Some people just like classic Coke. Others insisted on the original Reese’s recipe. New York Times writer Jodi Kantor went on CNN to explain why Democrats can vote for Maine senatorial candidate Graham Platner despite multiple women coming forward to denounce him: this is really not the classic Me Too allegations that Kantor and others seem to prefer for outrage.
Kantor won a Pulitzer Prize for her reporting on Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse and was called forth by CNN to explain why it is ok for liberals to support an alleged abuser of women. A prior girlfriend has accused Platner of physically abusing her and even locking her into a room overnight. He is also accused of sexting women and dismissing rape victims.
None of that, however, necessarily presents a barrier for those who want to retake power by any means necessary.
Kantor clinically explained that these “are not classic MeToo accusations.” Specifically, “they’re not about a boss and a young female employee being subjected to sexual advances. They were mostly made in the context of consensual relationships. There are these, like, very sensational texts about sex. There are allegations from former girlfriends that are not — the way my colleagues reported them were not like classic abuse allegations,” she stressed.
In a statement that would have produced a torrent of condemnations if used during the Kavanaugh controversy, Kantor insisted that “they were mostly like being his boyfriend gave me a view into him and I did not like what I saw. His character was scary. He had this Nazi tattoo. Et cetera.”
In fairness to Kantor, she was attempting no small feat: to allow liberals to continue to claim Me Too outrage while grabbing Maine.
Of course, Kantor quickly brushes over the other controversies beyond the abuse allegations as simply a Nazi tattoo. She omits his mocking of a wounded veteran, rural people, and rape victims while praising Hamas and embracing communism.
However, her diminishing of the account of women like Lyndsay Fifield as “they were mostly like being his boyfriend gave me a view into him and I did not like what I saw.”
What Fifield alleges that she “saw” were marks left on their body after being yanked and grabbed by Platner. In one case, she claimed “he twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom and held the door closed from the other side so she couldn’t get out, telling her to remain there until she was ‘calm.’”
Kantor seems to begrudgingly acknowledge that “there was one allegation of crossing a line physically, but I think that means that these are pretty different accusations than, say, the one that — the ones that President Trump faced.”
Previously, Kantor did not draw this distinction between classic Me Too and new knockoffs involving non-employment situations. She once grouped a wide variety of controversies from Al Franken to Brett Kavanaugh to Jeffrey Epstein under the banner:
“it felt like there was this period where discussion of #MeToo was actually pretty bipartisan. Democrats like [Sen.] Al Franken were accused, but so were Republicans, like [Alabama Judge] Roy Moore. And also, a lot of these stories played out in the corporate arena, which is not particularly political. But the Kavanaugh hearings almost felt in a way like a return to an older pattern, like a return to a pattern that we saw with the allegations against Bill Clinton, Clarence Thomas, and Donald Trump. Those are scenarios in which the allegations take on all of the heat and the poison of American political life. And in those stories, it turns into a holy war very, very quickly and can almost feel like it’s not even about the women anymore.
…The #MeToo movement has proven so durable and so self-correcting. I think there was a moment after the Kavanaugh hearings where it all just felt like it had become impossibly politicized, to the point where it was almost preventing constructive conversation.
Ironically, Kantor’s rationalization returns to the very partisan “older pattern” that she once denounced in how allegations from women are treated in the media.
In rationalizing the Platner support, Kantor was obviously singing to the choir on CNN. Democratic figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Elizabeth Warren celebrated his securing the nomination.
Yes, he may be a rape-mocking, sex-texting, Hamas-praising, Nazi-tattooed, veteran-abusing, self-proclaimed communist. However, he will return them to power.
Other media figures, like The View co-host Sunny Hostin, have added their own rationalization for choosing power over principle. She has declared that he is “a liar, a racist, an antisemite, and a homophobe.” However, he is still better than voting for a moderate Republican woman. This week, Hostin explained:
“let’s be strategic, let’s get some power, let’s take over the Senate, let’s take over the House and let’s right the ship. Let’s get our country back…I am sorry, I am someone that believes in character, I am someone that believes that morals matter,” she concluded. “But because of the state of this country, I would — if I lived in Maine I would hold my nose and I would vote for Platner. I would.”
And so, Me Too becomes Meh when Maine is at stake.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
In the 21st Century “Chicken-Hawks” (politicians that start wars but families never serve in the military) created the longest war in American history. That started with Bush invading the wrong country and the boondoggle at Guantanamo Bay, with a 90+% failure rate. About 90% of Gitmo detainees had no criminal record and no credible link to terrorism.
Brave soldiers, like Platner, were the ones that literally risked their lives for Chicken-Hawk politicians over 20 years.
Seems like heroes like Platner – a real soldier – should be in Congress to counter the Chicken-Hawks that profit from wars but never fight in wars.
Maybe America’s greatest threat in the 21st Century are “Chicken-Hawk” politicians and maybe Platner is exactly what we need in Congress?
Unlike most politicians, Platner risked life and limb to serve in military combat for love of country, the most patriotic action of any American.
