The Platner rape story: all in the timing
I was thinking yesterday of adding the following questions and observation to my post on Platner: what is he mulling over? Why not resign immediately? Not only is he mulling over what he’ll get from the Democrats if he drops out as they wish (as I stated in the post), but I think there’s at least a decent possibility that he’s such a narcissist, so tremendously full of himself and arrogant, that he might even refuse to drop out at all.
That would be quite something to see. After all, if you promote a scumbag, you have to deal with a scumbag.
So now I see this NY Post article. An excerpt:
Maine Democratic candidate Graham Platner appears to be holding the Democratic Party hostage — refusing to drop out after he was accused of rape unless he gets to approve his successor to run for the Senate, The Post has learned.
A source familiar with the campaign discussions said Platner, his campaign and political strategist Morris Katz are deliberating about the Maine Democrat dropping out but only if his replacement shares his left-wing values.
So the report is that he’s making demands and threatening not to drop out if they’re not met. Nice.
It certainly makes sense that the powers-that-be would like someone more moderate, in order to appeal to the somewhat purple state of Maine. Then again, Collins is pretty moderate herself. But my point is that Platner knows he has some power here and is loathe to give it up.
Needless to say, there’s been a ton of coverage of Platner in the last 24 hours, much of it about how the Democrats supported him till the current revelations about rape. Not date-rape, but what Whoopi Goldberg might or might not refer to as “rape-rape.”
Ace has a good summary of how the NY Times did a limited modified hang-out a while back by trying to get ahead of the rape and assault allegations without actually covering them truthfully. Rather, they mostly covered them up. It’s a long and involved post, but here’s some of it to give you the flavor:
The New York Times Knew All About Graham Platner’s Rape Allegation But Deliberately Buried It …
They also buried the allegations of non-rape abuse by Lyndsey Fifield — and she says she gave them the names of five friends who would corroborate the story (at least as far as her telling the same story contemporaneously).
Two of those friends, she told them, didn’t know about the abuse, but could corroborate the dates of their relationship. The other three could corroborate the abuse.
The New York Times chose to only contact the two friends Fifield expressly told them could not corroborate the abuse. They didn’t contact the three who could corroborate the abuse, deliberately.
Then the Times wrote that they contacted two friends “who could not corroborate” Fifield’s claims of abuse.
Don’t ever let anyone tell you that the people who write at the Times are stupid. They may be both knaves and fools in the classic sense, but they are not stupid and they know how to write exactly what they want to write.
There’s also a good piece in National Review in terms of a summary of what went wrong with Platner. But it has a flaw that I’ve noticed is present in just about every article I’ve read from the right about Platner, an omission that puzzles me.
For example, here’s a quote from that link:
If Platner fooled you [he’s addressing reporters on the left], maybe you should find something to do with your life besides writing columns about politics. Because the U.S. political landscape is full of creeps, cretins, con artists, crooks, and cads of every kind, and it always will be. If the media has any useful role to play in our system, it is to look beyond the spin and the campaign-crafted image and to tell the world who these candidates really are, warts and all, so the electorate can make an informed choice.
Talk about an idealistic vision! The point is that Platner did not fool them, not for a single moment. Nor will they ever “look beyond the spin.” They proudly create the spin. There is no devotion to the principle of truth. It’s about winning, period.
What’s more, this story did not come out now in the interests of truth. It came out now because Democrats and the MSM (redundancy, I know) realized Platner almost certainly would lose. So they had to torpedo him. They had held back the rape story not only to protect him till now, but to use in case they needed it in the future. Now they need it, so it’s printed. I think it’s just as simple as that.
And so you have a flood of people (take a look here) suddenly saying he has to go, people who defended him mightily till now. I repeat: it’s not the result of the story itself. The story being revealed is the result of the polls. The outrage at Platner’s behavior is the result of the polls. That’s all it is. Now, maybe they were outraged and worried even earlier, but they had to keep their mouths shut and pretend to defend him, all in the interests of winning. Once he no longer was a winner, they’re free to suddenly virtue-signal about him.
[ADDENDUM: The allegations have gotten worse.
How could that be, you ask? Here’s how:
One of Graham Platner’s ex-girlfriends alleged Tuesday that the embattled Maine Democrat repeatedly removed his condom during sex without asking permission.
“He would pull condoms off,” Lyndsey Fifield said in an interview with the Washington Post. “He would do it in a sneaky way. He wouldn’t tell me.”
