We Should Defend Graham Platner. Even If We Don't Like Him.
A political hit job is trying to keep anti-establishment, anti-war politics out of power. Regardless of how we feel about the candidate, those who wish to change the country must fight back.
Last week, The New York Times published an exposé interviewing several of Graham Platner’s ex-girlfriends. The Times spoke to two dozen people, six of whom were former romantic partners of the presumptive Democratic senatorial nominee. Three of the six described Platner favorably, and they remain friends to this day. The others tell a different story. One, Ms. Racicot, says she felt he didn’t respect women. An anonymous former partner who dated Platner in 2016 described him as a heavy drinker and infidelotous. The word “toxic” is used frequently.
The article focuses on Lyndsey Fifield, who dated Platner in 2013 when they both lived in Washington. Fifield makes some serious allegations against Platner that deserve our undivided attention. Though Fifield admits Platner “never hit me, never punched me,” she accuses him of grabbing her hard enough to leave marks. During one argument, Fifield claims Platner twisted her arm behind her back, causing “pain but no injury,” and locked her in a bedroom until the following morning.
Like any accuser, Lyndsey Fifield deserves the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who comes forward with an allegation of inappropriate behavior (especially a woman accusing a larger, trained soldier of battery) should be heard out. Fifield has given her account, and all should listen. Here is a gift link for you to read her side before I share my thoughts on this affair.
After the Times story was published, Platner appeared on Chris Haye’s show to discuss the allegations. As he has before, Platner admits he struggled with PTSD, addiction, and depression after leaving the military. He doesn’t deny saying unsettling things or drinking too much during the years he was dating Fifield. But he does unqequivocally deny that he was ever physical with any partner.
In the interview, Platner describes Fifield’s claim as “politically motivated.” Though we can never know someone’s true motivations, it’s difficult to believe Lyndsey Fifield’s allegations are being made in good faith. After all, she is a conservative political activist with a history of smearing women who accused prominent Republicans of rape.
Ladies For Brett Kavanaugh
Lyndsey Fifield is a Republican Party operative. The Times describes her as being “affiliated” with the conservative group, the Independent’s Women Forum. But that only scratches the surface. Fifield began her career working for the GOP Super PAC American Action Network, then spent seven years at the Heritage Foundation before joining Nikki Haley’s 2024 presidential campaign. Being a Republican is not grounds to disbelieve any accuser. However, when the accuser is caught lying about their political activity, red flags rise. Here’s how The New York Times describes Fifield’s relationship to the Independent Women’s Forum:
“Ms. Fifield said she had no connection to the campaign of Senator Susan Collins, Mr. Platner’s likely Republican opponent. She acknowledged that Independent Women had been supportive of Ms. Collins but said she had not been active with the organization recently.”
This is a lie. On April 15th, 2026, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) released the following press release supporting President Donald Trump’s “Working Families Tax Cuts.” The RSC describes itself as “the conservative caucus of House Republicans and a leading influencer on the Right since its original founding in 1973.” To support the Republican President’s agenda, the RSC published statements from so-called Real Americans affirming the need for this bill. One of the statements came from Lyndsey Fifield, a self-described “Stay-at-Home Mom” and representative of the Independent Women’s Forum.
Right out of the gate, Lyndsey Fifield is shown to be a liar. She claimed she was no longer active with the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF). Yet less than two months ago, she was speaking on behalf of the group to advance the Republican Party’s agenda. The Times printed her claims without criticism. But I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that the paper of record would not have discovered Fifield was an active IWF member during its source verification. If you google “Lyndsey Fifield” with a date set before the Times story, the top result is an active page on the Independent Women’s Forum website describing her as a “Visiting Fellow.” You can even fill out the form to request her as a speaker.
To be blunt, I don’t think the Times missed this. I think they were well aware that Lyndsey is an active Republican agent, but didn’t want to disclose it because it would call her motives into question. So, they didn’t disclose it, thinking we’re all dummies who wouldn’t connect the dots. Fifield lying about her recent political activity isn’t disqualifying on its own. But working for the Independent Women’s Forum, which has an infamous reputation when it comes to political sexual assault allegations, raises even more questions.
