SouthernWorldwide.com – The Democratic Party in Maine appears to be facing a significant test of its principles as they consider U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner.
So far, Democrats have seemingly accepted Platner’s possession of a Nazi tattoo. They have also overlooked his past online statements from 2013 suggesting rape victims should accept accountability, and his 2020 characterization of rural Americans as “stupid” and “racist.” More disturbingly, as recently as 2019, he posted that U.S. Army Pfc. Ted Daniels, who was shot in Afghanistan, did not deserve to live and openly supported the Taliban. Regarding these past comments, Platner stated, “I’m proud that I got through a dark period in my life, and I’m proud of the life that I live now.” This raises the question of when this supposed “dark period” actually concluded.
Adding to the controversies, Platner’s wife reportedly informed campaign staff that he had been sending sexually explicit messages to several women as recently as last year, utilizing the messaging app Kik. It remains unclear if these actions are also considered part of his “dark period.”
A recent report from The New York Times has further exposed aspects of Platner’s character, none of which are favorable. While the article adopts a relatively gentle tone, refraining from overtly harsh criticisms of the likely Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate from Maine, the very fact that a liberal publication chose to publish such a story suggests that there are indeed significant issues at hand.
DEMOCRATS ‘SELLING THEIR SOUL’ TO EMBRACE PLATNER ARE IN FOR RUDE AWAKENING WITH MAINE VOTERS: GOP LAWMAKER
The New York Times interviewed several women, including Lyndsey Fifield, who dated Platner between 2013 and 2015. Fifield is identified as a “Virginia conservative who has worked for right-leaning groups and Republican campaigns,” a framing that could imply her claims should be viewed with skepticism. However, her allegations warrant serious consideration.
Fifield alleges that Platner was aware of his tattoo’s Nazi origins, stating that his unit specifically chose the symbol for that reason. She recounted Platner telling her and other unit members that they selected the tattoo because they identified as a “death unit,” akin to killers, and saw a parallel with the Nazi Schutzstaffel (S.S.) unit that used the skull-and-crossbones imagery. According to Fifield, “They literally, deliberately, selected it because it was relevant to their military unit.”
This account directly contradicts Platner’s narrative, which he has maintained since October 2021, the same month he had the tattoo removed. He previously claimed he simply got a tattoo that looked cool while on leave. Fifield, however, informed friends about the Nazi tattoo in August. This timeline raises questions about how she could have known about it before Platner allegedly did. The implication is that he was aware of its Nazi connection all along, yet Democrats continue to support him.
GRAHAM PLATNER DENIES DAMNING NEW REPORT ALLEGING ABUSE AS ‘SIMPLY NOT TRUE’
Fifield also claims that Platner was frequently rough with her. While she is careful not to state that he physically assaulted her, she described him regularly grabbing her shoulders with enough force to leave marks. On one occasion, after an argument where she wanted to remain in a cab, he allegedly yanked her out by her wrist. During another dispute, she recalled him twisting her arm behind her back, shoving her into a bedroom, and holding the door shut from the outside, telling her to stay there until she was “calm.” Fifield eventually fell asleep and left the following morning.
The New York Times characterized this behavior as “unsettling,” but in many other contexts, such actions would be unequivocally labeled as abuse.
Responding to these accusations, Platner stated that he “had ‘too often self medicated with alcohol, and was a far from perfect boyfriend’ during what he described as a ‘very dark period of my life.’”
It appears Platner might find it easier to identify periods in his life that were *not* “dark.”
The day before The New York Times published its story, Platner met with Democratic senators and assured them that no further negative revelations about him would surface. The Wall Street Journal reported that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who was also present at the meeting, inquired about the difference between marital issues and allegations of sexual assault. Platner reportedly agreed with this distinction and denied that any credible allegations of assault were expected.
It is disheartening that a Nazi tattoo and the other controversies have not been sufficient for Warren to withdraw her support. However, her specific question about sexual assault is noteworthy. Platner’s response regarding “credible” allegations suggests he may be aware of potential future stories.
It is still early June, and a significant number of damaging allegations and details about Platner have already emerged. The primary election has not even occurred yet. The question remains: how much more will Democrats tolerate in their pursuit of defeating the largely moderate Republican Susan Collins? Can they be confident that the New York Times story is the last of these revelations, especially after they were previously assured there would be no more? Or, once a candidate with a Nazi tattoo, who has minimized rape victims and mocked military members in combat, is accepted, is there truly anything left that Democrats will not accept?
