Revelations about Graham Platner's Nazi tattoo and misconduct with women suggests Dems who defend him sound like Republicans defending Donald Trump

As the list of scandals connected to Graham Platner continues to grow, one veteran Democratic aide in the U.S. Senate has described the party's mood as "apoplectic." The willingness of some prominent Dems to overlook the downsides of a deeply flawed candidate brings another adjective to mind -- and that is "Trumpian."

Will Democrats who choose to stand behind Platner, seemingly at all costs, prove to have made a wise call? We won't have to wait long to find out; the primary in Maine, which is attracting voluminous media coverage, is tomorrow.

Even Americans who have tended not to give Maine much thought should be thinking about it now. That's because the Democratic Party has become more than the home of progressive and liberal ideas. It is our only functional political party -- the only one capable of governing, the only one with even a serious interest in governing. Republicans long ago abandoned any such ideals, turning their party over to a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist who has credibly been accused of acts that could amount to "crimes against humanity." Also, a tipster stated in an FBI document that longtime TV host Robin Leach strangled a girl at a sex party on a Trump property, with the victim's body buried on a Trump golf course.

Now Democrats seem willing to ditch the moral high ground for a candidate who is not worth it and clearly is not qualified to serve in the U.S. Senate -- no matter how well he polls in Maine.

Politico examines these issues and more under the headline "Democrats are furious after latest Platner revelations." A subhead reads "A New York Times report with new allegations about the Democrat's Nazi symbol tattoo and his conduct with women has the party freaking out over its Maine Senate chances."

Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for the Platner-induced quandary in which they find themselves. They should have rejected his candidacy months ago -- not only because of the scandals but because he has no high level or elected experience in government, providing no reason to believe he can serve effectively in the U.S. Senate. Too many Dems have taken the approach of "We simply must win this race in Maine and finally eject Republican Susan Collins from the U.S. Senate, so we will overlook our guy's flaws and saddle up on a gimpy thoroughbred to ride in the political equivalent of the Kentucky Derby." That's the kind of short-term GOPesque thinking that gave the world Donald Trump. To see Democrats stoop to that level is disheartening for those who believe in the party, and it could be borderline tragic for the country. 

Platner has cast himself as an anti-establishment candidate, with supporters willing to take on both Republicans and Democratic Party kingmakers. This is from the Politico report:

Democrats are at each other’s throats about Graham Platner after his latest scandal. They don’t know what to do about it.

The New York Times released a report Thursday with disturbing accounts from several of Platner’s ex-girlfriends, just days before he is set to win the Democratic nomination to face GOP Sen. Susan Collins in Maine, a critical Senate battleground. One woman described Platner grabbing her in ways that left marks and once locking her in a room. She also claimed he knew that his tattoo resembled a Nazi symbol when he got it — something he has repeatedly denied.

The report — on the heels of last week’s news that Platner had sexted other women while married — left Democrats torn. Some view Platner, whose campaign has persisted despite a series of scandals, as their only chance to take down Collins. He continuously led Democratic Gov. Janet Mills in primary polling before she suspended her campaign in April, and has led the Republican senator in public head-to-head polls.

Several observers have stated that Democrats are taking the most convenient path, siding with a candidate they think can win, while pushing ethical considerations out of view. In other words, they are starting to act like Republicans. From Politico:

“Several donors I know are still all-in for Platner because he’s not Susan Collins and he’s a Democrat,” said Alex Hoffman, a Democratic strategist and donor adviser. “The line that keeps being thrown around is the double standard that exists between Republicans and Democrats, where if this was a Republican, they’d all be getting behind him.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who campaigned with Platner on Friday, reiterated his support. And some Democrats online were quick to cast the ex-girlfriend of Platner who spoke on record to The Times, Lyndsey Fifield, as a partisan activist because she has worked in Republican politics.

How did Graham Platner reach a level of prominence in national politics? A TIME magazine profile  

provides details. It's an intriguing, improbable story, but some observers sense Dems are attaching their hopes to the wrong wagon. From Politico:

[Some have] warned that [Platner’s] a loose cannon and there’s no predicting what other information about his past will spill into public view. What has already come to light, they argued, might be enough to sink his candidacy, not to mention undermine the party’s core values.