The Independent Women’s Forum gained notoriety in 2018 for leading the defense of then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. During his confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. The credible allegations roiled the Republican Party and left GOP politicians scrambling for a solution. The Independent Women’s Forum stepped in to feministly* defend Kavanaugh and provide embattled Republicans with talking points. Unfortunately, it worked. The Republicans rallied around Kavanaugh, called Blasey Ford a liar, and got him appointed to the Supreme Court. Here is IWF president Heather Higgins bragging about her group’s role in protecting Kavanaugh by drafting a talking-points memo. Higgins says the “most important” result of that memo was empowering Susan Collins to give her infamous floor speech, which greased the wheels for Kavanaugh’s nomination.
This is not Fifield’s only connection to the Brett Kavanaugh affair. A 2018 New York Post article identifies Lyndsey Fifield as one of the founders of “Ladies for Kavanaugh,” co-founded with an IWF staffer. According to Fifield, the group was created to defend the Supreme Court nominee from “baseless” allegations. As the article notes, they were doing this on their own time. No paychecks, just slandering rape survivors for love of the game.
Fifield was one of Kavanaugh’s most ardent defenders. She repeatedly accused Blasey Ford of lying, and wanted her “false allegations” to follow her for the rest of her life. For the record, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford didn’t want to go public and first gave her testimony in secret. As the Kavanaugh affair grew, pressure built, and she came forward at great personal cost.
Though they succeeded in getting Kavanaugh on the court, conservatives still carry a grudge about the allegations to this day. Just as it’s not enough for the wealthy to be wealthy but insist their wealth is altruistic and a benefit to others, it’s not enough for Republicans to hold power. They demand we treat them as respectable opponents, ignoring the bodies they step over on their quest for a reactionary agenda. As soon as questions about Lyndsey Fifield’s account surfaced, prominent conservatives raced to point out that Democrats were hypocritical for believing Kavanaugh’s accusers but not Platner’s.
The difference was that Blasey Ford had substantiated evidence of the assault. She had told friends, family, and medical personnel she was attacked by Kavanaugh, which was confirmed by an FBI polygraph test. Comparatively, there is no evidence to back up Fifield’s claim. As the authors admit (twice), there is no corroborating evidence for Fifield’s claim that Platner grabbed her. The reporters read “texts between Ms. Fifield and Mr. Platner, along with Google Chat exchanges, texts, and Facebook messages between Ms. Fifield and her friends during and after the relationship.” As Fifield later said, she gave them the names of people to talk to who could confirm her claims. The reporters talked to those friends and even read Fifield’s diary. Yet, on two separate occasions during the story, the Times admits their was no evidence she was telling the truth:
“Mr. Platner ‘strongly disputes’ any claims of physical intimidation or altercations, his campaign said. The Times could not independently corroborate Ms. Fifield’s account of the altercations.”
“The Times reviewed texts between Ms. Fifield and Mr. Platner, along with Google Chat exchanges, texts and Facebook messages between Ms. Fifield and her friends during and after the relationship. The Times also reviewed some of Ms. Fifield’s diary entries from after the relationship had ended, and spoke with two of her friends who confirmed that the pair had an emotionally volatile relationship but could not corroborate the physical altercations or the most controversial comments she described.”
This is a story without double-sourcing, which goes against the most fundamental rules of journalism. But the Times went ahead and published it anyway, for reasons I’ll explain later.
It is worth noting that, while reading Fifield’s texts, The New York Times found one incriminating message. But not from Platner. In a message to a group chat last year, Fifeild said she would “personally go campaign for Collins.” Take from that what you will.
We should also note that Fifield is an ardent Zionist and anti-Palestinian racist who has spread lies to support the Trump administration’s illegal incarceration of Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk. Khalil was arrested for organizing the Columbia Solidarity Encampment, and Öztürk wrote an op-ed critical of Israel. Fifield accused them of “organizing violent actions” and “distributing material funded by state-designated terror groups,” claims even the Trump administration didn’t make. The government’s basis for both attempted deportations was their advocacy for Palestine, not actual crimes. It’s also hard to dismiss Graham Platner’s criticism of Israel as a motivation, given Fifield has stated: “whoever curses Israel will be cursed.”
