Today's Eye Candy is Planned Parenthood's campaign rally for Graham Platner back on June 22. (Where's Graham? He's the one with facial hair.) Just a few weeks later, I wonder how many of those ladies are continuing to stand by Platner?
National Review editorializes: Democrats Run Out of Excuses for Platner. Because of the latest revelations:
It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. As Platner surged toward the nomination in the Maine Senate race in the past several months, Democrats did all they could to talk themselves into the idea that the dirtball socialist who had a Nazi tattoo for decades was just what the party needed.
At a time when working-class white voters were turned off by milquetoast Democrats, the theory has gone, maybe they need somebody with an edge. And so they played up the part-time oysterman with a gravely voice and a military background, and looked the other way at his poisonous social media posts and obvious lies about supposedly not knowing the meaning of his own tattoo. He was a changed man, a good and decent man who had overcome emotional turmoil after his military service.
There was never any evidence to support this politically convenient narrative about a man who was sexting with other women after his marriage just a few a years ago.
Meanwhile, Jeff Maurer invokes Occam's Razor, plausibly: The Simplest Explanation for Platner Is That the Far Left Has Awful Judgement.
In shocking news, Graham Platner — the Senate candidate widely known to have 50 skeletons in his closet — actually has 51 skeletons in his closet. And that 51 number is as of press time; there honestly seems to be something of a Skeleton Pride Parade going on in there. People who previously defended Platner took to social media to express shock — shock! — at this totally unforeseeable development. Here’s an example from Minority Report host Emma Vigeland:
[Video example elided.]
People shocked by these revelations might want to ask themselves why so many people were emphatically not shocked. It is, of course, true that “Platner Is Making My Piece-Of-Shit Detector Melt Down” articles have been an entire genre of literature for several months now. I was one of many to sound the alarm, which I seek no credit for, because to me, noticing that Platner is a scumbag feels like noticing that Victor Wembanyama is tall. The interesting thing here is how anyone who considers themselves a fully-formed adult failed to notice.
I am, as usual, following the Elvis Costello advice: Try to be amused. But if you're leaning toward disgust, you'll find plenty to go around, because, as Erick Erickson points out, Platner is The Man They Wanted.
Here is the part that ought to enrage you if you care about how the press does its job. Racicot’s allegation is not new to reporters. She was in the New York Times’ big Platner exposé last month. The Times just chose not to print the assault. It quoted her saying only that he was “reckless” and “unsettling” and “does not respect women,” and left the rest on the cutting room floor. She has since said she was conflicted about telling her full story because she agrees with Platner politically — which is precisely the kind of witness whose account carries weight, since she had every partisan reason to stay quiet.
So what did the Times run with instead? Lyndsey Fifield. And it made sure — early, and often — to label her “a Virginia conservative who has worked for right-leaning groups and Republican campaigns.” That framing was a gift, and Platner’s campaign unwrapped it immediately, dismissing Fifield as a “GOP operative.” The paper handed Democrats their talking point on a silver tray: don’t listen to her, she’s one of them. Fifield, for her part, says the Times “methodically delayed and twisted” her account “into a gift to the Platner campaign,” spiking the sexual-assault allegations from other women it had connected her to and leaving out corroborating screenshots she provided. She is the accuser here, and even she came away believing the paper of record was running interference for the man she accused.
Think about the practical effect. Had the Times simply reported what Racicot told it — what it already had — Maine Democrats would have known a month ago what they learned on Monday. Platner might have been off the ticket in May. Instead, the Gray Lady soft-pedaled a rape allegation and spent its ink establishing that the loudest accuser voted Republican. We are here now, a week before the ballot deadline, in part because the Times decided a woman’s conservatism was more newsworthy than another woman’s assault.
And, finally, an op-ed from columnist Douglas Rooks that appeared in my lousy local newspaper, Foster's Daily Democrat, just last month, after Platner won the Democratic primary: Generational change is finally coming to Maine politics. Finally! Key paragraph from the Platner tonguebath, emphasis added:
Perhaps now reporters can stop asking who Graham Platner is – his personal life has been more extensively vetted than anyone could reasonably expect – and focus on what Graham Platner represents. He comes from a state where Republicans dominated for 100 years and Democrats have led for 50, and where both parties have essentially run out of gas, hostile to big ideas and unable to coherently address voters’ major concerns.
Reread Erick Erickson's excerpt above, and ask yourself how "extensively vetted" Platner was at that point.
I can't help but wonder if Douglas Rooks will revisit his opinion here. And maybe apologize to his readers for his spectacularly poor call.
Also of note:
-
Nominations for "Cliché Most Deserving of Retirement" award are open. I'd be OK with never having to read about someone who "says the quiet part out loud" again. But Issues & Insights notes a Democrat doing just that: Ro Khanna Says The Quiet Part Out Loud About His ‘Billionaire’ Tax.
It took less time than we would have imagined, but proponents of the “billionaire wealth tax” have already given the game away.
Anyone who knows any history about taxes knows that the left always uses “tax the rich” as a cover to raise taxes on the middle class. Because, as Willy Sutton observed in another context, that’s where the money is.
But we were surprised to see Rep. Ro Khanna admit as much, even before he and his socialist pals get their coveted wealth tax on the boards.
“The tax should not stop at billionaires,” he wrote on his Substack. “The tax has to reach all fortunes $50 million and up.”
Once again, from Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty:
That a majority, merely because it is a majority, should be entitled to apply to a minority a rule which does not apply to itself is an infringement of a principle much more fundamental than democracy itself, a principle on which the justification of democracy rests.
-
When you are spending other people's money… The AntiPlanner reports: Despite $25M Grant, Brightline Still Dangerous.
As of June 23, 2026, Brightline trains had killed 214 people, an average of one every 13 days since the passenger trains began operating in 2017. Make that 215, as Brightline killed a pedestrian on July 2.
In August 2022, Brightline announced that it had received a $25 million federal grant to fence its lines and make them safer. The state of Florida also contributed $10 million and Brightline itself agreed to match that, providing a total of $45 million for safety.
Now, nearly four years later, Brightline says it is still “in the midst” of installing those safety measures. There is no explanation for why this is taking so long or why it is spending money on some measures, including “No Trespassing” signs and suicide prevention signs, that seem unlikely to do much.
The latest death does appear to have been a suicide.
-
When "compassion" means screwing over the young. At RealClear Politics, Sam Russ makes a bold proposal: Don’t Lock Young Americans Into Social Security.
As lawmakers debate how to preserve the program, most proposals focus on raising payroll tax revenue or making other budgetary adjustments. But these discussions miss a larger point: The program itself is increasingly ill-suited for younger generations. Rather than forcing Americans into a system that may not deliver on its promises, policymakers should allow young workers to opt out and prepare for retirement in their own way.
America’s younger generations are coming of age amid an affordability crisis. Housing costs, groceries, health insurance, transportation, and higher education consume a growing share of household budgets. In such an environment, financial flexibility matters more than ever.
Yet every paycheck is hit by a 6.2% Social Security payroll tax, withheld with the promise that workers will receive benefits decades later when they reach retirement age. For many millennials and members of Generation Z, that promise appears increasingly uncertain.
Ackshually, the paycheck hit is 6.2% on the paystub, but your employer is required to kick in another 6.2%. And if you're self-employed, you have to pay 12.4% all by yourself.
It's a lousy deal, and the real outrage is that today's young aren't more irate about it.
![[The Blogger]](/ps/images/barred.jpg)
