024.
And now, Maine has a chance to have an actual competition for the nomination, even if it in every short time, as opposed to Schumer's strategy of pushing an uninspiring candidate who would have been 85 by the end of her term if she would have won (another examples of Schumer's 'leadership' - this factor in Platner's rise is still being glossed over). The leading candidates so far are all well known to Mainers and IMO a few of them have a very good chance at beating Collins.
If anything good came from Platner's campaign, it's that he has shown what Maine Dem voters want to see. Like many Democratic voters everywhere, they want a real fight against AI and crypto takeover, against billionaire power and PAC influence, against genocide, and for public health care, affordability, and a humane and just immigration system. Platner's message resonated - he was the wrong messenger.
It's also fortunate at least that Platner pulled out now with only days left until it would have been too late. There's nothing good about these allegations of course, he absolutely needed to go. But it could have been worse if the Dems were stuck with him after these latest charges became public (or , maybe even if these latest charges hadn't become public at all, he was already sliding in polls).
As a woman, I think rape abhorrent. I would not want it to happen to myself, my daughter, or my granddaughters, or any other woman. I see, however, a country so hypoocritical that it would elect a President who has been accused and found guilty of similar allegations - who, even when ordered by a court to pay up the fines he was found liable for, refuses to to date to pay the woman in question. Like Platner, he claims he was not guilty. Yet he was elected President - our moral leader.
There was a lot of negative information about him out there for a while. I find it hard to give kudos to his party backers now that they having an oh no moment , in light of all that. I find it difficult to believe that this came as a surprise to them.
I agree that Platner needed to withdraw. But what about Corey Booker? He has supported the killing of 10's of thousands of Palestinian women. Surely that should disqualifying him too.
You could say the same of much of the Dem leadership.
WHY do you think that ONLY dems are involved with AIPAC?
1. who said anything about AIPAC? 2. This convo is about the Democratic Party and its candidates, if you hadn't noticed 3. The GOP is beyond redemption, which is obvious to most people reading here.
Agreed
You are equating votes on policy to killing AND BLAMING ONLY the DEMOCRATS? GOP members have ALSO been aided by AIPAC, The entire GOP & GOP MOC are still in control and have spent $103B so far in bombing (at NETANYAHU's request) to aid N's war on Gaza & Lebanon. DO SOME RESEARCH and find out just how much AIPAC has been entangled in and influenced our government for DECADES. I was astonished. AIPAC itself is NOT just 1 organization. There are 100's of AIPAC pacs in the US.
While you are WRITING IN ALL CAPS as if that helps make your point, note that these are comments about an article explicitly and entirely focused on Democrats.
Note also that you are the only person to even mention AIPAC. The initial comment was about the long term Democratic support for mass killings of Palestinians, which is indisputable. Israel's genocide and apartheid was fully funded and politically supported by Biden and virtually all the elected Democratic leadership for 15 months (and before that really), and still continues.
If it necessary to add in the GOP< ok yes the GOP has supported genocide too. Happy? That is obvious and well known to Contrarian readers...what is less obvious and much less mentioned here is the full support given by much of the Democratic Party, despite what its base supports.
really, why go there
It's pretty obvious. The notion of scandal, or red lines, is incredibly subjective., and not just with the GOP that has no lines at all.
Platner needed to go, no doubt, as did Eric Swalwell...and of course, trump never should have been near the WH,.
But when both leading GOP and Dem officials openly , enthusiastically, emphatically support the mass murder of men, women and children with financial, military and political support...is this a 'scandal' or just regular ol politics? Why are these leaders not forcefully condemned for supporting such horrible crimes, that continue to this day?
This is also (again, obviously ) relevant because this support for genocide has enraged Democrats voter across the country. Being firmly against genocide shouldn't be a high bar, but apparently it is for many.
edited for spelling
OFFS. That is them most absurd and baseless claim yet from the so-called "pro-Palestinian" movement. I could say anyone who squawks "AIPAC AIPAC" at any candidate they don't like is an anti-Semite and should shut up and go away. It would make as much sense. Sheesh.