“I confronted him both during and after [sex] because he knew that I was not on birth control and how dangerous that was,” Fifield added. “He would act like cute about it, like ‘Oh sneaky me.’”
Actually, I’m not sure that’s worse than breaking and entering and rape. Then again, it’s pretty bad.
However, a caveat the left will no doubt point out is that this allegation is by the Republican ex-girlfriend, not the “progressive” one. So it’s more suspect, as far as they’re concerned.
My own question is why, after he did this, would anyone continue to see him or sleep with him? She said it happened six times. And he’s not so compelling a specimen; he’s a pretty repellent guy even without this kind of sleazy conduct, as far as I can see.
Then again, Sylvia Plath may have had it right – at least, about some women but certainly not all:
… I have always been scared of you,
With your Luftwaffe, your gobbledygoo.
And your neat mustache
And your Aryan eye, bright blue.
Panzer-man, panzer-man, O You——Not God but a swastika
So black no sky could squeak through.
Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you.]
“Platner did not fool them, not for a single moment. Nor will they ever “look beyond the spin.” They proudly create the spin. There is no devotion to the principle of truth. It’s about winning, period.”
Inarguably true… which is why there is no limit to the evil of which they are capable because once in control, there is nothing they will not do to retain it.
But why not get rid of Platner before the Dem primary? What purpose, if any, did his presence and win in that primary serve?
He probably did appeal to a substantial number of “tough guy” men in Maine, but he won’t be on the ballot in the fall. So that doesn’t matter now.
Unless, the goal always was to trigger this replacement gambit, to specifically deprive the Maine electorate from having their say in the primary. An anti-democratic gambit. Maybe there is another reason, but I don’t see it.
TommyJay:
Janet Mills was polling poorly and they wanted her out. Platner had the following going for him: young (41), masculine vibes, could pose as “working class” and a long-time Mainer. He talked tough and they thought they knew all of his negatives. But they didn’t know all the negatives at first. At some point they learned about the tattoo, but they felt they (and he) could talk their way out of that. By April 30 Mills was gone. I don’t know at what point the Democrats learned of the depth and breadth of Platner’s negatives, but my guess is that, by that point, they couldn’t find a quick substitute they thought would do better than Platner against Collins. And he kept polling well against Collins for quite some time, so I think they thought they could still go with him and win. When that bubble burst, he had to go.
Obviously, though, they’re not confiding in me and so I don’t know for sure.
Hmm. It strikes me as something of a media/info war. I’m thinking of Bill Clinton’s girlfriends & allegations how their team tamped all that down. Vince Foster & PI Jerry Parks were involved in that effort.
I imagine the Dem leadership doesn’t care at all, if it can all be supressed. But it didn’t work in this instance. neo’s description of the NYTimes’ involvement is rather amazing, but not surprising at this point.
The amount of leftist trash spamming on Insty today says the left is panicking.
I added an ADDENDUM to the post.
It’s pretty repulsive.
If the dems have to pay Platner to drop out, maybe he’s waiting for a higher bid. Desperation…..
This is how shallow the Dem candidate pool is. Like Kamala and Waltz and Buttigieg and Dollar Store Obama. You can’t spell mediocrity without D and E and I. All their candidates are stupid under bright lights.
“Then again, Sylvia Plath may have had it right – at least, about some women but certainly not all.”
Well, “all” implies 100% while “some” is splendidly indefinite, but one side aspect of this Platner story that’s not getting much attention is… Here we go again! Good Lord, what the h*ll is wrong with “modern” women??
This guy was always an obvious PoS, and until he was dredged up to run for the Senate seat in Maine he was a total nobody and was just another bizarre, dangerous, raving lunatic.
Yet he had droves of women swooning for him, and more “girlfriends” than an Ottoman sultan.
This keeps happening WAY too often. Platner should be strung up from a lamppost, but these women should all be confined somewhere secure for their own safety.
Good grief…
I believe you have the right of your answer to TommyJay about why they supported him at all.
Knowing that they indeed knew most of this dirt on him I now wonder if the move to rid themselves of him was also planned allowing them to install without the involvement of lowly primary voters a person they wanted.
Just because your enemies are unprincipled, vicious and manipulative it does not mean they are geniuses.
Jeff Childers put a few observations in his post today that might be of interest here.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/clash-of-civilizations-tuesday-july
One I had not heard before (although apparently it’s not new) is that his annual income from selling oysters to his mother was about the same as his monthly disability payments from We the Taxpayers, based on a finding that his PTSD made him 100% disabled.
Right.
