With Platner … Democrats Stand Against Alleged Rape but Not Antisemitism

By the time you read this, Maine’s Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner may have already withdrawn from the race in the wake of an accusation of rape leveled against him from nearly five years ago. The accuser, Jenny Racicot, a woman with whom Platner maintained an on-and-off relationship for more than two years, claims that in late 2021 he entered her rural Maine home uninvited while deeply intoxicated and forced himself upon her despite her repeated and clear objections. She has characterized the encounter as non-consensual.

Platner denies the allegation outright (well, duh) — declaring any suggestion of non-consensual conduct “categorically untrue.” He does not deny categorically having had a sexual relationship with Racicot. He insists that all his sexual indiscretions – before and during his marriage — were entirely consensual.

For the most part, this remains another classic she said/he said dispute with little in the way of corroborating physical evidence. Yet the left leaning media – operating in the court of public opinion — have swiftly deemed the accusation “credible.” They are surrounding Platner like sharks smelling blood in the water.

This development lands atop a lengthy catalog of prior controversies and misbehaviors. Among the most notable is the Nazi Totenkopf tattoo – the unmistakable death’s head emblem of Hitler’s SS – that adorned Platner’s chest for more than 18 years. He only arranged to have it covered at the launch of his Senate campaign, when it drew public criticism.

Platner has claimed he remained blissfully unaware of its Nazi significance until recently — an explanation that strains credulity. An ex-girlfriend had already described it in private messages as a “Nazi tattoo” and specifically as a “Totenkopf” months before Platner professed ignorance.

In addition to the Nazi fascination, Platner has other issues – including a documented pattern of sexting multiple women during his marriage and reports of physically threatening or disturbing conduct toward former romantic partners.

His archived Reddit comments have also drawn scrutiny, including praise for the “damn fine looking and successful” tactics of a 2014 Hamas raid that killed Israeli soldiers, as well as his public characterization of Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocide.” These statements — combined with the tattoo and other associations — fueled widespread credible accusations of antisemitic and pro-Hamas sympathies long before the current scandal.

The rape allegation has produced a dramatic collapse in support from leading Democrats. Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, along with California Representatives Ro Khanna and Ruben Gallego, have rescinded or distanced themselves from their earlier endorsements. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and other major funders are dropping Platner faster than billionaires are fleeing New York City. The Maine Democratic Party has formally called for his withdrawal ahead of the candidate filing deadline.

Conversely, the sudden elevation of this accusation raises questions. Racicot had accused Platner of sexual misconduct in 2023 – following earlier allegations from other women. Interestingly, the story gained explosive traction only now – at the precise moment Platner’s prospects against incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins appeared to be fading.

Democrats are exhibiting the same cold calculus they applied to President Biden: Stand by the candidate for as long as politically expedient, then jettison him without hesitation the instant he looks like a loser. The fact that they are now rolling back their support and endorsements is less interesting than the fact they gave that support and those endorsements in the first place. Their newfound opposition to Platner’s candidacy makes their initial support much more offensive. They should have opposed him from the get-go. It is just that they should have done it before they made him their candidate.

What remains most remarkable is the magnitude of the Democratic Party’s hypocrisy. With few exceptions – such as Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, Massachusetts Congressman Jake Auchincloss –- most powerful Democrats were supporting Platner.

The very same progressive politicians and activists now expressing outrage over an unsubstantiated sexual assault accusation had exhibited no such qualms about Platner’s Nazi tattoo, his apparent antisemitic leanings, his praise for Hamas tactics, his “genocide” rhetoric against Israel and a history of sexual improprieties.

Hatred of the Jewish state, contempt for Jewish political influence, and tolerance for symbols of the regime responsible for the murder of six million Jews constituted no barrier to their enthusiastic backing during the Maine Democratic primary. Those endorsements helped deliver him the nomination — and they were hoping their endorsements would get him elected in November. That was until Platner became more toxic than Chernobyl.

Abandoning Platner – justifiable as it may be — exposes the party’s cynical opportunism. Democrat leaders overlooked the antisemitism and sexual misconduct accusations when it advanced their dream of taking control of the Senate — and became concerned only when it appeared that Platner was losing.

In the final analysis, this episode illuminates the moral flexibility and selective outrage that define today’s Democratic Party far more than it indicts any single candidate. The Democratic Party is no less antisemitic today than it was when all those party leaders were piling on the Platner bandwagon.

So, there ‘tis.