Platner served more combat tours of duty than the average Vietnam era soldier served, causing him to suffer PTSD by protecting all of us.
Vietnam era hero Karl Marlantes (Bronze Star recipient for bravery in combat) explained that multiple tours of combat duty actually rewire the human brain causing other problems in addition to PTSD. Marlantes (a real super hero) has done several interviews explaining the condition Platner suffered protecting us.
By contrast, Trump dodged serving in combat during the Vietnam War, apparently due to bone spurs. But somehow that condition that prevented Trump from serving his country in the military, didn’t prevent him from playing golf.
At very minimum we should respect and thank Platner for his brave service to protect the rest of us and protect our First Amendment right to play arm-chair quarterbacks on this blog.
As voters, do we want self-serving politicians so cowardly that they dodge military service or do we want politicians with real backbone and love of country? Platner already passed the hardest test of patriotism, unlike most politicians!
So none of these accusations were made under oath (under penalty of law for lying) in a court of law, unlike the Epstein case.
Anyone can say anything when not under oath. If 34 time convicted felon – Trump – were placed under oath, he would probably not lie as much since there risk of legal penalty.
All of this is hearsay, it may or may not be true.
Never pass up a chance to shill for the Israel lobby, eh? How much money have the Israelis spent against Planter?
Fact is platner is a horrible person with nazi sympathies at a minimum. Misogynistic tendencies for sure. D卐M☭CRATz would zieg heil for satan if they thought it would get them enough votes , planter’s propping up proves this.
I think computers are changing the neural make up of human brains.
Bill Gates is questioned by congress as an adult male having had two affairs with adult women? BY CONGRESS?
Kantor doesn’t need a justification. Platner is a democrat. D.
As to what looks like envy of the rich is actually coupled with the haughty arrogance of the rich. It’s the arrogance.
Adios
Kantor is doubly covered under speech and press. Perhaps 1A left out the idea of truth. Anyone can twist words in any way chosen for whatever end chosen.
Question: Americans did have a culture and it was based in England. WHEN did the Americans decide to trade their culture for multiculturalism, trade assimilation for multiculturalism?
I’m not. What’s that trite saying? Full stop.
A nickel’s worth of research reveals the Zionist source of these smears. The AIPAC funded capture of American government is infuriating an ever growing number of bipartisan voters, who see opposing the blatant foreign influence as essential to any semblance of American sovereignty.
Corrupt the language; corrupt the schools; corrupt the culture: that is the game plan of the destroyers, and it appears to be working admirably. Resist, fight back, strike back in any way you can. The momentum is on their side, it must be reversed at any and all costs.
Just when you didnt think Democrats could sink any lower with a Nazi, then there is this, Democrat leading Michigan Senate primary defended terrorist Muslim Brotherhood power grab in Egypt,
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/democrat-leading-michigan-senate-primary-defended-egypt-power-grab
The issue is *Platner’s* behavior and Kantor’s attempt to rationalize it.
The standard Leftist response is:
“Trump ADMITTED he . . .”
When a child replies: “But Johnny did it, too” — it’s juvenile. When an adult replies like a juvenile, it’s anti-intellectual and evasive.
With respect: Why do some of you enable that juvenile behavior? Look at what happens when you do: There is a flood of comments and sub-comments about whether “Johnny” is guilty of the same wicked behavior. And in the blink of an eye, the juvenile has accomplished his dishonest goal: Evade the issue.
Sam
This is even worse.
What has Trump admitted ?
The left is resting its claims regarding Trump – or conservatives generally on very weak reeds.
Absurd and lawless convictions that never should have seen the inside of a court.
The alternate “whataboutism” from the left rests on either convictions of very obscure republicans or incredibly weak antique claims.
The FACTs are
many people do bad things –
Others lie claiming that someone else did a bad thing.
Sorting between the too is sometimes difficult.
Often it is not possible to establish with certainty who is telling the truth.
But usually it is possible to establish criteria for weighing what is probably true.
If ideology weighs heavily in that – you are biased and untrustworthy.
The Democrat Stalinist lawfare should never have been allowed to happen in our country. But there’s no accountability so it goes on.
“With respect: Why do some of you enable that juvenile behavior?”
Why the respect? Those @h013$ know exactly what they are doing, and absolutely no excuse can be made for it or for them .
“Why the respect?”
Because based on a long track record of their comments and interactions, some have earned that respect.
“Because based on a long track record of their comments and interactions, some have earned that respect.”
Allowing that kind of latitude appears to be almost completely non-functional in blogs these days, including this one. Logical refutation alone seems to have minimal effect. To have any impact beyond the ego boost of seeing your own comment on-line (which unfortunately appears to be the sole motivation of many posters) I have concluded that it is justified, when someone makes a particularly stupid or false to fact contention, to respond forcefully enough to at least get their attention, no matter what their previous posting history might be. I don’t exempt my own occasional stupidities here from that tactic, feel free to apply it to my posts (most others already do anyway). YMMV.