Staff Reports
Graham Platner is now the Democratic nominee in the Maine Senate race, and the party is already running with him — full speed, blindfolded, and with a convenient short memory. The controversy over the chest tattoo that looks like a Totenkopf — a skull symbol tied to Nazi SS units and later adopted by white-supremacist groups — is not new. What is new is the patchwork of explanations Platner has offered, and the reporting that undercuts those explanations while his party crowns him their best pickup chance to toss at Senator Susan Collins.
Graham Platner’s two stories about the Totenkopf tattoo
To left-leaning interviewers, Platner told a flippant story: he and some Marines got drunk on leave in Croatia and one of them put a skull on his chest. He said he didn’t know the design’s Nazi associations until recently and that he’s taken steps to remove or cover it. That version was repeated on popular progressive platforms, including an extended Pod Save America interview. To anyone paying attention, the parts about “drunk” and “I didn’t know” are meant to be both a shrug and an apology — quick, tidy, and politically marketable.
Investigations that undercut his account
But reporting since last autumn has turned up material that does not fit the “total ignorance” script. Archival posts attributed to a Reddit account tied to Platner used the word Totenkopf and defended SS-linked symbols as part of a military culture, not as white-supremacist ideology. A former partner has said Platner once called it “my Totenkopf” and taught her the word while they were dating. Journalists have also circulated screenshots and archived messages that suggest he discussed the symbol privately in ways that make his public denials look strained. That’s not mere rumor — it’s contemporaneous material and witness statements that conflict with the neat tale he told on friendly podcasts.
Democratic leaders shrug and double down
Despite the files and witness accounts, Senate leaders and the DSCC embraced Platner almost immediately after his primary win, issuing rallying statements about victory in November. That reaction reveals the party’s priorities: flip a seat by any means necessary. Fine — politics is a contact sport. But when national Democratic power brokers choose to ignore evidence that a nominee may have known about a Nazi-associated symbol all along, they hand Republicans an easy and righteous attack: if your side cares about character and truth, how do you explain this selective amnesia?
Why Maine voters should care
Voters deserve clarity. This is not a debate about whether tattoos can be covered or whether young people make dumb choices — it’s about whether a candidate has been straight about what he knew and when. The documents and eyewitness accounts reported by multiple outlets make the “I didn’t know” defense look shaky. Mainers deciding between Platner and Senator Collins should expect better than a candidate whose explanations shift depending on the audience. Party leaders can cheerlead him all they want, but voters will remember who defended half-truths and who demanded full answers.
