Platner Smear Flops | Jeet Heer | TMR

The New York Times published an article detailing 'unsettling behavior' by Grant Plathner, a candidate challenging Susan Collins. The hosts and guest argue this article is a politically motivated hit piece, highlighting that the most serious allegations came from a single source, Lindsay Fifield, a known Republican operative with strong ties to conservative groups and a history of supporting Susan Collins. The Times itself noted it could not independently corroborate Fifield's claims of physical altercations, yet still published them.

The article's headline: 'Several women who dated Grant Plathner recall unsettling behavior.' The Times' admission: 'The Times could not independently corroborate Ms. Fifield's account of the altercations.' Lindsay Fifield's background: co-founder of 'Ladies for Kavanaugh,' worked at Heritage Foundation, and is a fellow at the Independent Women's Forum, which claimed to have scripted Susan Collins' Kavanaugh speech.

The hosts and guest identify a 'Zionist centrist and right-wing coalition' working to undermine Plathner's candidacy. This alliance includes centrist liberals connected to figures like Neera Tanden, Republican operatives like Lindsay Fifield, and pro-Israel groups. They suggest this coalition is desperate to prevent Plathner from running, attempting to 'throw dirt' at him with uncorroborated stories.

Jeet Heer notes 'a lot of quite right-wing people and... centrist liberals who all seem to be connected with Neera Tanden in some way' were vague-posting about the story. Emma Vigeland explicitly calls it a 'Zionist right-wing smear campaign,' linking one of the article's authors to pro-Israel groups and a past history of 'hit pieces' against progressive candidates like Zohran Mamdani.

The House passed a War Powers Resolution, aiming to reclaim Congress's constitutional authority to declare war. The discussion highlights this as a critical constitutional crisis, as the Supreme Court's 1983 INS v. Chadha decision weakened legislative vetoes, empowering the 'imperial presidency.' The guest argues that despite potential Supreme Court challenges, this fight is essential to uphold the Constitution's clear mandate that only Congress can declare war.

Jeet Heer explains the concept of a 'legislative veto' under the War Powers Act and how INS v. Chadha complicated it. He notes that even Justice Louis Fisher, who voted for Chadha, believed it didn't apply to the War Powers Act. The urgency is underscored by the Senate's requirement to decide on the resolution within two and a half weeks.

The hosts and guest suggest that the smear campaign against Plathner may be backfiring because his personal narrative of military service, PTSD, and subsequent self-improvement resonates with voters. They argue that attempts to use his past struggles against him are consistent with a broader political strategy that has alienated young men from the Democratic Party.

Jeet Heer states Plathner 'has like a pretty compelling narrative which is that you know like I was young I was patriotic. I you know went into the military service. I you know suffered a lot of post-traumatic stress disorder, you know, did a lot of drinking, did a lot of foolish things.' Emma Vigeland adds that using his mental health struggles against him is 'so much more convenient for these people that have supported the war machine.'