Democrat Darling Graham Platner Has a Nazi Problem

Maine's dirtbag leftists have spent ten years calling every conservative a Nazi, but now their darling progressive hero has a serious Nazi problem of his own.

When Graham Platner first burst onto the Maine political scene, I’ll admit I was taken aback. Here was a non-effeminate left-wing man who a) did not begin life as a woman, and b) appeared to be, well, manly. (Extremely manly, if you credit his own boasts about his barracuda-like sperm.)

Could it be that Democrats had finally unearthed a normal, working-class man who could credibly champion economic progressivism as a tribune of the working class? Was there, at last, rising from the craggy shores of the Bold Coast, a white, straight, man capable of saving the Democratic Party from its own worst impulses?

If so, Republican Sen. Susan Collins might have had reason to worry. Collins is, after all, indelibly linked to the status quo by virtue of her long career in office. A gruff, gritty guy with callouses on his hands who wants to flip over the table on behalf of working people just might eke out a win against Collins World.

But then came the Tottenkopf.

And the Reddit posts.

And the fake OysterMan schtick.

And the lies.

And the other lies.

And then the lies about the lies.

All of which point toward an implosion that may or may not occur before Maine Democrats toss Platner into the general election like a live hand grenade.

Platner’s candidacy was a mirage from the outset. The tell was how frequently his handlers and admirers invoked the term “oysterman” — a contrived word that seems to exist only in gushing profiles in GQ or The New Yorker. The reality is that Platner was an amateur actor whose brief appearance in an aquaculture promotional video caught the attention of political consultants. Some well placed Democratic sources have told me as much. These consultants approached Platner with a proposition: Let us harness the powers of digital media — the same powers that elevated Mayor Mamdani in New York — and make you a U.S. senator. Once you understand that Platner is an actor playing a role, everything else starts to make sense.

The problem with plucking someone from obscurity and transforming him into a Senate candidate is that you inherit the baggage. In Platner’s case, that includes roughly 10,000 Reddit posts smearing Mainers as racist “retards,” advocating armed violence against Trump supporters, and declaring that all cops are bastards. It also includes photographic evidence of Platner teaching the Socialist Rifle Association chapter in Maine how to take prone sniper shots at human shaped targets. And it includes the litany of women from the “Are We Dating the Same Guy?” Facebook groups who suspect they might have swiped-right on the new progressive darling.

Nonetheless, Platner is reportedly curb-stomping Democratic Gov. Janet Mills by 30- to 40-point margins in early polling. But troubling signs suggest that SS OysterMan may be flotsam by November. Ironically, the same left-wing activists who have spent the year standing on Maine bridges waving Palestinian, Ukrainian, and even Canadian flags — and branding everyone else a Nazi — may be the reason their party sends a candidate with a very real Nazi problem into battle against Susan Collins.

To be clear: I do not believe Graham Platner is a Nazi. He strikes me as a trust-fund kid who takes whatever fascinates him to an extreme (see e.g. his video game career). He is a hardo and a poseur. For the next ten months, we will watch him cosplay “Gritty Working Man.” But even if Platner himself is not a Nazi or neo-Nazi, he undeniably has a Nazi problem.

Start with the tattoo. The Tottenkopf tattoo ranks just behind the swastika as one of the most infamous Nazi symbols. From Inglourious Basterds to Schindler’s List to the caricatures in Indiana Jones and even Monty Python, the “Death’s Head” has been synonymous with some of the most vile officers of the Third Reich. Platner says he got the skull tattoo during a drunken night in Split, Croatia, in 2007, when he and some buddies opted for scary ink.

Fine. That explains perhaps 48 to 72 hours of possessing the tattoo. Maybe a year or two if you count the time it takes to find a laser removal joint in the Bangor area.

But what about the next 18 years?

Platner claims that for nearly two decades he had no idea what the Nazi skull on his chest represented. This from a man who, in classic poseur fashion, has described himself as a “World War II buff.”

