On the heels of Atlantic magazine's prominent writer Jonathan Chait panicking about communists taking over the Democrat party, he went full blast five days later on Monday torching the party enablers of Graham Platt in "With Graham Platner, Democrats Got Drunk on the Beer Test."
Specifically Chait blasted those who performed the laughably lame vetting of Platner as well as those who continued to promote him despite the many scandals that erupted around him.
Chait's first blast was directed at Morris Katz, whose unbelievably weak vetting of Platner in the first place ultimately led to the Democrats being in the unenviable situation of perhaps being forced to switch out their candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine.
Last September, the progressive strategist Morris Katz confessed to The New Yorker that the process by which he decided that Graham Platner was qualified to run for U.S. Senate required less time than drinking a cup of coffee. Actually, it seems to have been less a confession than a boast. “Within a few minutes of talking to him, I was, like, ‘This guy owes it to the country to run for Senate,’” Katz recalled.
Another Platner vetter in Chait's sights was a very strange dude with an annoying vocal fry:
Dan Moraff, one of the strategists who helped select and vet Platner, “wants his candidates to back Medicare for All and characterize the Israel-Hamas conflict as a genocide, but beyond that, doesn’t believe voters care about detailed proposals,” The Wall Street Journal reported last month. Having a policy agenda that could fit comfortably on a Post-it note without omitting any important details certainly speeds up the process. Platner, indeed, has boiled down nearly all political problems to the perfidy of sinister oligarchs. Whatever the merits of this worldview, it does not demand much knowledge.
...Donald Trump has described liking his appointees to come right out of “central casting,” by which he means that they look like a Hollywood version of the position they are filling.
Katz and Moraff have taken an almost literal approach to this “central casting” criteria, searching for candidates whom the camera loves and then offering them to an adoring progressive fanbase. Platner’s qualifications in this regard are obvious. He has a masculine baritone, and works with his hands. Last year, Katz filmed a video of his new protégé shucking oysters, chopping wood, swinging kettlebells, and speaking directly to the camera in a muddy sweatshirt about how the oligarchy had screwed their beloved state.
Finally, Chait chastised the Democrats who engaged in Platner idolatry based on the incredibly poor vetting of their beloved:
...More skeletons kept turning up, though. Platner had sexted with at least half a dozen women after he was married, and reportedly lied about what he knew about his tattoo. He assured Senate backers that no additional negative stories would come out, only for his promise to crumble again.
Platner’s enthusiasts initially continued to support his campaign and reject the evidence of his misconduct. When The New York Times reported that a past girlfriend alleged he had physically abused her, the paper dismissed her testimony on account of her being a Republican, ignoring the discrepancies in Platner’s own defense.
...Platner was the Democratic-candidate equivalent of the grinning empty suit who gets the job after a handshake because the boss likes the cut of his jib. He looked like the authentic working-class hero so many progressives wanted, so he had to be one. George Burns once quipped, “When you’re playing a role you’ve got to be honest. And if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” In politics, people call this “authenticity.” But maybe looking and sounding like a working-class dude who hates big corporations is not adequate qualification for high office—or even proof that you can be taken at your word.
So does this mean the Democrats and much of the media will send their former adoration of the Maine oyster shucker down the memory hole?
