Graham Platner's Oyster Is Shucked

Yes, the usual euphemism is "goose is cooked," but we figured we better adjust it here. In any event, as most readers will know by now, Democratic candidate Graham Platner, who aspired to represent Maine in the U.S. Senate, has just been accused of rape by a former girlfriend. This will bring an end to his political career, sooner or later (and probably sooner).

Platner, of course, says he didn't do it: "These allegations are troubling, serious, and false. Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically untrue." The accuser's name is known, but we don't feel the need to share it here and make it (slightly) easier to google. She says that she and Platner were dating casually at that time, and that during the encounter in question, he was both drunk and dealing with psychological issues. She told Politico that "I remember the specific moment where I thought to myself, like, 'This is no longer my choice.'" And in case you are wondering, the accuser says she is a Democrat and that she agrees with Platner in many areas of policy. Certainly, there is no evidence that she is a Republican, or otherwise someone who may be operating in bad faith.

If we were talking about a court of law, Platner would likely be in the clear. There was no rape kit, and no report to the police. The only contemporaneous evidence, according to the victim, is that she sent Platner several private Instagram messages telling him the encounter was non-consensual, and that she never wanted to see him again. However, she has deleted the messages, and has been unable to recover them. That is squarely enough in "He said, she said" territory that a DA would likely not even bring the case. It's very tough to secure a rape conviction, even when the evidence is much stronger.

But, of course, politics is not a court of law. There are three big reasons why Platner is done for, and here they are:

1. It's All Too Much: The last time we wrote substantively about this, we observed that not all "penis crimes" are created equal, and that there simply has to be some discriminating between various levels of offenses. If ALL accusations are treated as 100% valid, and 100% damning, then what will eventually happen is that NO accusations will be taken seriously. This pattern has played out many times in the past, from allegations of sexual misconduct to allegations of being a communist spy.
   
   In that piece, which is just over 3 weeks old, we listed three tiers. At that time, the "Platner tier" was behavior that is concerning, but not illegal. More serious was the "Paxton tier," which is behavior that is extremely hypocritical, but also not illegal. And the worst tier was the "Swalwell tier," which we defined as "actual acts of sexual violence, including rape."
   
   Obviously, Platner has now moved into the Swalwell tier, which is a red line, at least for Democrats. If we lived in a world where it was just the other stuff (sexting while married, the accusations made by former girlfriends), that might have been survivable. Or, if we lived in a world where there had been none of the other stuff, and yesterday's accusation came completely out of the blue, that might have been survivable (but it's a BIG maybe). But everything that's come out? Already, as we pointed out a little under two weeks ago, the information that came out in June had seriously weakened Platner's campaign, turning a roughly 6-point polling lead into a roughly 2-point lead. Add in a rape accusation, and many voters are (very reasonably) going to conclude there's a pattern of behavior here, and that they don't want any part of it.
   
   
2. Brett Kavanaugh: The left-wing populist stuff is helpful, but a huge part of Platner's pitch is that Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) voted to put accused rapist Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. This was Platner's "in" with many moderate, women voters in Maine. Politically speaking, the accusation made against Kavanaugh, and the accusation made against Platner, are not substantively different (one accuser, strong denial from the accused, never adjudicated). And if the choice is between someone who looked the other way and voted for an accused rapist, or someone who is themselves an accused rapist, that is a choice that either produces a vote for Collins, or a decision to leave that line on the ballot blank. Whichever it is, the "I'm angry about Kavanaugh" votes are now largely lost for Platner (the only exception being those voters who think that "Collins allowed for Roe to be struck down" is more intolerable than "Platner is an accused rapist").
   
   
3. July 13: It's 120 days to Election Day. Under different circumstances, Platner might be able to sit back, watch the polling, and see if the dust settles (or if information comes out that calls the rape accusation into question). Another 20-30 days probably wouldn't matter, but the candidate could at least cross his fingers and hope.
   
   However, Maine's deadline for dropping out is July 13. There is no way there will be polling or other evidence by then that says "Smooth sailing, Graham!" If Platner is not gone by July 13, the Democrats will be stuck with a candidate who not only looks like a sure loser, but also a candidate who might have more skeletons lurking in his closet. The pressure on him to drop out is going to be enormous.

