The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Establishment Attacks On Platner Are Classic Woke Attacks On The Populist Left

I think everyone who’s observed American, indeed, Western politics is aware that whenever a strong economic left winger comes along the attacks on him are almost always primarily about violations of “woke”.

Corbyn was attacked for anti-semitism, when he might be the most anti-racist person on the Earth. The idea that he was anti-semitic was laughable on the face, he’d be the first person putting his body on the line if there were actual threats to Jews.

What was remarkable about the smears against Corbyn is that the guy is practically a Saint. He’s as pure as driven snow or aquifer water run through a triple filter.

Not everyone is. Al Franken did some inappropriate things, though none of them rose to the level where he should have stepped down.

Woke is used because it works, especially sexual harassment allegations. It doesn’t just work against the left. New York Governor Cuomo was taken down for sexual harassment, which I always found hilarious, because this is a guy whose policies killed thousands of people during Covid when he stuck Covid patients in old folks homes. That’s gross negligent manslaughter, in my books, and he should have gone to prison, not just lost his job, but it was the sex stuff that took him down.

That doesn’t mean the Democratic establishment wanted him gone. Oh no. They supported him to the hilt against Mamdani in the NYC elections. Anything can be forgiven if you serve corporate interests, nothing can be forgiven if you don’t.

Platner’s the latest target, and man is he ripe. There’s the skull and crossbones tattoo: Nazi symbology which he got as a soldier twenty years ago.

They attacked him on that. It didn’t work. It didn’t work for the same reason attacks on Trump didn’t use to work: because Platner appears very anti-establishment (and unlike Trump, probably is.) He’s a left wing economic populist. This is from the top of his policy page:

So out came the sexual allegations. First the fact that near the start of his marriage he sent texts to women. That caused marital issues (surprise!) but Platner and his wife got counseling. Platner’s wife, Amy Gertner:

“It makes me really angry, disappointed,” Platner’s wife, Amy Gertner, said in a direct-to-camera video Platner’s campaign released Saturday night. “And I find it really shameful that there’s a group of media outlets and people who are willing to spread gossip instead of talking about real issues that Graham is running on.”

One might wish to discount this: political wives are famous for publicly dismissing scabrous behaviour. But it was years ago, and she has stayed with him.

Of more interest, I think, is this:

The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal reported that Gertner told Platner’s campaign about the sexually explicit texts last year, near the start of his Senate bid. Her disclosure came during a conversation with campaign officials about potential opposition research into Platner, the two outlets reported, with the Times citing a former senior official in Platner’s campaign and the Journal citing people familiar with the matter.

I believe this falls under “the call came from inside the house!” Platner and his wife were foolish enough to trust Democratic officials, not realizing that the Democratic party is the opposition, far more than the Republicans.

Now we have the New York Times, doubling down:

Amid the turmoil, Mr. Platner worked the phones, rolling through calls to ex-girlfriends who might publicly acknowledge that while he may have been a bad boyfriend, he was, in fact, a decent guy.

In interviews with The New York Times on Wednesday, several women did just that, describing Mr. Platner as a fun and caring partner, and saying they felt safe with him. Some remain friends with him to this day, years after their relationships ended.

But in extensive conversations over the past two months, three other women who had been romantically involved with Mr. Platner offered a far more complicated assessment, describing volatile and “toxic” relationships that were unsettling and at times emotionally wrenching.

Mr. Platner could be charming and charismatic, they recalled in interviews, but also demeaning to women and, in at least one case, even physically threatening. He drank heavily and was regularly unfaithful.

OK. Sounds like some of his ex-girlfriends like him, and others don’t. But there’s no allegation of rape or assault, only “once physically threatening” and you know that if there were, they’d have run with it.

I don’t think Platner sounds like the greatest guy with women, but I think it’s also unlikely you’ll find many people, men or women, who have had multiple relationships and all their ex’s don’t have anything bad to say about him. I also don’t think that any of this is disqualifying for office.

Serious war crime allegations, since he was a soldier, would be. A pattern of corruption in business would be. “Has, on occasion, been a jerk to women and unfaithful” is laughable. Neither FDR nor JFK were faithful, their behaviour was far worse than Platner’s, and FDR, at least, was arguably the best President America ever had for ordinary citizens.