Attempting to vouch for Fifield, her former podcast co-host Bethany Mandel confirmed Fifield was the source behind the unsubstantiated story from last October, alleging that Platner knew his tattoo was Nazi iconography. That story, published in Jewish Insider, which has launched bigoted campaigns against Hasan Piker and Abdul El-Sayed, cited an anonymous “former acquaintance” of Platner’s who claimed he knew the tattoo’s origin. I’m not sure if or when Platner knew what his tattoo was. But as Bethany Mandel admits, Fifield worked with Jewish Insider to “disqualify” Platner; not to give Maine voters all the relevant information about a candidate, but to circumvent the democratic process and disqualify him.
With an attempt to hide Lyndsey Fifield’s career as a political saboteur, her disregard for female sexual assault survivors, and her friend’s admission that she tried to manipulate the media to disqualify Graham Platner once already, I’d say this person is far from honest. I thought her account might be plausible. That is, until she began attacking The New York Times for “helping” Graham Platner. Whatever one thinks about Platner, Fifield, or the Maine Senate race, no one with a functioning frontal lobe can read The New York Times story and think it was aiding the Platner campaign.
Once readers began calling her credibility into question, Lyndsey Fifield took to social media to accuse the Times reporters of orchestrating a “set up” to “give a gift” to the Platner campaign. She claims she gave the Times reporters more evidence and corroborators to talk to. But what she fails to understand is that the reporters did talk to those people. They just didn’t corroborate Fifield’s account.
Conservative propagandists have followed Fifield’s lead, telling their audiences that the woke social justice libs at The New York Times are protecting Graham Platner from accountability. (Sure, guys. Whatever you say.) Fox News is echoing Fifield’s claim that this article was to help the Platner campaign. Tucker Carlson’s The Daily Caller called the story a “soft catch-and-kill” operation, alleging the Times is trying to get Platner elected. Whatever the people defending the Epstein President say.
Given that even the conservatives are saying the Times story is bogus, I see no reason to put much stock into it. After all, there’s nothing new in it. Two women said what we already knew, that Graham Platner has a history of drinking and cheating. (Am I supposed to believe U.S. Senators are chaste and sober as nuns?) Fifield was the only one to claim physical abuse, and the Times couldn’t corroborate it. But they printed her allegations anyway, packaged as “Multiple women.” Basically, they hoped to create the impression that Graham Platner was a serial abuser, despite no evidence to say so. Why would The New York Times do this? Well, to answer that question, let’s refamiliarize ourselves with The Times’ history of anti-left slanders and the reporters’ clear favorability of Israel.
Old Dog, Same Tricks
As a staunch critic of Israel and the foreign policy establishment, Graham Platner is the exact type of politician The New York Times has a history of seeking to discredit. The paper, which has self-described as Zionist, recently debased itself with the below sub-heading associating Dr. Adam Hamawy with the Blind Sheik. Hawamy is a combat surgeon who has saved American lives at ground zero on September 11th. He also treated American servicemen in Iraq, even saving the life of Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth. Hamaway recently put his life on the line to volunteer at the Nasser hospital in Gaza, bravely refusing to leave even when the hospital was besieged by the Israeli Army. Yet, because he criticizes established American foreign policy, the Times is ‘jUsT aSKiNg qUeStions"‘ about Islamophobic allegations dredged up by the racist right.
We also cannot ignore the historical biases of the reporters who wrote this story. One of the authors on the byline is Katie Glueck, who has a history of collaborating with pro-Israel interests. In college, Glueck was the co-president of Northwestern University’s Students for Israel chapter and received an award for “AIPAC Activist of the Year.” (At least the school newspaper was ethical enough to disclose Glueck’s political biases, something The New York Times declines to do.) While working for The Times, Glueck’s fondness for Israel has severely impacted her coverage. It’s no coincidence that the Platner story is written by Katie Glueck and Lisa Lerer, the same reporters who wrote the infamous July 2025 story saying Zohran Mamdani’s victory was a threat to Jews. By interviewing known pro-Israel activists such as President Biden’s anti-semitism czar and prominent Zionist rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, the authors legitimized the racist hallucination that a Muslim mayor was a threat to Jewish safety. Glueck and Lere even included a quote from an anti-Muslim bigot calling Mamdani’s primary victory a “Spiritual Kristallnacht.”