“Democrats in Maine and throughout the country have got to decide what is their priority: Justifying Graham Platner’s behavior or winning the Democratic seat in Maine,” said Robert Zimmerman, a New York-based Democratic National Committee member. “It’s very clear that Platner has not been able to credibly justify his conduct and Democrats who defend him sound like Republicans defending Donald Trump after the Access Hollywood tape.”

Ouch! That highlighted section is painful to read because it is so on point -- and it should prompt serious self-reflection in the Democratic Party and beyond. Some Dems, meanwhile, are having second thoughts about allowing a "win-at-all-costs approach" to overtake their core values -- especially since theirs is the only U.S. party that still has core values. From Politico:

Winning Maine is all but a necessity for Democrats’ chances of taking back the Senate this fall. Collins is the only Republican senator up for reelection this year in a state former Vice President Kamala Harris won in 2024. If Democrats can’t knock her off, they’d have to win a far redder state, such as Iowa or Texas, to get control of the upper chamber.

Platner, on MSNOW on Thursday just hours after The Times published its story, denied the allegations of violence and said they were coming from someone who’s “politically motivated.” He said he has “not once” considered dropping out of the race.

“My journey is one of transformation. And I’m very happy to talk about that earlier part in my life. And I have no doubt that people will attempt to continue to revisit Reddit posts, continue to try to revisit parts of my past,” Platner said, referring to his previously unearthed offensive posts. “But I think what’s really important to note here is that these are things that I talk about in my past — things that I am not proud of — but it is a past that I had to go through to get where I am today.”

Platner said he did not have any communication Thursday with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee about exiting the race and making way for another candidate. And he said “I expect that we will not” because of the “outpouring of support” he has received.

However, some donors — even those who had previously opened their checkbooks for Platner — are starting to grow skittish.

“He’s now below the bar for my client group,” said one national donor adviser, who is telling clients to send their money to other battleground Senate races instead. 

The most recent New York Times story has splintered Democrats into warring factions -- at a time when party resources and energy should be focused on fighting Trump, not each other . . . 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who had recruited Mills to run, was silent when asked several questions about the Platner revelations in the Capitol halls by reporters Thursday.

“There is dramatically higher concern about losing Maine now across the caucus than there was before the stories broke,” said one senior Democratic Senate aide who, like others in this article, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Everyone realizes that without Maine the path to taking back the Senate is impossible.”

The aide added: “Everyone is apoplectic.”

But there was also frustration among some Democratic donors and operatives Thursday that the party was again cannibalizing one of its own, further jeopardizing its chances in what was already an uphill battle against a longtime GOP incumbent.

A Democratic consultant close to many of the party’s biggest donors said the sentiment among them has been that they don’t care about Platner’s scandals. Citing a conversation with a major donor who sits on the finance committee of one of the Democratic Party’s main national campaign arms, the consultant said he does not think that sentiment will change after The Times story.

“We don’t care. I think that’s the case for many donors. Anybody who beats Susan Collins will do,” said the consultant. The consultant attributed the indifference to the fact that it’s the “Trump era,” when allegations of wrongdoing simply don’t weigh as heavily as they once used to.

Are some Democrats leaning toward becoming a slightly different version of the Republican Party? It sounds that way to me, and I find it extraordinarily wrongheaded. Consider the case of Ro Khanna (D-CA), who as co-sponsor of the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), took a principled stand about shining light on bad behavior in politics.  Now, he risks throwing that away by standing beside Graham Platner:

Platner was set to rally in Bar Harbor, Maine, on Friday with Khanna, who has endorsed him, and alongside Maine 2nd District candidate Matt Dunlap and gubernatorial candidate Troy Jackson. Representatives for all three said the event was still set to go.

“The behavior described in The New York Times story was wrong and toxic. Graham has acknowledged that and sought redemption,” Khanna said in a statement Thursday. “The people of Maine deserve a senator who is going to stand up to the billionaire class, against genocide, and for the working class.”

Platner is all but certain to win Maine’s Democratic primary on Tuesday over Mills and 2024 Democratic Senate candidate David Costello. After that, Maine law allows the state party to replace Platner with another Democrat if he stepped down before mid-July. Such a move would be unprecedented in the state’s politics.

Some observers warn that Democrats could face serious blowback for casting aside their core values:

The Times report follows revelations last weekend that Platner had exchanged sexual messages with women other than his wife after they were married — which had already reignited Democratic fears that he could tank hard in November.