Indeed, the Democratic pooh-bahs have already turned on Platner. Here's a partial list of people who withdrew their endorsement of the candidate yesterday, and called on him to drop out:

• Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)
• Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ)
• Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)
• Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
• Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA)
• Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA)
• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
• Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA)

A few notable names are not on the list because they pointedly refused to endorse Platner in the first place. That includes House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Sen. Angus King (I-ME) and Reps. Chellie Pingree and Jared Golden (D-ME). The only high-profile endorser who has not yet pulled their endorsement is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Presumably, that announcement is coming today; the Sanders-backed group Our Revolution has already jumped ship, so have progressive activists Hasan Piker and David Hogg.

After everything fell apart for him yesterday, Platner said he is "taking the time to reflect on the best path forward." That means he will talk to his donors and his endorsers and see if they are willing to weather the storm with him. He doesn't actually need to talk to the endorsers, as they've already bailed out. And the donors aren't going to be any more friendly. We would be surprised if he's still a candidate by the time the weekend arrives. Indeed, it's probably about 50/50 that he drops out sometime today.

Assuming Platner bows to the inevitable on or before July 13, then the Maine Democratic Party would have until July 25 to select a new candidate. Fortunately for the blue team, Maine is not Alabama, and so they do have a bench. Needless to say, with time running short, and just having learned a lesson about poorly vetted candidates, the Democrats would have to go with someone who is, or has been, an officeholder. Here are the plausible options that we see:

• Former State Senate President Troy Jackson (D): He served in the Maine legislature, with stints in both the state House and the state Senate, from 2002-14 and 2016-24. The microscope trained on a legislative candidate is rather less powerful than the microscope trained on a U.S. Senate candidate, but one has to imagine that if there were any serious red flags, they would have come to light during his 12 runs for office (3 for state House, 7 for state Senate, 1 for U.S. House, 1 for governor of Maine).
  
  And speaking of running for governor of Maine, Jackson did so this year, and finished in third place, taking 21.1% of the vote in the first round, which became 22.3% in the second round and 28.8% in the third round, at which point he was ranked-choice eliminated. The first-place finisher was Hannah Pingree, who will obviously be busy running for governor, and so is not available to replace Platner. And the second-place finisher was Nirav D. Shah, who has no experience in elective office. Again, we assume that is disqualifying under current circumstances.
  
  Jackson is the candidate most likely to appeal to Platner's young/male/progressive/populist supporters. He's not as charismatic, or as young (at 58 years of age), but his blue collar bona fides are arguably stronger than Platner's; he's a former logger whose first forays into politics came as a result of his leadership of workers in that industry. He was once a Republican, then an independent, and then a Democrat (though the latter covered all but his first 2 years in office). He was once economically populist and socially conservative, but has attributed the latter to his Catholic upbringing and has since become outspokenly pro-LGBTQ and pro-choice. Jackson is, and has been, a big supporter of Bernie Sanders, and in fact cast a ballot for him at the 2016 Democratic convention.
  
  
• Gov. Janet Mills (D): Mills was obviously in the running for the Senate seat, but she dropped out because she didn't gain much traction. In a year with serious anti-establishment and generational-change undercurrents, a 78-year-old 2-term governor and 2-term AG who has spent the great majority of the last half-century serving in one political office or another may not fit the bill. It also cannot help that Mills' lack of enthusiasm for this campaign was palpable, to the point that she did not even see it through to the end.
  
  That said, Mills is as vetted as it gets, and has near-universal name recognition. She did not vote to confirm Kavanaugh, and it is not terribly likely that she'll be accused of sexual misconduct.
  
  
• Chellie Pingree: Pingree represents the D+11 ME-01, and has since 2009. At the start of her career, she won elections by 10 points, but these days she usually wins by 20 (e.g., 58.7% to 36.4% in 2024).
  
  Pingree would offer some of the same advantages as Mills, but without some of the downsides. By virtue of having been elected nine times in a state with only two representatives, she is vetted and is very well known, particularly to Maine Democrats. She did not vote for Kavanaugh, either, and is not likely to have any "penis crimes" issues. She's a shade younger (71), and has not recently demonstrated her lack of enthusiasm for serving in the Senate.
  
  Pingree is overall pretty centrist, however, and would not excite the younger and leftier voters in Platner's base. Also, she has generally been pretty pro-Israel with her votes, which could very well be a problem with that bloc.
  
  If Pingree ends up as the replacement candidate and wins, and if her daughter wins the gubernatorial race, then that will produce a historically unprecedented situation in which a mother is serving in the U.S. Senate and her daughter is concurrently serving as governor of a U.S. state. It may well be an unprecedented situation regardless of gender; we can't find any cases of men overlapping like this. The Bayhs, Romneys, Sununus and Byrds, among others, had a parent serve in one of those offices and a child serve in the other, but in none of those cases did it happen at the same time.
  
