I AM TAUNTED by one of my usual trolls, the one with the neo-Nazi moniker, over my support for Graham Platner, demanding to know why I haven't condemned him and demanded he leave the Senate race.
The only thing that I think is really important for me to do is to support whoever is better than Susan Collins and whoever has the best chance to defeat her because her being in the Senate has been a catastrophe for the country and the world. That is what is most important for everyone's welfare, including the Woman who has made this most recent accusation. From what she claims, she seems to understand something of that, herself.
If I had thought Janet Mills was the better candidate in that regard, I would have supported her. I thought that Graham Planter was the one who might do that so I supported him. I never suspected he was in any way perfect- it is immoral idolatry to hold that about anyone, especially politicians. And I think most of the accusations made against him have not been credible. Some of them (such as the "scandal" that his mother bought oysters for her restaurant from her son's oyster farm, THAT REALLY WAS ONE OF THE MEDIA CARRIED "SCANDALS") would only be a "scandal" if the person accused had a "D" after their name. That becomes an important point later in this piece, by the way.
The reason I haven't written about the latest accusation against him, and they are ACCUSATIONS, is that I don't know much about the current situation. I expect he will leave the race, though, if, as he is saying, the accusation against him is false, I can understand why he hasn't made that decision yet.
I don't know how credible this latest accusation is, the details before the public at this time are vague. They are certainly untested.
When I read that the accusation seems to be from someone who hadn't made such an accusation against him in the past or, in fact, in the more than a year since it became some of the biggest news in our state that he was running for the Senate, the reasonable question is why now after the primary and not before. That timing, especially convenient for the Collins campaign is certainly a relevant point that needs to be addressed. That this is in the context of a political campaign makes that question of timing extremely relevant.
When I heard that her coming forward now had something to do with some kind of psychological counseling that she is in (and I only heard that in passing on the radio) that did absolutely nothing to convince me that it isn't motivated by something other than a desire to tell the truth whether on her part or that of the person counseling her.
I say that having seen the horrific results of such counseling and possible manipulation of clients going back to when Geraldo was peddling As Seen On TV lies about "ritual satanic abuse" which led directly to the witch trials of the 80s and 90s plays a huge role in my thinking about these kinds of things.
Though I have no way of knowing if my residual reluctance in that regard has any relevance in this case, the possibility of counselor motivations and wondering about the extent of the influence such a counselor might have over a client is also quite relevant. I will point out that the laws dealing with counseling in Maine are dangerously lax. Last I knew pretty much anyone could set up business as one by just declaring that's what they were. I have no way of knowing how credible such a counselor is, though my experience of, especially, "clinical social workers" duly credentialed by the relevant department at the University of Southern Maine (where I knew several of the faculty members, they were nuts) doesn't lead me to have a lot of faith in any credentialing of that business.
She has also said that her motivation in making the accusation is related to the widespread and entirely justified opinion that the accusations made against him by a long-time Republican operative who has done work on behalf of Susan Collins in the past needed to be questioned. I don't know if the woman making these latest claims is one of those who believes that wrong and unworkable shortcut that Women making accusations are always to be believed. If that's what she means then she is wrong, ANYONE CAN MAKE FALSE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE, and in the case of a political operative making such accusations against a candidate of the other side, THAT ISSUE IS OF THE HIGHEST RELEVANCE. Whether you like it or not.
I have no idea if she is telling us exactly what happened to her or if her claims lie somewhere between total and accurate veracity or some variety of lesser veracity. I do know that "journalism" and even more so internet blather about that is no substitute for testing evidence. What I am doing here is internet blather. None of those issues I noted should in any way discredit her or support her claims though I think all of them are important considerations.
All accusations should be fully tested - if a crime is involved, by a trial in which evidence is presented and tested and even then the judgement of it, whether by a judge or by a jury, can get it wrong. When the cops or a prosecutor refuses to look at the evidence, that should be turned over to an honest and experienced investigative reporter, though that is very, very far from even the hardly guaranteed adversarial process in a fair trial.
