Senator Susan Collins "concerned" about her opponent Mr. Graham Platner but says nothing about Epstein Files connection to Donald Trump
Manufactured outrage has become one of the defining features of the modern GOP Republican politics. #MainePolitics
A Facebook essay by Murry Evans.
The latest example is unfolding in Maine, where Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner has come under scrutiny after reports revealed he sent explicit messages early in his marriage.
But, immediately, the outrage machine roared to life.
But, no, they didn’t❗
This is the same political movement that normalized Donald Trump despite years of affairs, sexual misconduct allegations, vulgar public behavior, hush money scandals, and the infamous Access Hollywood “grab them by the pussy” tape.
That is why the outrage feels manufactured.
Not because personal character is irrelevant. It matters. Integrity matters. Yes, honesty matters. (Mr. Platner has been honest in his response to the news stories about him.)
But selective outrage is not morality. Instead, it is brutal politics.
And what makes this particular story more complicated is the contrast between the two figures at the center of it.
Susan Collins has spent decades carefully cultivating the image of a thoughtful, responsible moderate — a reassuring institutional figure standing above partisan chaos. Yet, again and again, when the most consequential moments arrived, she ultimately protected the political machinery surrounding Trump while publicly pretending discomfort with it afterward. Concern became performance. Moderation (or the fake news about it) became branding.
Platner, by contrast, does not project establishment polish. He comes across more like the rugged, imperfect, working-class outsider many Mainers recognize immediately — someone rooted in the realities of coastal communities, labor concerns, fisheries, wages, healthcare, and economic inequality rather than the insulated world of Washington power.
That contrast is precisely why this race matters.
The latest example is unfolding in Maine, where Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner has come under scrutiny after reports revealed he sent explicit messages early in his marriage.
Platner acknowledged the messages publicly, admitted he hurt people close to him, and said he and his wife entered counseling after she discovered them last year. (Mr. Platner never called the accusations a "hoax" and the interviews with The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times did not provide any evidence to support the reports.)
But, immediately, the outrage machine roared to life.
Hypocritical republicans and conservative media figures suddenly began presenting the race as a referendum on morality, character, and personal decency.
Watching all of this unfold would almost be convincing if these were the same people who had spent the last decade holding their own political leaders to the same standards.
But, no, they didn’t❗
This is the same political movement that normalized Donald Trump despite years of affairs, sexual misconduct allegations, vulgar public behavior, hush money scandals, and the infamous Access Hollywood “grab them by the pussy” tape.
Somehow, none of that disqualified him from the presidency in the eyes of the very people who now want voters to believe Platner’s failures represent some unique moral collapse.
That is why the outrage feels manufactured.
Not because personal character is irrelevant. It matters. Integrity matters. Yes, honesty matters. (Mr. Platner has been honest in his response to the news stories about him.)
But selective outrage is not morality. Instead, it is brutal politics.
And what makes this particular story more complicated is the contrast between the two figures at the center of it.
Susan Collins has spent decades carefully cultivating the image of a thoughtful, responsible moderate — a reassuring institutional figure standing above partisan chaos. Yet, again and again, when the most consequential moments arrived, she ultimately protected the political machinery surrounding Trump while publicly pretending discomfort with it afterward. Concern became performance. Moderation (or the fake news about it) became branding.
Platner, by contrast, does not project establishment polish. He comes across more like the rugged, imperfect, working-class outsider many Mainers recognize immediately — someone rooted in the realities of coastal communities, labor concerns, fisheries, wages, healthcare, and economic inequality rather than the insulated world of Washington power.
That contrast is precisely why this race matters.
One candidate represents institutional stability inside a political system many Americans increasingly distrust. The other represents frustration with that system itself, even while carrying very human flaws of his own.
And perhaps that is the deeper tension underneath all of this:
Americans often claim to want authenticity in politics, but authenticity becomes uncomfortable when it arrives attached to imperfection.
What is much harder is applying standards consistently.
If character matters, then it should matter universally. If morality matters, then it should not disappear whenever political convenience requires it to disappear.
And if outrage only emerges when it benefits one side politically, then what we are witnessing is not principle at all. It is performance.
Americans often claim to want authenticity in politics, but authenticity becomes uncomfortable when it arrives attached to imperfection.
Meanwhile, carefully managed political branding is repeatedly mistaken for integrity simply because it looks more polished.
The easiest thing in the world is to manufacture outrage around another person’s failures. Cable news thrives on it. Social media rewards it. Political operatives depend on it.
The easiest thing in the world is to manufacture outrage around another person’s failures. Cable news thrives on it. Social media rewards it. Political operatives depend on it.
What is much harder is applying standards consistently.
If character matters, then it should matter universally. If morality matters, then it should not disappear whenever political convenience requires it to disappear.
And if outrage only emerges when it benefits one side politically, then what we are witnessing is not principle at all. It is performance.
That is the real story unfolding in Maine right now.
(Maine Writer: But, the back story is the new progressive mantra: "You don't know the Maine voter❗)
This crucial Maine senate campaign is not simply about a populist flawed candidate. Not about another "ho-hum😒😩😴" political scandal. Rather, the campaign is about a political culture that selectively weaponizes morality, while excusing almost anything from the powerful people, like the convicted criminal Donald Trump, that it has already chosen to protect.
P.S. Where are the Epstein Files❓
Labels: Murry Evans, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal



0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home