There are also serious problems with the way Glueck and Lerer presented certain information in their story. For example, the reporters found one text on Fifield’s phone from a friend saying, “Do Not Call Graham.” Glueck and Lerer use that text as evidence of Platner’s problematic treatment of Fifield. They even made it a heading, indicating the gravity they placed on that statement. But the day after the story was published, Fifield said that the text was an “out of context quote from a friend joking ‘do not call Graham’ after I called off my wedding.” This is extremely suspect. The Times admits to reading Fifield’s messages. So if it was a joke, Glueck and Lerer would have known it was an attempt at gallows-humor, joking that she shouldn’t call the ex, whom she has a history of contacting. And if it wasn’t a joke, why is Fifield saying it is?
This is all very strange and very confusing. Before I explain what I think happened, we must address the question of Graham Platner’s character. I’ll be the first one to say, I don’t love it. A former Army soldier and mercenary is far from my cup of tea. But by all available evidence, this story is not about Graham Platner, the man. It is about Graham Platner, the politician. And I find myself compelled to defend him from this smear campaign for the same reason it’s being launched against him.
The Establishment Strikes Back
Graham Platner is a controversial figure, to say the least. The Times story transports us back into his troubling past of post-traumatic stress disorder and alcoholism. All available witnesses to that period, himself included, speak of a highly troubled man grappling with his post-war conscience.
When I first learned about Graham Platner, I instantly recalled William “Billy” Lavigne, the main character in Seth Harp’s excellent book The Fort Bragg Cartel: Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces. Harp’s book details how Lavigne went from a scrawny nerd who enlisted in the Army for free cosmetic eye surgery to a coked-out killer who ran an international drug trafficking ring and shot his best friend in front of their young daughters. Fort Bragg follows Lavigne and his Delta Force comrades from North Carolina to Afghanistan and back again, with an illuminating account of drug use and trafficking propelling the War on Terror, both as a financial source for the American empire and a personal stimulant for the soldiers carrying its banner. Whatever moral justification the country and its army believed they had for the War on Terror, it quickly devolved into amphetamine-fueled violence for the sake of amphetamine-fueled violence. One line from the book remains permanently in my mind. When describing Billy Lavigne’s Delta Force unit, an acquaintance said, “All they know how to do is kill people.” This summarizes the United States of America as much as its soldiers. The War on Terror broke America’s national mind, just as the military ethos of constant violence does to soldiers. Humans aren’t made for never-ending conflict. Military training seeks to break down the moral barriers in a soldiers’ mind, until all they do is follow orders and kill, kill, kill. As a result, suicide is the leading cause of death for American soldiers, overcoming disease and combat casualties. I see Graham Platner as a Lavigne-like figure, who, either by luck or knowledge, attempted to wrench his soul back from the vile demon that is American militarism. The word “redemption” is thrown around a lot when discussing Platner. I do believe he is seeking redemption for his past offenses. But simply seeking redemption does not mean one gets a pass on every transgression. Forgiveness is a relationship between the offender and those they hurt. You don’t get to mumble “sorry” and expect a clean slate. Platner is attempting to amend for his dark past, as is the United States of America. And I do believe that his anti-genocide, anti-war platform is some sort of penance for his role in American imperialism. (There’s a reason disgruntled soldiers have consistently formed the vanguard for left-wing movements.) I can look at a man like Platner, understand how America’s violent culture turned him into something he doesn’t want to be, and give him grace as he seeks redemption. As a Marxist, I also recognize that the War on Terror was not the product of poor individual choices to enlist, but the result of clashing forces on the world stage — namely, a hyper-militaristic hegemon looking to justify its excessive Pentagon budget and seek revenge for 9/11. And though I played a far less significant role than soldiers such as Platner, as a tax-paying American citizen, my hands are not clean from the blood of nations pillaged by the American government.