Jeff: “It’s a good thing that being a U.S. Senator is such an undemanding job. It’s easier than disability farming, anyway. And how wonderful that Democrat voters are so open-minded!”
If he’s farming oysters from a boat, he is less than 100% disabled, which IMO means “completely incapable of functioning productively.”
However, I mean no disrespect at all to those, especially veterans, who are struggling and need help; I just question the way the government runs the program and calculates their rates.
Jeff continues connecting some dots about WHY Platner is not jumping to do the bidding of the DNC and of the Democrat politicians who have turned away from him (so fickle! as if (like Neo said) they actually have some ethical principles).
The following, especially the bolded lines, emphasizes the information I also had not encountered before, as browsing the news headlines at random times, and occasionally skipping some days, usually means some kind of information has cycled out before I see it.
Jeff has had several recent posts on that topic.
I will go into the second half of Jeff’s post, where the line of connected dots takes off like a SpaceX booster. in my next comment. It’s an analysis that I hope holds up.
The drama continues:
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/clash-of-civilizations-tuesday-july
Why is that a game breaker for the Democrats? The details are persuasive, and their recounting entertaining, but here’s the bottom line:
But wait! There’s even more!
Several other individuals and companies also made pledges of substantial amounts.
Which destroys the entire structure that supports the Democrats’ political power and economic position.
Let’s hope it works better than the Covid vaccines.
Re: Sylvia Plath poem
Evolutionary psychology can be a hammer in search of nails, but when it comes to the sex roles I find it strong.
Men look for boobs, hips, youth and motherly qualities in women to give birth and take care of their children.
Woman look for muscles, strength and power to take care of themselves and their children.
This is hard-wired stuff. It shouldn’t be a surprise that some women find fascists and violent criminals attractive.
I also saw that clip with Moraff and Fan. What I get from that is that whoever checked him out for the DSA did a poor job, missing a lot of important details.
https://x.com/benryanwriter/status/2074308023514710134
Moraff comes across as a shifty unreliable character who is not answering truthfully when asked if he got all the information or not.
I’m not defending the Platner wart, but he allegedly raped a woman, then she continued the relationship (if I’m getting it right), and only reported the alleged rape much later, to save the country from Platner?!
Disgusting!
Selfy:
She told friends right away, and she told her therapist. She also immediately broke off the relationship.
You are getting the two ex-girlfriends confused with each other. Both stories are awful, but they are somewhat different.
Trump accounts:
A single $1000 investment at birth, if it doubles every 7 years (approx 10% annual return) would be worth over a million at age 70.
It’s perversely entertaining to me to see so many Trump supporters marvel at how Democrats could have supported Platner despite so many warning signs. I believe Democrats (or more accurately the DSA operatives pushing Platner) saw how Republicans stuck it out with Trump and decided that they should be able to do the same thing.
FWIW, I think there is a difference. By all accounts, Trump was a cad as a younger man. Platner, on the other hand, appears to be a sociopath. That said, Trump first ran for president at the age of 69 and took office at 70. Platner is 41. It definitely helped Trump that all of the woman-related allegations against him were at least a decade old and most were older than that.
But neo is right on with the theory about timing. For the first time in past few weeks, the polls were showing Collins even with Platner. When Collins was down in the polls last cycle, she ended up winning comfortably so if she’s even now, I believe that Dems concluded that Platner was looking like a loser.
We’ll see if he actually drops out. Reports are that he’s trying to strong arm Democrats to allow him to select his replacement. His leverage increases as the deadline for replacing him on the ballot approaches. So, if that’s true, don’t expect a resolution until the 11th hour. I could also see him stick it out and refuse to drop out, and Democrats would absolutely stick with him if he does. Republicans stuck with Trump after Access Hollywood, and the J6 riots, so the permission structure/rationaliztion for Dems is already in place.
Who knew The Great Orange Whale could be connected to the Platner puss,
but lo and behold,
he can be.
Risible.
It’s the same phenomenon, om. Trumpists executed a hostile takeover of the GOP. The DSA crowd is attempting the same type of hostile takeover of the Democratic party.
Trumpists executed a hostile takeover of the GOP.
==
In 2016, fully 75% of the Republican primary and caucus vote went to (1) Donald Trump, (2) Ted Cruz, and (3) a scrum of minor candidates whose disposition toward the political world is alien to that of Glitch McConnell and the Capitol Hill / K Street nexus. The ‘hostile takeover’ was implemented by actual Republican voters, the sort of people McConnell and the Business Agenda crew regard as marks to be milked for votes and contributions and otherwise ignored.