Platner, a political newcomer, has been dogged by scandals since the fall, when his Reddit history revealed a series of offensive posts suggesting, among other things, that victims of sexual assault should take more responsibility and that white rural Americans are stupid. Platner apologized for the posts, saying he was in a dark place at the time, and owned up to having a tattoo that resembles a Nazi symbol, though he said he didn’t realize the meaning at the time he got it and later had it covered. 

The Times report reignited the controversy over Platner’s tattoo: Fifield told the paper he had referred to it as “my Totenkopf” while they were dating and knew about its Nazi connection.

“This is the most important seat for the next Democratic president to have a trifecta to act and accomplish all the things that all the people in the Democratic Party believe in — health care, child care, climate,” said Brian Romick, president of Democratic Majority for Israel. “And now we’re in a position where someone with a Nazi tattoo, inappropriate relationships with women, and racist Reddit posts is our person. And people need to answer for that.”

Cheyenne Hunt, founder of Reckoning Action and former Executive Director of Gen Z For Change, who had organized against former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) over allegations of sexual assault, rescinded her endorsement of Platner on Thursday.

“We have the responsibility to do what is right even when it’s politically inconvenient,” she said in a video posted on social media. “Women cannot be an acceptable sacrifice for the next election.”

With all the nasty things Trump has said about women and journalists, it's little wonder CNN's Kaitlan Collins, a native of Prattville, AL, somehow pushes his buttons

Kaitlan Collins interviews Donald Trump (NY Times)

Of all the attributes that make Donald Trump a wretched human being -- and he has enough to fill a wing of the Smithsonian Institution -- many of them seem to be triggered by certain groups of people. 

One such group is women. Perhaps the two most famous examples of women crossing swords with Trump are Stormy Daniels and E. Jean Carroll. We can find nothing in the public record to indicate either Daniels or Carroll have wronged or harmed Trump in any way. They have stood up to Trump in court, with him losing in both instances, and that was enough to prompt him to hurl all kinds of invective in their direction. He has called Daniels "Horseface" and a "total con job." He has called Carroll a "whack job," a "nut job," and "mentally sick," adding that she is not his "type," even claiming that she "loved being sexually assaulted."

A second group that seems to trigger Trump is journalists, including the news outlets they work for. He has referred to journalists as "scum" and "slime," and mocked a reporter for having a disability. He has vowed to open up libel laws to sue journalists and said "we're going to have people suing you like you never got sued before." And let's not forget this chestnut:  "I would never kill them but I do hate them," he said of reporters. "And some of them are such lying, disgusting people."

Is it any wonder then that CNN's Kaitlan Collins, both a woman and a journalist, seems to bring out the worst in Trump -- and pulls it off just by doing her job. The most recent example of Trump trying to diss  Collins came on Wednesday (6/3/26). Here is how Lee Moran of HuffPost described the interaction:

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins highlighted a striking detail about Donald Trump’s latest personal attack on her.

Namely, it began before she had even asked the president a question.

On Wednesday’s broadcast of “The Source,” anchor Collins noted how Trump launched into a rant about CNN and her while railing against the Justice Department’s decision to drop its controversial $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” during an Oval Office event with reporters.

Before airing the clip, Collins stressed that Trump’s criticism was not actually prompted by anything she had said.

“And just to note, as you’re about to listen to this, this first exchange actually occurred before I had yet to ask the president a question,” she told viewers.

In the exchange, Trump called CNN “crooked as hell” and “a very corrupt organization” and called Collins a “corrupt reporter.” (A video of the interaction can be viewed at this link.)

That Collins could make an insightful comment about a peculiar trait of a human interaction tells you immediately that she is much smarter than Trump -- after all, this is a president who does not listen to anyone, so how would he be able to catch an unusual detail of a back and forth? The answer is he can't, and that suggests Trump knows he is an intellectual lightweight compared to Collins. That has to gnaw at a president with an ego the size of Jupiter, so it probably explains the interaction that took place next, as described by Moran:

“Never smiles. A young, beautiful woman. Never smiles,” Trump said of Collins. “I never see a smile on her face. I see her standing there with hatred in her eyes, like, she has hatred because we have borders, because we have a strong military, because we cut our taxes, because we do things that everybody wanted and then we win our election in a massive landslide.”