However, it’s not my place to forgive or condemn Graham Platner. That is the role of his ex-acquaintances and the people who were oppressed while serving in an occupying army. Some will, some will not. To me, the moral question of Platner’s redemption is not one I am fit to give. I cannot forgive him for his trespasses when I am not the one he harmed. Nor can I condemn his quest for absolution when I, like every American, have benefited from the spoils of living inside a global hegemon. As for the political question, politicians are not our friends. Would I want to go to the bar with an alcoholic? No. And I wouldn’t want my friends dating him. But I’m not looking for a buddy. I’m looking for Senators who will vote to embargo any weapons from entering Israel. You don’t need to be the best guy ever to do that. And, as he stands, Graham Platner is a far better person than the current Senators sending Netanyahu 2,000-pound bombs every week.
I’m not the correct writer to opine on this, but this episode must really suck for women. There’s no way to say this without sounding like a performative male, but the issue of impropriety and alleged abuse is once again being used as a political football, with no concern about what it means for survivors, or how it will further weaken those who come forward with allegations against powerful men in the future. Though I’m convinced this latest story is a political hit job, its second and third-order effects should not be ignored.
That’s how I see Graham Platner. Many others on the left have reached more critical conclusions about the former soldier. My view isn’t The Right One, it’s just a different one. Though we disagree, I would urge anyone sympathetic to anti-establishment, Israel-critical politics to support Platner, at least against these latest charges. Because this isn’t actually about Graham Platner. The New York Times’ attack against the oysterman has nothing to do with his past behavior. Rather, what we are witnessing is an outburst from the country’s political elite who recognize they are no longer able to gatekeep the halls of power. Though Lyndsey Fifield was the subject of the New York Times story, since she accused the Times of helping Platner, the bipartisan political elite have pushed her into the background as they complain to all who will listen that they’re no longer able to choose candidates from a roster of Israel-loving Ivey Leaguers.
The days after the Times story, the usual suspects climbed up the moral grandstand to state winning the Senate wasn’t worth a Graham Platner. (Mind you, this is after two years of them lecturing us that we must throw abortion and queer rights under the bus so Democrats can pick up a single congressional seat in Arkansas.) The Atlantic columnist and known Jeffrey Epstein associate, David Brooks, who left his wife of twenty-eight years for a research assistant twenty-three years younger than him, called Graham Platner a “moral degenerate.” Van Jones is urging Democrats to take the high road and ditch Platner. As if the guy who told jokes about “Dead Gaza babies” on Bill Maher has any leg to stand on. Iraq War architect and Benjamin Netanyahu speech writer, David Frum, compared Graham Platner to 2017 Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, a literal pedophile. As if we needed more proof, the media elite are clutching pearls, The New York Post wrote an entire article sourced from conservative political activists about how Graham Platner was a bad bartender at the political class’s favorite bar in Washington, D.C. As if that’s a knock against him.
The mainstream media is also clearly trying to keep this baseless story running. Reporting on the impact of the Times story in Maine, CNN interviewed one woman whom they identified as a “Maine Democratic voter.”
“Beth Dindas, a Maine Democratic voter, told CNN that Platner lost her when he denied knowing about the origins of his tattoo. She said Platner now “has no credibility whatsoever.” She added that she supports Janet Mills ‘all the way.’”
Beth Dindas is not just some random Mainer. She is a Zionist political activist who has worked for Birthright Israel, American Friends of Tel Aviv University, and the Democratic Majority for Israel, as well as consulting for pro-Israel politicians Richie Torres and Jake Auchincloss. CNN’s attempt to hide Dindas’ political bias speaks to the level of deceit the media and political class are willing to engage in to sink Graham Platner’s candidacy. Not to be outdone, Katie Glueck returned to the scene of the crime to peddle more falsehoods about candidate Platner. Here’s how Glueck described the mood at a post-story Platner rally:
“It was one of the strongest responses from a supportive but relatively sedate crowd that included attendees who said they were anxious about Mr. Platner’s candidacy and still getting to know the candidate.” — Amid Mounting Democratic Concern, Platner Says His Past Is Being ‘Weaponized’
And here’s a video from that rally after Graham Platner thanked Maine for having his back after the politically-motivated story. The words “sedate” and “anxious” are not what I’d use to describe this crowd.