But for whatever reason, Americans take allegations like these much more seriously than gross corruption, bribe taking, insider trading, or mass murder.

Or—they did. Because so far this doesn’t seem to be working against Platner. Americans are finally getting their priorities straight again: certainly rape or assault should be disqualifying (though neither were for Trump), but sexual immorality? Please.

The woke attack takedown, perfected and used for a couple generations now, is beginning to fail. Voters are looking at the actual issues and thinking “actually, I care more about the fact that I can’t afford rent, food, gas and healthcare.”

In this I finally see some hope that Americans voters might be growing up. For may years now Americans have basically gotten the politicians they deserve, with some exceptions. To deserve better they have to stop being suckers. The takedown of Thomas Massie by the Israeli lobby was a bad sign. The failure, so far, to take down Platner is a good one.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Previous

Character and Destiny

6 Comments

  1. Defending Platner is a waste of time. They are ALL imposters of one sort or another and to one degree or another. As Jan said, the predicament is rooted structurally and systemically. One imposter pushing favorable rhetorical buttons isn’t going to make one iota of difference even IF they were genuine and Platner certainly is not.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/armedsocialists/comments/1oxewa6/fork_found_in_kitchen_photo_of_graham_platner/

    As far as I’m concerned, he’s another Fetterman sans the stroke — a rough and tumble man of the people. As if. Platner, despite being an “Oyster Man”, hails from a privileged background. He attended elite private schools.

    https://freebeacon.com/democrats/working-class-graham-platner-attended-elite-75k-a-year-prep-school-known-for-famous-government-alumni/

  2. Maine Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner relies on two primary political consultancy firms to handle his campaign communications, strategy, and media:

    Fight Agency: A progressive Democratic media consulting firm that helped launch Platner’s campaign. Founding partner Rebecca Katz serves as a lead strategist and media consultant.

    Good Influence: A digital and influencer firm that managed the campaign’s digital and social media strategies.

    https://www.fight.agency/team

    Fight Agency is a Democratic media and political consulting firm founded in 2025 by veteran strategists Rebecca Katz, Tommy McDonald, and Julian Mulvey. The founders previously served as key strategists and ad-makers for Senator John Fetterman’s successful 2022 Senate bid.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5581737-mamdani-campaign-strategy-agency/

    What a tangled web that’s been woven.

  3. Ian Welsh

    Is Ilhan Omar a fake?

    But the point I’m making isn’t primarily about defending anyone.

  4. Buffalobob

    Contrast the media’s treatment of Platner with that of Paxton in Texas. Paxton has been indicted on Securities Fraud and impeached on bribery charges while Texas Attorney General. In fairness he was acquitted in both instances. He is currently involved in sordid divorce proceedings with ample evidence of infidelity, while a candidate for Senate in Texas, representing the ‘family values” party.

    The Republican party seems quite comfortable with his candidacy, because he will serve their financial and political overlords.

    Platner is a boy scout in comparison, but threatens the Democratic Party’s big money masters. Democracy at work!

  5. Dan Lynch

    No major disagreement with Ian’s essay but on the other hand I am not invested in Platner because 1) he won’t be on my ballot and 2) if he is elected he won’t make an iota of difference. Look, you’re not going to reform the Democratic party, and you’re not going to reform the U.S. two party system by continuing to vote for either of the two parties who have a vested interest in maintaining that system. Major change will only come after a war, a collapse, a revolution, or some other tumultous event, and when change finally comes, it may not be the flavor of change that you and I had in mind.

    Howard Zinn repeatedly emphasized that voting — as it exists in the U.S. two party system — was only marginally useful. Ian, on the other hand, still believes that voting matters and that people get the politicians they deserve. I’m with Zinn. Blaming Americans for their bad political system is like blaming children for their bad parents. We did not choose this system, we were born into it, and we are constantly brainwashed by an oligarch controlled media so that even if we could choose a new system, few would know how to go about it.