We have no such plausible doubt in the case of Donald Trump who was tried and found liable in TWO trials in which Trump gave a highly damning deposition in which he, himself, discredited his defense. A process which has yet to play out to its end in which he pays the damages for him lying about that and defaming his victim, over and over again, something he is still doing. We have Trump, himself, on a recording bragging that he could sexually assault Women and get away with it because of his wealth and celebrity, we have every reason to believe, on that evidence, THAT HE HAS DONE WHAT HE WAS BRAGGING ABOUT DOING and which multiple Women have said he did to them. Though in any individual case, that should be subjected to that adversarial process with both sides able to present their evidence - AND TESTIMONY IS EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S PRESENTED UNDER THE POSSIBILITY OF PUNISHMENT FOR LYING - and it is evaluated.
And there are many other Republicans for whom far more credible and as bad and worse accusations are being made who are repeatedly elected to high offices, including the presidency AS YOU REPUBLICAN-FASCISTS HAVE ELECTED TRUMP, TWICE AND VOTED FOR THREE TIMES. The same accusation was made against Ronald Reagan - the status of which is very similar to the status of the accusation against Graham Platner, and you, the American media, and Republican-fascists and his other voters didn't bat an eyelash over that.
But the most important thing about this has nothing to do with any individual's conduct or even the consequences of that for those they may have done things to. THIS IS ABOUT WHETHER REPUBLICAN-FASCISTS HOLD POWER OVER THE SENATE, something in which the lives of millions and billions of People, the environment, equality, democracy and, with that, legitimate government is at stake, whether it's Graham Platner who wins against Susan Collins or another Democrat, THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT to far, far more People than the ones involved in the matter at hand.
I hope and have every confidence that the possibility of defeating Susan Collins will be among if not the strongest issue in what decision Graham Platner makes. Having heard him over the past year, I fully believe he knows that this is an entirely bigger issue than him, something I doubt Collins ever has had the vaguest notion of.
If Graham Platner isn't the candidate, and I now think he probably shouldn't be, I want whoever can beat Collins because she is truly and consequentially a dangerous person if she wins.
I've heard several names mentioned, including Janet Mills, who has the advantage of having had some votes cast for her in the recent primary- though I think she'd lose to Collins. I've heard someone I think might beat her, though in his recent run for the Democratic candidacy for Governor, he was far from the top candidate, Troy Jackson, who was my first choice in Maine's ranked-choice primary vote. My second-place in that won, by the way, Hannah Pingree. My own favorite choice would have been the Woman who got my third place vote on that ballot Shenna Bellows, who has been elected to state-wide office as our Secretary of State, though I don't have any confidence that she might beat Collins.
Last night I heard the name of Patrick Dempsey floated, which at first struck me as far fetched but, then, he has maintained long term ties to his native state. I don't watch TV or movies so my knowledge of him has been his decades of involvement with charities in Maine and his ties to that most working class of Maine cities, Lewiston. I can't see Republicans having much of a leg to stand on if they object to an actor as Senator, considering they've supported Trump three times (and he's not even an actor, he's a lying huckster) and Ronald Reagan twice. Not to mention all of the Hollywood figures who have been Republican members of the Congress, everyone from Sonny Bono and Fred Grandy to the Republican liar-lawyer turned actor, the equally odious Fred Thompson. Though I'm sure if Dempsey ran the media would make that an issue in exactly the same way that it has never been an issue when such a candidate has an "R" after their name.
In the end I am, as I have been for decades, an ABC Democrat, that would be ANYONE BUT COLLINS. I've been telling Mainers, especially Women that she wasn't what she was sold to be from before her first run for office. Her patented "concern" act, As most often seen on the most dishonest hours of the week on the Sunday Morning lie shows, is nothing but acting. She has a terrible record that she has never been made to account for, one of the reasons she has gone, literally decades without doing a town meeting in Maine. Retiring her and flipping the Senate is the most important issue. All else pales next to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment