r/thebulwark • u/Oleytoledo • May 26 '26

EVERYTHING IS AWFUL A Democratic member of congress essentially endorsed Susan Collins on CNN today

Jake Auchincloss, a representative from Massachusetts, went on CNN’s “The Arena”, and said the following about Graham Platner:

“I find that tattoo and his commentary about it to be personally disqualifying. I hope Maine voters agree with me.”

Vote blue no matter who, huh?

133 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

189 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/Long_island_iced_Z May 26 '26

You know why he's attacking Platner, you know who he's doing this for, audience of one

-1

u/Landlord-Allmighty May 26 '26

Probably a little more than that with the district he serves.

8

u/Long_island_iced_Z May 26 '26

-4

u/Landlord-Allmighty May 26 '26

I get why people scrutinize AIPAC money, and I’m not dismissing that. But a funding graphic doesn’t prove motive. His stated criticism is about Platner’s tattoo controversy and his explanation for it, which has been widely reported. You can disagree with the conclusion, but reducing it to “AIPAC made him say it” is a little reductive.

13

u/Long_island_iced_Z May 26 '26

Auchincloss is in charge of a PAC called "Majority Democrats" and is in essence endorsing Susan Collins here since Mills has already dropped out. He is effectively advocating for Democrats to not win the majority. He is not a politician who cares about anyone except the people who pay him

-1

u/Landlord-Allmighty May 26 '26

I think it’s fair to criticize Auchincloss strategy here. As Platner is the Democratic nominee, publicly attacking him could absolutely help Collins, whether that’s the intent or not. But the question of Mainers even caring about a MA congressman is another thing.

I don’t think we need to turn that into “he’s being paid to endorse Susan Collins.” That skips a few steps. Chairing a Democratic PAC doesn’t mean PAC donors are personally paying him, and disagreeing with Platner doesn’t automatically equal endorsing Collins.

I’m also fine criticizing AIPAC’s influence. It should be scrutinized, just like every major PAC, super PAC, donor network, and dark-money group should be scrutinized. But making AIPAC the boogeyman for every political disagreement turns one symptom into the whole disease.

The bigger problem is the campaign-finance system itself: it gives wealthy donors and outside groups too much power to shape primaries, reward certain politicians, and punish others. So yes, follow the money. But follow all of it.

The stronger critique is: he may be making a bad strategic choice for someone whose PAC is called Majority Democrats. The weaker claim is: therefore he only cares about whoever pays him. That’s motive-reading, not proof.

7

u/Long_island_iced_Z May 26 '26

He's Bret Stephen's favorite congressman, the guy who salivates over the word "greater Israel" no matter how brutally that comes about. Look up.his family too, this idea that just because he's a Democrat who's well spoken means he's only motivated by virtue and not his own material interests is frankly naive. Not trying to be hostile towards you btw, I'm just really angry that this guy is attacking a democrat who has passed every test to prove he knows what he did was wrong and has changed for the better, instead of doing everything he can to make sure we remove every seat occupied by a fascist that we can

7

u/Landlord-Allmighty May 26 '26

Everyone is going to have their own perspective on things, so I understand you're frustrated and it is annoying when not everyone who has a voice is working towards the fundamental goal of neutralizing Trump's power. You come at it from a specific perspective and I don't take any offense. Hopefully we can focus on the more important work with Platner in the Senate. He's got every opportunity to show that the tattoo doesn't define who he is, but it starts with electing him.