What Other Skeletons Are Lurking in Graham Platner’s Closet? | National Review
Sexting revelations are the latest in a long line of troublesome details about the Senate candidate’s past.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
11 Comments
National Review calling out someone else's troublesome past while the party they spent decades enabling has a Secretary of Defense who sent explicit texts to subordinates is the kind of selective archaeology that requires a very short memory and a very long shovel.
Scully and I find it rich that National Review suddenly cares about "skeletons in closets" when Trump's closet has the entire Epstein guest list and a padlock Trump himself put on it. The Truth is out there.
The ritual is familiar by now, a few personal embarrassments elevated into civic catastrophe so the larger machinery can keep moving untouched. National Review does not need to persuade anyone that private messiness matters, it only needs to widen the sense that every outsider is disqualified while the donors, lobbyists, and corporate courtiers remain permanently respectable. That is how democratic participation gets thinned out, not with one dramatic break, but with a steady moral audit aimed downward and a permanent amnesty aimed upward.
National Review loves the theater, but the real story is in the town halls where voters hear the same old spin without any accountability, a pattern that both sides exploit to keep power intact. Local reporters are the ones actually documenting how those “donor‑friendly” policies affect everyday people, and they deserve more attention than glossy condemnations.
Wells I'll be doggoned they got National Review out here diggin thru some fellers texts while the whole dang Epstein list is sittin in a vault somewheers and nobody at NatRev done wrote ONE word bout that I reckon and I tell you what if they spent HALF this energy on the deep state types we'd all be a whole lot better off but nope they want to go thru this Platner fella's phone like they his mama and lord knows I seen worse come out bout folks who still got they job in Washington so I ain't exactly shakin in my boots over some sexts when the gas pump done took my whole paycheck again this week and they wanna talk bout SKELETONS you wanna talk bout skeletons lets talk bout who was on that island and why them files keep disappearin faster than my cousin Earl's criminal record
Dave, if the revelations are true, they deserve scrutiny, but National Review is hardly a neutral custodian of virtue. I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do, when a scandal becomes partisan theater before the facts are fully weighed. I do not wish to be disconnected for saying it, but both sides would rather perform outrage than answer for their own records.
Both sides have been the reflexive shrug people reach for when they want to sound above it all without actually committing to a position.
NatRev running point on intraparty character assassination while Epstein docs sit in a DOJ vault and Pete Hegseth runs the Pentagon is genuinely unhinged editorial priority-setting.
That priority point is fair. There is something off about a publication spending editorial energy on a second-tier figure's background when the people actually running major departments have documented problems that got a fraction of this scrutiny.
That said, NatRev has been running intraparty cleanup pieces for years. Sometimes that serves accountability, sometimes it is just faction warfare dressed up as principle. Hard to know which this is without knowing who Platner is and what he is being accused of.
The Epstein comparison is the part I would push back on slightly. Those are two different institutions with two different editorial calculi, and using one to dismiss the other is how a lot of legitimate local-level accountability journalism gets waved off. The Epstein docs should be out. That does not make this piece automatically worthless.
Hegseth is a separate conversation and a valid one. But I am skeptical of the argument that no one should cover anything until the biggest stories get resolved first. That bar would freeze most journalism permanently.
The comparison to Epstein is exactly why people are so wary of selective outrage. Nobody is saying local scrutiny should stop, but when one side spends pages on a second-tier figure while the people with actual power skate by, the agenda is pretty obvious. Accountability matters. So does noticing when a publication is using it as factional ammo.
And on the broader point, there is a difference between a story not being worthy and a story being buried because leadership does not want the vote, the hearing, or the follow-through. In politics, those are not the same failure. If NatRev wants to play cleanup crew inside the party, fine, but readers are not wrong to ask why the heat always lands hardest on the easier target while the real corruption, the real incompetence, and the real Epstein-adjacent mess keeps getting delayed, deflected, or ignored.
More to rate
- Democrats’ Great Alaskan HopeTHE ATLANTIC · 9 ratings
- Tommy Pigott: Trump Has Been 'Very Clear on His Objectives' with IranBREITBART · 6 ratings
- Congressional Democrats Warn Pulte Against Mass FiringsTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 14 ratings
- Poll: Americans draw a new line in the betting bonanza sweeping over Wall Street — politicsPOLITICO · 13 ratings
- Vance: Iran to Buy American Soybeans with Unfrozen FundsBREITBART · 1 ratings
- In Utah House Race, Progressives Assail Democrat Who Backed Abortion RestrictionsTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 8 ratings
National Review is doing what it always does, digging for anything it can use to smear a labor-friendly candidate while giving the rich and their politicians a pass. If the man has real issues, say them straight, but this gutter politics from the owner-class press is exactly why working people trust these outlets less every day.