Good to see you, Reader.
Yesterday felt like a significant moment, maybe a real turning point for modern Democrat politics. But I’m not entirely convinced that it is.
We’re dealing with individuals who lack any genuine moral compass. Similar to Trump, they’ll likely find a way to escape this mess too.
THIS SHOULD BE A TURNING POINT, BUT IT WON’T BE
For proof that humor exists in some unexpected places, take Graham Platner.
He’s a Democratic Senate candidate in Maine, and he seems set to claim the seat, even if it’s by a narrow margin. His confidence exposes the melodramatic fears the political left has been instilling in the public for years.
(By the way, I’m still not over his opponent, Susan Collins, voting against the Save Act and then losing to a Democrat like Platner.)
The same party that disrupted the lives of everyday working-class Hispanics over supposed “OK” signs now aims to elevate a man sporting Nazi tattoos to a powerful political position. Some attempts have been made to downplay the tattoos. I’ll admit, Nazi symbols were rather prevalent in early 2000s military culture. Still, why should Platner get a pass? Is it simply because he identifies as a Democrat? Is power in the Senate more important than maintaining some kind of moral standards?
But, here’s the irony, this notion of leftist morality has always been manufactured. It was never really there. Movements like Black Lives Matter, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and #MeToo have often seemed more about power grabs than genuine morality. That’s why they can be set aside when power is at stake.
The New York Times recently released a highly anticipated report on Platner’s troubling history concerning women, and some of us recognized it immediately for what it was: a “catch and kill.”
The term ‘catch and kill’ describes a dubious tactic where a PR firm collaborates with a friendly media outlet to suppress a negative story about their client, either by delaying it or making it less impactful.
A ‘soft catch and kill’ is similar, though the story does get published, but with details softened or buried within the article to lessen the impact. The outlet can say it did its job while giving the target enough leeway to survive.
The Times didn’t aim to provide a fair platform for Platner’s alleged abuse; it aimed to mislead and silence dissenting voices.
The narrative centers around one named source, Lyndsey Fifield, who has worked in GOP communications for years. (Just a note: I’ve known Fifield professionally for quite a while and briefly sought to hire her.)
Fifield claims to the Times—on the record—that Platner mistreated her during a tumultuous relationship while he was working as a bartender in D.C. She provided diary entries, text messages, and even names of potential corroborators to substantiate her claims.
You can read her complete statement here regarding how the Times handled her story. In essence, they didn’t follow through on promises to include corroborating witnesses and framed her in a way that could make her seem disingenuous.
This perception is already surfacing.
Reading The New York Times article without partisanship reveals that the man has numerous flaws that would have been red flags for liberals in the past. He’s abusive toward women—both allegedly and, it seems, physically—and he’s excessively self-centered. His online presence reflects the kind of extremism that liberals have historically been quick to blame on the right. Under a pseudonym, he even celebrated the deaths of American soldiers.
He made alarming boasts, claiming that if a man broke into his house, he’d assault him, but “not in a gay way.”
Can you believe that? The casual dismissal is too surreal.
It’s almost poetic for a tattooed white veteran who has a history of abuse to symbolize the decline of movements like #MeToo, BLM, and DEI all at once.
It feels divinely ironic.
—
Before I wrap this up, let me mention that second punch I promised.
Tyler O’Neil’s entire discussion on the SPLC is definitely worth your time. Even Elon Musk seemed to notice it. In brief, allegations against the SPLC are worse than previously thought. They reportedly allocated $300,000 to fund supposed right-wing extremists for the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and they’ve used donor funds for other questionable activities.
Shockingly, it seems that a member of the SPLC was even romantically involved with one of these extremists.
As someone who has been directly impacted by the SPLC’s actions, specifically through a campaign against the Daily Caller where they labeled us as having a “white nationalist problem,” this is personal for me.
The evidence they cited was flimsy, involving a handful of contributors I had never met and a few others with no real connection to extremism.
One friend, Richard Pollock, was called a white nationalist simply for discussing journalism at a public event. Pollock is an observant Jew who has a history of charitable work.
It’s a relief we cleared his name, but it just goes to show how weak the accusation always was.
So, to circle back, why am I supposed to feel guilty?
This was the opening statement they released:
Turns out, the SPLC was more heavily involved in the rally than someone who wrote a few freelance pieces for us.
Really? We have the “problem”? That’s just… absurd.
We paid Kessler less than $200 for his work, while the SPLC spent a staggering $300,000 to ensure everything went smoothly.
MORE LINKS
Senate Approves Significant Immigration Enforcement Bill Following Complications
Big developments occurred early this morning.
Spencer Pratt And Regular Citizens Have Secured A Win Before the Race Has Even Concluded
He might be able to prevent an even worse outcome.
ROOKE: Couple Who Terminated Their Pregnancy Now Advocate for Pets with Terminal Illness
We need a collective reset as a society.