According to his version of events, he discovered the tattoo’s meaning only after announcing his Senate campaign. He was shocked — shocked! — to learn what dastardly political operatives were saying about his beloved Tottenkopf. He even went on with the Obama Bro podcasters to get ahead of the disclosure and first floated the line that he had been completely unaware the symbol was Nazi in origin.

That, however, appears to have been untrue.

Platner’s former campaign manager, Genevieve MacDonald, has said he knew all along that his Tottenkopf tattoo was a Nazi insignia.

A friend in Hancock County released a video defending Platner and inadvertently revealed that Platner had known for years about the tattoo’s Nazi associations.

An anonymous source in Washington told Jewish Insider that Platner once referred to the ink on his chest as “my Tottenkopf.”

That’s three different, independent sources, including one who is a friend of Platner’s, who all tell a version of events that make Platner out to be a liar.

Again, I do not think Platner is a secret Nazi. Platner probably got the tattoo and learned within months — or years — that it was a Tottenkopf. But perhaps it carried sentimental value from his time deployed with fellow Marines, so he kept it. After all, the tattoo cannot leap off his chest and commit a hate crime. It hasn’t hurt anyone. When it became a political liability, however, he opted to tell a convenient fiction rather than a complicated truth. Now he is digging deeper into a pit of his own making.

The saga suggests Platner is a deeply disordered individual whose disordered personality contributes to an inability to tell the truth. He has lied repeatedly about the entire fiasco, creating a much larger problem: How can voters trust a man who lies as easily as he breathes? The guy is making the National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC)’s job too easy.

Unfortunately, that is not where Platner’s affaire de Nazi ends.

The OysterMan’s campaign has been dogged by fresh Nazi-themed controversies thanks to some reckless social media activity.

Last week, Platner sat for a lengthy interview with a man he described as a longtime favorite — a man who happens to be a notorious antisemitic conspiracy theorist. Once again, the question arises: Was Platner lying about being a longtime fan? Did he casually exaggerate to ingratiate himself with an audience? Or was he genuinely a fan of an open neo-Nazi?

None of those answers is reassuring. For what it’s worth, I suspect he was lying. It seems to be a recurring trait.

That same week, Platner’s campaign reposted a clip of the State of the Union originally shared by Stew Peters, another infamous neo-Nazi.

Whoops. Post deleted. In the immortal phrasing of President Donald Trump: “The young intern who accidentally did a retweet apologizes.”

But the Nazi mishaps keep piling up.

Like this friendly chat at a state fair with a man wearing a Nazi shirt.

Again, I do not believe Graham Platner is a clandestine Nazi. But the tattoo and the steady drumbeat of accidental Nazi associations are beginning to accumulate like a farcical Seinfeld subplot.

What I do believe is that he has a profound problem with honesty.

Candidates prone to habitual dishonesty tend to unravel as pressure mounts and election deadlines approach. A U.S. Senate race brings intense scrutiny; every inconsistency is dissected with surgical precision. At this stage, Platner’s hole may be too deep to climb out of by simply offering a clean, truthful account — if he even remembers what that account would be.

The real question is whether any of this matters to Maine Democrats.

These are, after all, the same activists who have spent a decade shouting “Nazi” at anyone who strays from progressive orthodoxy. Some of Platner’s most ardent supporters delight in labeling conservatives neo-Nazis, Christo-fascists, or white supremacists — whatever buzzwords sound most fashionable after nine or ten bong rips.

Will those self-appointed Nazi hunters rally behind the candidate with the Nazi tattoo who keeps stumbling into Nazi-adjacent controversies online?

My guess is yes. They seem to be all-in. At this point, Platner could be photographed at the Portland Library reading a dog-eared copy of Mein Kampf and the union goons promoting his candidacy would find some way to explain away the cognitive dissonance. Not because they find Platner’s Nazi dalliances and bewildering lies defensible, but because they lack a coherent political philosophy beyond the pursuit of power. In the end, they will view Platner as the most viable vehicle for expanding their own influence — and that will be enough.

---