Trump must have been really irked because he immediately turned to his favorite rhetorical tactic -- lying. His administration does "things that everybody wanted"? First, Trump won the 2024 election over Kamala Harris by 49.9 percent to 48.4 percent, a popular-vote margin of about 1.5 percentage points.  That hardly is a landslide.

As for Trump's other assertions, he thinks Americans wanted wars with Venezuela and Iran, threats against Greenland and Denmark, torn relationships with NATO allies, endless puckering up to Putin's ass, tax cuts for wealthy elites, attacks on the right to vote, appointments of sycophants and loyalists while tossing government experts out of their jobs, detaining and deporting migrants without granting the due process required by law (and in the process, signing off on what essentially are state-sanctioned kidnappings), attacks on biomedical research and federal funding that Congress already has approved, cuts to funding at American universities -- including prominent and elite institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Penn, Columbia, Cornell, UCLA, Brown, Princeton, and Duke? (In Kaitlan Collins' home state of Alabama, the Trump administration has made cuts to the renowned biomedical research enterprise at UAB, which ranks with Duke and the University of North Carolina as top recipients of federal research grants in the South.) Also, international scholars long have been known to make valuable contributions to the educational and research missions at American universities. But Trump has restricted foreign student enrollment and slashed programs that assist international and migrant scholars. As a result, enrollment of foreign students at U.S. universities dropped by 20 percent in spring 2026. 

The bottom line: The U.S. is home to some confused, disengaged, gullible, easily enraged people -- people who vote based on their fear of change and prejudice toward those they see as "other." But Trump needs a refresher course on the U.S. electorate if he thinks Americans wanted the things he has delivered. A quick look at his latest approval ratings -- if he has the guts to check them -- will reveal that his countrymen are not as shallow as he thinks. 

Heck, according to the Silver Bulletin, Trump's approval rating even is underwater in Texas. Embarrassments don't come much greater than that for a Republican president. Tanking approval ratings might be one reason Trump was so touchy this week with Kaitlan Collins. Here is more from the HuffPost report:

Later, when Collins did ask Trump whether the [Anti-Weaponization Fund] was “dead” or merely “on hold,” the president said he would “have to ask the lawyers” before again slamming “fake news CNN,” telling Collins to “be quiet” and that she should “be ashamed of herself.”

Collins said Trump appeared “clearly irritated” by questions surrounding why “his administration says it is not moving forward with that $1.8 billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund,’ as they have called it.”

After the abrupt firing of Scott Pelley, longtime "60 Minutes" alumnus Steve Kroft joins critics who blast new regime that seems intent on gutting a news legacy

"60 Minutes" alum Steve Kroft in interview with Geoff Bennett on PBS News Hour (Yahoo!)

For Americans who believe journalism plays a central role in our democracy, the systematic destruction of CBS News by moneyed allies of Donald Trump is a deeply concerning tale. It suggests that Trump, like the authoritarians he so admires around the globe, seeks to control storied media companies and turn them into propaganda arms for his increasingly fascist government. 

The firing of longtime and decorated reporter Scott Pelley has dominated coverage of the turbulence at Black Rock. But Pelley is not the only veteran newsman to speak out about the upheaval that has unsettled the network home to some of the most famous names in broadcast journalism -- Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Mike Wallace, and many more. In an interview with Geoff Bennett of PBS, 30-year 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft bashed the new management that seems determined to leave a journalistic institution in tatters. In the process, Kroft cuts to the bone of what has made CBS News a target for right-wing, elitist interests. He traces the beginning of unrest at CBS to an interview with Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential campaign, which prompted Trump to file a lawsuit of dubious merit -- which seems to be the only kind of lawsuit he can file.

Let's take a look at Kroft's insights, as reported at PBS:

Geoff Bennett:

CBS News has fired longtime 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley after a contentious all-staff meeting in which Pelley reportedly clashed with newly installed executive producer Nick Bilton and accused CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss of murdering the storied news magazine.

Bilton, in a letter firing Pelley yesterday evening, accused him of acting with remarkable incivility and contempt.

In his own statement, Pelley said -- quote -- "The leadership of 60 Minutes is no longer recognizable. The principles I hold dear are gone, and so I must leave as well."

The firing marks the latest and most dramatic chapter in the upheaval surrounding "60 Minutes" and CBS News, as Weiss moves to reshape both the nation's most watched television news magazine and the news division more broadly.

For more, we're joined now by Steve Kroft. He spent 30 seasons as a correspondent for 60 Minutes before retiring in 2019. . . . 

