By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner disclosed that he has a tattoo resembling the Totenkopf, a symbol associated with Nazi Germany, during an interview on “Pod Save America.” Platner, a veteran, stated he received the tattoo while drunk in 2007 and was unaware of its association with Nazism until he began his campaign. Despite facing scrutiny, including the resignation of his former political director, Platner has received support from Senator Bernie Sanders and plans to have the tattoo removed. The disclosure came amidst recent revelations of Platner’s old Reddit comments on various sensitive topics.
Read the original article here
Graham Platner says his Nazi-linked tattoo was drunken mistake. The whole situation has certainly sparked a lot of discussion, and it’s easy to see why. The idea that someone could get a tattoo with such loaded historical significance, particularly a symbol like the Totenkopf, which is a skull and crossbones associated with Nazi Germany, and then claim it was a complete oversight due to alcohol, is a lot to take in. It definitely raises some eyebrows.
One immediate point of consideration is the “drunk mistake” defense. It’s plausible that, in a moment of inebriation and camaraderie, a group of Marines on leave might make impulsive decisions. But, it’s also true that there’s a significant difference between a quick, regrettable decision and something that becomes a permanent fixture.
The real problem that’s coming up is the fact that Platner has had this tattoo for twenty years. A couple of decades provide ample opportunity to understand the implications of the symbol and to take action. This is the crux of the issue. You’d think that with the amount of time that’s passed, someone would have either had the tattoo covered up or removed. The fact that he hasn’t done either leaves a lot of questions.
And it’s tough to imagine that, over the course of those years, no one ever mentioned the significance of the tattoo to him. People comment on tattoos all the time, especially when they’re visible. This seems even more likely considering he might have had to get the tattoo touched up over the years. This isn’t a good look for him, and a lawyer would likely advise against such a defense.
The argument that “military boys will be military boys” also feels weak. Yes, there can be a certain type of bonding that happens in the military, and yes, people do things they regret when they’re young. But the specific symbol and its historical context are what make this a serious concern.
If he truly didn’t understand the symbol at the time, that’s almost as worrying as intentionally getting the tattoo. Especially given the fact that, in his own words, he has a deep grasp on military history. It’s hard to fathom a person with that level of interest not recognizing the symbol’s association with the SS.
There is a growing expectation for candidates to address their past, and show genuine growth and self awareness. The key here is not perfection, but rather a demonstrated ability to learn from mistakes. If he could have addressed this early in the campaign with complete honesty, that would have demonstrated accountability, and potentially turned this issue into a non-issue. The fact that it’s come out now, after so much time, raises questions about transparency and judgment.
However, regardless of the circumstances, there are those who believe that this incident should be an immediate disqualification for public office. The point is being made that if he was running for office, he should have addressed this before, and the implications of the tattoo are severe. Some are even going as far as to say they want their money back.
The presence of a Totenkopf, particularly in a region like Eastern Europe, where the historical context is so raw, makes this even more problematic. If a tattoo shop in that area displayed the artwork openly, it’s unlikely that there wouldn’t be any other Nazi imagery present. That is a point of contention and a matter of speculation.
The question of why he didn’t get the tattoo removed or altered in the years since has really become a focal point. At what point does a “drunk mistake” evolve into something more? The consensus seems to be that it’s not simply a matter of a regrettable youthful decision, but rather, a lapse in judgment.
The situation has caused a lot of disappointment. If this ends up being another situation like Fetterman, that would be a huge problem. You would think his team would have seen the issue and taken steps to remove it or cover it up. The incident just does not look good. The whole thing underscores the necessity of vetting candidates thoroughly before entering the political arena. Almost everyone has something in their past, but a tattoo of a Nazi symbol isn’t an easy thing to brush under the rug.
Furthermore, there is mention of his time with Blackwater as another red flag. It’s a combination of actions that might be considered suspicious. Some wonder if this is the end. There are also suggestions that the Democrats should have found a better candidate.
And finally, if the man is still claiming ignorance about the tattoo’s meaning after all this time, it indicates poor judgment, or an ignorance of history, that should be a major concern for voters.