==
If we’re fortunate, the vacuous careerists, the greasy crooks, and the terminally spineless won’t be calling the shots anymore.
Risible, thy name is Bauxite.
Please note, in order to combat DSA and the sorosphere, others in the Democratic Party would have to develop themes which would motivate the rest of the Democratic Party electorate to mobilize contra DSA. They’re more likely to pander to the DSA electorate than mobilize against them.
==
Please note, Trump’s initiative have been in favor of (1) vigorous enforcement of the immigration laws, (2) a more combative stance in trade negotiations, and (3) an orientation in foreign relations which is more influenced by economic factors and less interested in social work abroad. That these objects so offend the Capitol Hill nexus and street-level Democrats tells you something you did not know before about the political world as it was in June of 2015.
For what it’s worth, Art Deco, I don’t think that Democrats would have any problem at all with (2) and (3) if it was being done by someone other than Trump.
That, and your facts are a little off:
Trump: 44.9%
Cruz: 25.1%
Rubio: 11.3%
Kasich: 13.8%
I’m not sure how you get to “fully 75% of the Republican primary and caucus vote went to (1) Donald Trump, (2) Ted Cruz, and (3) a scrum of minor candidates.”
Not to mention that: (a) if you’re trying to disprove an assertion that Trumpists took over the GOP, you don’t get to roll Cruz’s numbers into Trump’s; and (b) those numbers reflect a process where almost 15% of the total vote was cast AFTER Trump clinched the nomination. At the time he clinched, Trump had won barely 40% of the votes cast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries
Trumpists executed a hostile takeover of the GOP.
How dare those peasants forget their place, which is to vote for whoever they are told to vote for.
I’m not sure how you get to “fully 75% of the Republican primary and caucus vote went to (1) Donald Trump, (2) Ted Cruz, and (3) a scrum of minor candidates.”
==
Trump took 45% of the ballots, Cruz 25%, Ben Carson et al about 5%. This isn’t that difficult.
==
Not to mention that: (a) if you’re trying to disprove an assertion that Trumpists took over the GOP, you don’t get to roll Cruz’s numbers into Trump’s;
==
Yes I do, Cruz had a more antagonistic relationship with McConnell than did Trump. The points of contention differed.
==
It wasn’t difficult for Trump to establish himself among GOP voters because he advocates and pursues no policies which violate the tolerance threshold of those voters. He bothers political professionals who have an agenda to which they do not admit.
==
He bothers a small population of fence-sitters because he’s indecorous. The rest of us who have had to witness sixty years worth of degradation in public life are bemused that it’s an issue when its Trump. The more prominent among this crew of people are indifferent to the abuse of the legal system in order to get Trump.
A link to Iowahawk’s T. Coddington Vorheese VII essay
https://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/im-beginning-believe-obama-fellow-unequal-task-greg-pollowitz/
Before National Review succomed to TDS.
Lots of Dems know that Dems lie about sexual abuse. They know Anita Hill was lying, Christine Blasey Ford was lying, many against Trump were lying—so they think Reps would lie, too.
They do NOT believe Rep women. Like Broderick on being raped, not-raped, yes raped by Bill Clinton. (She was a big Clinton supporter before). I didn’t follow the 90s details about her allegations, and the consensual defense to the adultury. Great talking slimeball slut-jerk, admired womanizer.
We’re not quite at the point of publicly asking if the woman had an orgasm, and few, none?, of those accusing the abusers admit that the scumbag made them come. Likely with some experience with nicer guys who were just ok, no sparks, didn’t make them scream.
Orgasms is the likely answer to Neo’s question, why did the women stick around.
A few women I knew, we were all too promiscuous before AIDS, admitted to me that they did have great sex with this one guy who was a jerk, but well hung.
The Big-O is not everything in sex, but it’s quite a lot. And sex is not everything in a relationship, but it’s quite a lot.
And honesty is not everything in a blog, but I have little interest in those who seem to write stuff they don’t really believe, still happy in my third decade when reading the honest thoughts of Neo.
Lots of honest commenters too, like Art Deco.
The smart money says National Review isn’t deranged. Their editors have no time for any effort to replace McConnellism, but they figured out that the Weekly Standard business model wasn’t working for the Weekly Standard and would not work for them. Hence, various guises and poses. They apparently figured David French and Jonah Goldberg were liabilities.
==
I’m not sure there is reliable data on what their paid circulation actually is these days or who is propping them up financially.