As an old teacher of mine would sometimes say, particularly when a student struggled to answer a straightforward question: “If it were a dog, it would be biting your leg.”
On Saturday, The Wall Street Journal shared an interview with three activists who are backing Graham Platner’s populist campaign against the Republican incumbent, Susan Collins: Daniel Moraff, Leanne Fan, and Morris Katz, who is also connected to Zohran Mamdani’s efforts. It seems the opposition research team they enlisted didn’t quite do a thorough job. Maybe they didn’t properly vet those tasked with the vetting—or perhaps they were just too caught up in their own hype to recognize the implications of their oversight.
“We paid a decent firm a good sum of money and received various findings,” Moraff confessed to the WSJ, admitting, “Some of what you’ve seen in the news we got back, others we didn’t.”
Reporter Aaron Zitner inquired about a controversial tattoo that Platner claims he got while inebriated in Croatia without grasping its complete significance: “Did the vetting process reveal the tattoo that sparked such discussion?”
The response is hard to believe.
“No,” Moraff replied.
Zitner also asked about several unflattering Reddit posts that were uncovered, including one where Platner supposedly acknowledged engaging in public masturbation in porta-potties.
Moraff’s explanation is somewhat humorous.
“The firm provided us with a report that included some posts, but not all of them,” he explained.
Katz came to Platner’s defense, despite the growing controversies. He contended that for the Democratic Party to endure, it needs to adapt to evolving political landscapes.
“In my view, the greatest danger for the Democratic Party is to persist in the same ways that have left us with a minority in the House, a minority in the Senate, and a second term of Donald Trump,” he argued. “We can’t be the party that merely upholds the establishment and institutional ways.”
It’s a bit amusing that Democrats finally found a straight male candidate who could potentially connect with blue-collar voters. They seem to have picked up on the cues. (Remember when they attempted to run Tim Walz alongside Kamala Harris for male voter appeal?)
Yet, among all the candidates they could have chosen, they selected someone with far too many past issues to ignore. They’re really left with only themselves—and their research team—to blame.