  6. spud

    Platner is running for a state wide office. this dilutes the power of the rural second coming of jeebus crowd.

    if he was running for a house seat, all 435 house seats are gerrymandered by law, to give a over sized representation to rural folks, thus they have a veto on just about everything in many house districts.

    this violates constitutional representation.
    ———–
    A quarter of rural voters in U.S. Senate battleground states make voting decisions based on their faith rather than finances. This trend shows that faith plays a significant role in shaping the political preferences of rural communities, particularly among Republicans.
    themainemonitor.org

    Influence of Evangelicals in Rural Voting

    Faith Over Finances: A recent poll indicates that 25% of rural voters in U.S. Senate battleground states prioritize their faith when making voting decisions, rather than their financial situations.

    Republican Preference: Among rural voters, Republicans are more likely to be influenced by faith in their voting choices compared to Democrats. Approximately 80% of Republicans believe that faith unites communities, while only 55% of Democrats share this view.

    Demographic Insights
    Demographic Group Likelihood to Vote Based on Faith Likelihood to Vote Based on Finances
    Republicans Higher (most likely) Lower (less likely)
    Democrats Lower (less likely) Higher (more likely)

    Rural Maine Example: In Maine, a state with a less religious profile compared to others, rural voters are less conservative than those in more religious rural areas, such as Alabama. This indicates that the influence of faith on voting can vary significantly by region.

    Political Dynamics: The role of faith in rural voting reflects broader trends in American politics, where religious beliefs can significantly shape electoral outcomes, particularly in Republican-leaning areas.

    Understanding these dynamics is crucial for analyzing the political landscape in rural America, especially as elections approach.
    themainemonitor.org Brookings
    ————-

    Corbyn was a fool. he gutted the U.K.’s best chance to escape neo-liberal hell. he stood by and took all of the smears with barley a blip out of him. he even went to tony blair for advice, that’s like sherrod brown of ohio asking bill clinton for advice in the 2024 election. he even wanted a second vote on leave, you can’t make this stuff up.
    ———–

    as predicted, the dope corbyn managed to turn the U.K. election into a rerun of the american 2016 election; they even demonized people like me that said its the policies stupid.

    snicker:) And if you think that the almost 100% correlation between the strength of the Leave vote and the change in seats in the heartlands is not meaningful then you lack analytical capacity (being polite).

    And if you think that the almost 100% correlation between the strength of the Leave vote and the change in seats in the heartlands is not meaningful then you lack analytical capacity (being polite)

    just like in america,

    “If you didn’t see Trump’s victory coming, you weren’t paying attention to the anger of your fellow citizens — and neither was the Democratic Party.

    For those who opened their eyes to see, every aspect of Trump’s “surprise” win was visible in plain sight.”

    i love victory laps:) Last Thursday Britain held the ‘2nd’ referendum that all those smart-alec, urban, educated, cosmos were demanding, and which so perverted the Labour Party’s message to the people.

    If the massive swing to the Tories is anything to go by, the Leave vote intensified.

    And it was entirely predictable.

    here is Mitchell’s take, a towering MMT economist. its a great take down of incompetence. its copyrighted, so i just give a peek. please go read the whole thing.

    —–
    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=43876

    An evolving 6-point plan for British Labour

    Monday, December 16, 2019 bill Britain, Politics, Reclaim the State, UK Economy 54 Comments

    In the last few days, since the British General Election last Thursday, I have seen the rising denial of so-called progressives trying to come up with all sorts of excuses for Labour’s devastating defeat.

    I have seen various aggregations of the votes presented on Twitter and elsewhere attempting to claim that, in fact, the vote was a vote for Remain rather than Brexit.

    The line being spun is that the Tories do not have a mandate to implement Brexit, that the strong majority of British voters want to remain in the European Union and that, and that Labour’s defeat was about other things.

    Other things certainly impacted – such as the UK Guardian’s relentless and ridiculous campaign against Jeremy Corbyn which gave air to the anti-semitism ruse. And, the continued passive insurgency within the Parliamentary Labour Party from the Blairites who could not move beyond the past.

    —————-
    L&S:

    you could be right. but there maybe something there that the clintonites see as danger will Robinson! even something left wing that is very small, sets off alarm bells for the clintonite’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén