Greetings, Dear Reader,
What happened yesterday was a one-two punch that should be the end of modern Democrat politics as we know it. Maybe it was. I’m doubtful.
We’re talking about people with no attachment to any objective morality. Like Trump, they’ll manage to wriggle free of this controversy as well.
THIS SHOULD BE THE END, BUT IT WON’T BE
If you want proof that God has a sense of humor, look no further than Graham Platner.
Platner is a Dem Senate hopeful in Maine who looks likely to ultimately win the seat, if only by a slim margin. His presumption of victory* lays bare every hysterical nightmare the political left has imposed upon the public for the past decade.
*(btw, I will never forgive his opponent, Susan Collins, for voting no on the Save Act and then losing to a Democrat as pathetic as Platner.)
The same party that gleefully nuked the livelihoods of random working class hispanics over alleged “OK signs” flashed in traffic now wants to elevate a man with literal Nazi tattoos to one of the most influential seats in all of politics. There have been attempts to blunt the offending tats. I myself can at least admit how common Nazi iconography was in the early aughts GWOT-era military. Nevertheless, the question remains: why should Platner be given such quarter? Because he’s got a D next to his name? Because power in the Senate matters more than consistent application of lefty morality?
But there’s the catch, Dear Reader, lefty morality was made up this entire time. It never truly existed. BLM, DEI, MeToo. It was always just about seizing power, politically or otherwise. That’s why it can be sidelined the moment it gets in the way of power.
The New York Times dropped a much anticipated piece of reporting on Platner’s history of abusive actions and statements towards women just yesterday, and astute observers on our staff here instantly recognized it for what it was: A “catch and kill.”
Daily Caller Senior Political Editor Will Upton writes:
The term ‘catch and kill‘ refers to a shady practice where a public relations firm or consultant works with a friendly news outlet that was pitched or ‘stumbled’ upon a negative story about a client to effectively ‘catch’ and then ‘kill’ the story — or delay it until it no longer has impact.
A ‘soft catch and kill’ works similarly, though it mostly involves the publication still running the story in a timely manner, but the details are softened or buried deep in the narrative to soften the bite. The outlet can claim it did its job, but they’ve given the target just enough wiggle room to survive.
The Times’s goal here was not to fairly give hearing to allegations against Platner; it was to play Fifield for a sucker, give her story just enough air that the Democrat Party’s cretin media and consultant class could zero in on it and crush it.
At the center of the story is one named source, Lyndsey Fifield, a longtime communications operative in GOP politics. (Full disclosure: I’ve been professional acquaintances with Fifield for a long time and even tried to hire her a few times at the Caller.)
Fifield alleges to the Times – again, fully on the record – that he abused her during an on-again-off-again relationship while Platner was a bartender in Washington, D.C. She provided diary entries and text message screenshots and even names of people who could corroborate Platner’s abuse.
You can read her fuller statement here about how the Times played her, but in short, they made promises they ultimately didn’t keep about including other, corroborating witnesses. They set Fifield up to appear as if she were a plant. Any aggressive lefty reading the copy would immediately make that connection without much help.
See here, it’s already happening:
If you read The New York Times article with suspended partisanship, it’s clear the man is deeply flawed in nearly all the ways that used to be radioactive for liberals. He’s abusive toward women, allegedly even physically, and narcissistic to the extreme. He’s too online in exactly the kind of way liberals perennially accused the right of pipelining extremism. Under his Reddit handle, he rejoiced in the deaths of American servicemen.
He even bragged to people that if a man ever broke into his home, he’d rape the guy, but “not in a gay way.”
So he dropped a “no homo,” lol.
It’s too poetic for a too-online, tattooed military veteran white guy who puts his hands on women to be the real life avatar for the end of MeToo, BLM and DEI all in one swipe.
It has to be providence.
—
One last thing before I go; I promised a one-two punch, so here it is.
Tyler O’Neil’s entire thread on the SPLC is worth reading if you have time. Even Elon himself bumped it. If you don’t, the short end of it is that the allegations against the SPLC are worse than we previously thought. They spent $300,000 funding the organization and transportation of supposed right-wing extremists for the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. Members used donor funds to recruit new members, launch comms campaigns, and even “buy cross-burning material.” There are even numerous instances in which people wanting to extract themselves from extremist orgs asked SPLC for help, and the organization encouraged them to stay.
Worst of all, it appears a member of the SPLC was actually banging one of these guys.
Now, I of all people should get to feel personally aggrieved by all this. In 2017, the SPLC famously tried to get the Caller destroyed with an ad boycott campaign under the headline “Daily Caller has a White Nationalist Problem.”
The evidence we had a “problem” were a series of contributors I had never met, night editor Scott Greer (who was, we learned later, in fact a WN), and a good friend named Richard Pollock.
Not to digress, but they called Pollock a white nationalist for speaking about investigative journalism at the HL Mencken club. Pollock is an observant Jew who frequently at that time volunteered for the needy. He was also a lead plaintiff on the COINTEL case in the 80s, which charged the FBI with illegal surveillance of black civil rights groups.
We eventually got the accusation against Pollock removed, but it goes to show how flimsy the accusation was in the first place.
To get to the point, why should I get to feel aggrieved?
This was their lede:
Come to find out the SPLC did orders of magnitude more organizing of the rally than a guy who randomly wrote three stories for us as a freelance writer over the course of two months.
I’m sorry, but … We have the problem? It’s us that’s the problem?
As far as I know we gave Kessler less than $200 total for his work. Whereas SPLC spent $300,000 making sure the rally went off without a hitch.
MORE LINKS
Senate Passes Major Immigration Enforcement Bill After Weaponization Fund Threw Wrench In Process
Big news in the wee hours of the morning.
—
Spencer Pratt And Everyday Americans Have Already Won Before Race Is Even Over
He might prevent even further catastrophe.
—
ROOKE: Couple Who Aborted Their Baby Reveal They’re Pro-Life For Pet With Terminal Illness
We need to hit the reset button as a society.
Like what you’re reading? If so, please consider subscribing to State of the Day or sharing this with a friend. You’d be supporting this newsletter and helping keep independent journalism alive.
If you are already a paid subscriber, make sure to join the conversation in our subscribers-only chat below.
Have no fear, the unctious incumbent will prevail in the end. Senator Collins fully understands quirky Maine politics. The dems have done their part by nominating stalwarts like Sarah Gideon, Joe Brennan, Shenna Bellows, Tom Allen and Chellie Pingree to run against her. Platner will get whacked after he wins the primary but the only credible alternative is the ancient governor Janet Mills, who couldn't raise any money after being strong armed by Schumer into running against Platner. There are no charismatic politicians in Maine on either side. Platner is closest but he is a skunk. Once again, it's hold your nose and vote for Collins.