<\/div><\/aside>\n

The text argues that even though Democrats have dismissed or rationalized allegations of \u201cnazis\u201d being in Republican ranks, they should now react more harshly to what the author presents as evidence that Democratic Senate candidate graham Platner has an actual Nazi tattoo (specifically referencing the SS \u201cTotenkopf\u201d\/death\u2019s Head symbol). It claims Platner de facto became the Democratic nominee in Maine after Gov. Janet Mills suspended her campaign, and suggests he could help Democrats gain a Republican seat held by Sen. Susan collins.<\/p>\n

The author also cites statements from Platner responding to Mills\u2019s exit,then contrasts the article\u2019s portrayal of Platner\u2019s alleged extremist associations and prior remarks (including comments about Jesus\/Mary and other contentious statements) with the claim that Democrats are applying a \u201csecond chances\u201d rationale. As an exmaple of that alleged inconsistency, the text includes an interview where Sen. Chris Van Hollen is quoted defending Platner\u2019s tattoo by referencing a difficult period and regret, and it further claims Democrats did not offer similar leniency<\/a> to other figures previously accused of nazi tattoos. The piece ends by saying the author considers Platner uniquely \u201cproven\u201d as a Nazi and implies Democrats would only embrace him as of political priorities and selective standards. <\/p>\n