Yes. As a Jewish American I take great offense at being lumped with AIPAC. They do not represent me or my interests. We can’t seem to escape the canard from all sides that Jewish and Israel are synonymous. NOT.
No one is saying that AIPAC represents all Jewish Americans by virtue of them being Jewish. But people like Platner are trying to paint AIPAC as a nefarious foreign entity, and my point is that it is composed of Jewish Americans. NOT nefarious mysterious foreigners.
Yes, that’s why the word some plays a very important part in the below post,
Hey, no fair editing his post. Wait a minute! “Some” was never in there!
I’m certain we were all supposed to infer the some and ignore the implied all.
Neither was the word “All”, of course. So I’m really not sure what you are complaining about.
I feel pretty good about my ability to read English.
ETA: Polling apparently shows that only 40% of Jewish Americans have a favorable view of AIPAC. 30% unfavorable, the rest unsure.
ETA2: Apparently, AIPAC support lowers the support of Jewish Democrats for a candidate!
Nothing nefarious or mysterious about the foreign interests AIPAC fairly exclusively focuses on.
(And I solidly identify as a Zionist.)
Moderating:
Reminder - the thread is about Platner. Let’s not spend too much time analyzing AIPAC except as it applies to Planter, which several of the posts have done, while some have drifted away from the main focus. Do feel free to spin off your own thread however, please and thank you.
Well, since there are none running, we dont know.
You’re right, he’s The Boy Formerly Known As The Boy With A Nazi Tattoo. My bad!
I assume it’s not in dispute that the media’s preferred candidate in the primary was Mills. The fact that she had next to no support shows that the media can’t actually just pick a winner in an election and worries that dissent from the base playing i to an anti-Platner media blitz is unfounded.
Also anyone who thinks Platner had no real competition in the primary must agree with me that he’s an untested candidate and people shouldn’t assume he has a handle on his scandals.
I neanI think the dems have to just hope for the best because a palace coup would be straight up throwing the seat away.
Maine isn’t all that weird. Every state is different, but Maine has a lot in common with Wisconsin, for instance.
Maine has been part of the US since the US was founded. It was part of Massachusetts until 1820.
Formal secession from Massachusetts and admission of Maine as the 23rd state occurred on March 15, 1820, as part of the Missouri Compromise, which geographically restricted the spread of slavery and enabled the admission to statehood of Missouri the following year, keeping a balance between slave and free states.[30][31][32]
Y’know, Babale, you and I agree on a lot of things, but I think that at this point you’ve pretty much established the point that Graham Platner Had A Tattoo Once.
Repeating it over and over again like it’s the most amazing political zinger since “Where’s the beef?” doesn’t seem like it’s going to change anyone’s mind at this point, and you’re well into “stop trying to make fetch happen!” territory by now.
If you think there’s a reason Maine Democrats should support a literal fascist enabler over a left-wing progressive who got a stupid tattoo when he was young and drunk, there are better ways of making that point than shouting the same catch-phrase over and over again.
Only laziness kept me from posting that meme. Thank you!
It may be obvious to others, but I cannot guess what “the media” refers to.
Did Maine newspapers do endorsements?
Boston Globe? New York Times?
Or are we talking about an interpretation of coverage.
ABC? NBC? CNN?
CBS sounds plausible, but did they?
FoxNews?
I suppose they all covered the tatoo. I think that’s news, not a covert enforcement.
And Platner was always going to drive viewership/readership more than Mills. So I’m surprised by the claim that Mills was “the media’s preferred candidate.”
I suppose some pundits employed by news shows might have preferred Mills. But as a business proposition, the person who incites more clicks will always be “preferred” (and that person is clearly Platner).
Mills was certainly the preferred candidate of the Democratic leadership. And it appears of the NYT as well.
Cite? because Platner has some top notch endorsements. Sanders, Gallego, Warren, Ro Khanna, and a bunch of unions.
Mills had- Schumer, Governors= Maura Healey (MA), Gretchen Whitmer (MI), Andy Beshear (KY), and Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM).
I think that is about even.
After the NYTs irresponsible reporting of the Biden/Trump race (there’s a whole thread about that), they have lost my respect.
As Senate Minority Leader it could be argued Schumer is the leader of Senate Democrats don’t you think? The Senate is the body Platner is trying to join so that would seem to be an important endorsement for Mills.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D) endorsed Janet Mills as well. Again I think that would be viewed as a pretty important endorsement.
So multiple centrists and leaders of the Ds in Congress endorsed Mills. I fail to see how that doesn’t constitute party leadership.
The people who endorsed Platner in the primary are all part of the progressive wing of the party. So not the actual leadership of the party, at least yet.
As for the comment about the NYT, I mentioned that in response to the question about “the media” in the post by DeadTreasSecretaries.
And just to be extra clear, Mills would have been a terrible candidate and would have almost certainly lost to Collins. My hope is that Platner, warts and all (including former tattoos), will win.