Democratic strategist Kaivan Shroff, a long-time supporter of known sex pest Andrew Cuomo, gave the game up when he took to Twitter to admit that the whole Platner affair wasn’t about Platner, but “pulling back from the desperation that has led Dems to embrace leftist slopulism.” Shroff speaks for the entire liberal establishment: they would rather lose the Senate to Republicans than win with a candidate who challenges Israel and the oligarchy.
Though the Democratic and Republican elite are trying to ratfuck Graham Platner (I apologize for the language, but that’s the term we’re given), their motivation isn’t wrong. For the first time in my lifetime, the political establishment is being threatened. A socialist thrashed the Cuomo dynasty to rule New York City, the heart of the Democratic political machine. The majority of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Israel, as does the world. Progressive, populist, and leftist candidates are winning elections where pundits once said it was impossible. More and more Americans are turning to alternative media, diminishing the wealth and prestige of the mainstream media. So they lash out against figures like Hasan Piker, while Bari Weiss turns the most historic American news programs into broadcast Breitbart. The criticism of Graham Platner does not come from a place of morality or concern. Rather, it is a reactionary tantrum, a desperate attempt to resecure their once-ironclad grip on what can be said and done in the political realm.
This is why I think it's important for the left to defend Graham Platner from The New York Times smear campaign. Not because Platner is a great guy, but because conservatives, zionists, some liberals, and the media will keep slandering anyone who criticizes Israel and the oligarchy. There are differences between the Republican and Democratic establishments. But as we can see, when their shared interests of Zionism and capitalism are threatened, they unite and attack to discredit critics and preserve the political status quo. Remember, the head of the Democrats’ Senatorial Committee called Zohran Mamdani a “jihadist.” The Times implied decorated Army surgeon Adam Hamawy was a secret terrorist. Jake Tapper let his panelists compare Mahmoud Khalil to literal Nazis. College kids who protested for a ceasefire were slandered as Iran-linked terrorists, blacklisted from employment, and harassed by psychotic billionaires like Bill Ackman. Even now, congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier is being criticized for making the moral decision to attend an anti-genocide protest on October 8th, 2023. Last week, a professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago was suspended for assigning work that mentioned Palestine. But when two Israeli filmmakers joked about the dogs the IOF uses to rape Palestinian hostages at the Tribeca Film Festival, the best the festival could muster was a weakly-worded letter. And who can forget “Screams Without Words,” a propaganda campaign so fraudulent it was debunked by the NYT’s own podcast. All of these oppressive, tainted actions against pro-Palestine voices are the result of a dominant, pro-Israel political class that can silence and defame opponents at will.
The attack on Graham Platner is yet another message sent by the pro-Israel corporate establishment: “If you criticize Israel or the oligarchy, we will ruin your life. We’ll call you a rapist, a terrorist, an abuser.” I say, enough is enough. They’ll only stop when the price of lying outweighs the benefits. Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the deceptive nature of the media and the political elite, which is currently being directed at Graham Platner. Regardless of what we think of the candidate, we should call it out. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind about Platner. Nor am I saying concerns about his character are without reason. Rather, we should sternly condemn this clear-as-day hit job by the political elite and use it as an opportunity to inoculate Americans against future influence campaigns. Because no matter what we believe the future of anti-establishment politics should look like, the forces attacking Graham Platner will soon be attacking us.
If you appreciated this essay, please click the ❤️ to help it rise in Substack’s algorithm. Don’t forget to subscribe so future articles are delivered to your inbox. If you’re a returning JoeWrote reader, consider supporting my work with a premium subscription. For the cost of just one cup of coffee a month, you can help me keep creating content like this. Plus, you unlock everything JoeWrote has to offer.
Thanks in advance!
In Solidarity — Joe
Then there’s me, and I like him. Like, not for a boyfriend - he seems a shit boyfriend. But I am not electing him to be my boyfriend.
And so far as we know, he didn’t visit Islands filled with little girls.
Susan Collins screwed millions of women with her vote for Brett Kavanaugh. Nothing in Platner's history will ever come close to Collins's violation of women's bodily autonomy.