Geoff Bennett:

We should say, you joined 60 Minutes back in 1989, spent decades helping make it the most respected, most watched news magazine in TV history. As you have watched recent events unfold -- Scott Pelley's firing; the dismissal of Tanya Simon, the former executive producer; the firings of correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega, what has been going through your mind?

Steve Kroft:

You know, I think it's been disastrous for the show, for the audience, which is not insubstantial.

It's been going on for a long time. It began really with an interview that Bill Whitaker had done with Kamala Harris, in which CBS was sued for $17 million by the Trump administration for what they called an illegal edit. The lawsuit had absolutely no merit.

Yet CBS and the corporate management, Paramount, decided to settle the case for $17 million. And since then, it's just been sort of one thing after another.

Geoff Bennett:

And the broader context, which you're speaking of, is important, because CBS News is now operating under new ownership as Paramount Skydance seeks approval from Trump regulators to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, which, by the way, also owns CNN.

And President Trump, we should say, has made no secret of his hostility toward much of the mainstream press. He has called out 60 Minutes and CBS News repeatedly. So how much do the larger political and corporate pressures at play help explain what's happening right now at 60 Minutes in CBS News?

Steve Kroft:

I think it perfectly explains it.

For Paramount, the parent company, getting these deals done, first the permission to merge the two companies from the FCC, and then now awaiting a decision on whether this is going to go through with the FCC and be approved, I think Paramount has just decided it was going to be . . . that was the only thing that was important.

And they were going to try and block anything that might get in the way. Scott Pelley said this morning, he asked Bari Weiss, the president of the corporation, why they fired Tanya Simon, the executive producer of the show, why they had fired various correspondents in the last week -- well, just in one day.

And she refused to answer any of the questions, which leaves you with what's been said by the president and by his staff and by the chairman of the FCC that they don't like the way CBS has been operated. They don't like the fact that it's on the air. They would like to see it taken off the air. They've said that a number of times. They would like to see people fired. And that is what's happened.

Geoff Bennett:

And yet one could argue every new owner, every new management team arrives believing they can improve what they bought, that they can make an institution better, even a standout success like "60 Minutes."

In this case, though, where is the line between a legitimate business decision and a journalistic interference?

Steve Kroft:

Well, I think that this is journalistic interference. It makes no business sense whatsoever. The show is still doing very well. It's the highest rated news program on television. And it has been that way for more than 50 years.

The audience was up about 9 percent last year. And why would you mess with that? It's got an audience of about 10 million people, between nine and 10 million people, which is still one of the largest audiences on network television.

Geoff Bennett:

I want to ask you about something else here, because, in a statement, Scott Pelley said that the new management instructed him to inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story, which he says he did not do.

Cecilia Vega in a separate statement also spoke of pressure to insert political bias and said that some staffers became reluctant to pitch certain stories out of fear of internal repercussions. How significant a break is what they describe from the editorial culture and standards that defined 60 Minutes during your tenure?

Steve Kroft:

It's never happened. That's the only way to describe it.

I have never had anybody ask to make any kind of insertion or addition to a story to change the tone of it or to change the facts of it. I don't think it's ever happened at 60 Minutes.

Geoff Bennett:

We should say we have reached out to CBS News for a statement. They have yet to respond.

Zooming out, what does the country lose if an institution like 60 Minutes becomes weaker, less independent or less ambitious?

Steve Kroft:

You have already seen the effects of it.

Cecilia Vega in her final statement to the staff outlined a number of problems that have occurred on the show and that people have been unwilling or afraid to do stories -- intimidated from doing stories that needed covering and that it instilled this feeling of fear into the broadcast.

And I think that's absolutely, 100 percent true. So it's already having effects. And I think that Scott was doing this not just for himself, making the point about himself personally. I think he was doing it to stand up for Sharyn Alfonsi, who was fired, and for Cecilia Vega, who was fired, and for Tanya Simon, who was fired, and Draggan Mihailovich, who was fired.

All of these people are incredibly good journalists and the kind of people you would need if you wanted to continue to put a program like CBS' 60 Minutes on the air. And now they are gone. I think it was a slap in the face to everybody who has worked there over a long period of time.

Geoff Bennett:

Former 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft.

Steve, thanks again for your time. We appreciate it.

Steve Kroft:

My pleasure.