  
• Jared Golden: We don't really think he'd be the pick, but we're a full-service site, so we want to be thorough. Golden is currently serving his fourth and final term as the Blue Doggiest Democrat in the House Democratic Caucus. He probably comes to that centrism honestly, though it's also politically necessary if you're going to win four elections in an R+4 district.
  
  A Golden candidacy would be rooted in a very different theory of the electorate than the Platner candidacy. Basically, the idea would be, "Lefties, you had your chance, and he went up in flames. Now, we're going to chase independent and centrist votes, and you're going to have to suck it up and vote for the least bad choice." This is not a crazy theory; remember, Maine's other senator is an independent, and is very centrist.
  
  Golden is far and away the youngest person on this list (43), and obviously he's been vetted pretty well and has wide name recognition. But he had already announced his retirement from the House, and had made clear that he was sick of life in Congress. It would be pretty hard to sell a change of heart to voters.

In these circumstances, sometimes a party will look to an "elder statesman" to run as a "caretaker" candidate. However, we don't see any available person who fits that bill. The most recent Democratic governor of Maine, other than Mills, is John Baldacci. But he's 71 and has been out of politics for 15 years. The most recent Democratic U.S. Senator from Maine is George Mitchell. He's among the most legendary Democrats to come from the Pine Tree State, but he's a little TOO elder, at 92 (and soon to be 93). Remarkable, Mitchell succeeded another Maine Democratic legend in the Senate, namely Edmund Muskie, but Muskie is unavailable by virtue of having been dead for 30 years.

Again, we expect this situation to develop very rapidly. Just in case Platner can't see the writing on the wall, we have no doubt there are pollsters hard at work right now rushing to produce a poll that shows how badly he's been hurt by the rape accusation. So, we will surely have an item sometime later this week headlined either "Platner Drops Out" or "Polls Make Clear Platner Better Drop Out."

We usually run "Political Bytes, Local Edition" on Tuesdays, but we held off today so that if readers have comments on the Maine situation, we can fit those in. Send them to comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)

Everything Trump Touches Turns to Lead

Anyone who has been following the World Cup already knows most or all of this, but events conspired to put some of the worst characteristics of both FIFA and Donald Trump on display over the past few days.

It begins with the U.S. Men's National Team's (USMNT) game against Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wednesday of last week. At the 60-minute mark, the United States' Folarin Balogun stepped on the ankle of Bosnia and Herzegovina's Tarik Muharemović. You can view the footage here, in real speed and slow-motion replay:

In real time, it was clear that it was a football play, and there was no intent to injure. But FIFA uses a video assistant referee (VAR), who is allowed to call down to the field to suggest the on-field referee review certain plays. The VAR made the suggestion here, and the on-field referee reviewed the footage. In slow motion, it looks far, far worse than it does in real time. And so, the on-field referee gave Balogun a red card, which ostensibly carried with it three consequences: (1) Balogun was ejected from the game, (2) the U.S. team had to play the rest of the game down one player, and (3) Balogun was suspended for the United States' next match.

It was very clearly an incorrect decision by the VAR, who should never have gotten involved. You don't have to take our word for it; here are pieces from TalkSport, Football360, the BBC, The Atlantic and ESPN that say the same thing. To his credit, Balogun accepted his fate with grace and with class, and did not complain. Meanwhile, FIFA officials made clear, many times, that the decision was not reviewable, and there was no option but for Balogun to serve his one-game suspension.

At this point, in the event it is of interest, let us do a sidebar on five reasons that international football culture just does not mesh with American sports culture, which may help explain why the world's favorite sport has struggled to catch on in the U.S.:

1. Low-Scoring: This is a famous one. The people who watch the four major North American sports are used to at least somewhat regular scoring. In the NHL, the average game has about 6.5 goals. In MLB, the average game has about 9 runs. In the NFL, the average game has about 45 points. In the NBA, the average game has well over 200 points. If you're used to these kinds of totals, it's not so easy to adjust to a sport that often produces scores of 0-0, 1-0, 1-1 and 2-0. It does not help that when a team in association football gets a lead, they tend to slow down the pace of play, which can turn a game into a slog.
   
   
2. Time: To a greater or lesser extent, America's most popular sports all have well-known strategies that kick in when a team is managing a limited amount of time (or outs) remaining. Often, when it comes to these strategies, seconds matter. But in association football, the amount of time left is somewhat vague. Players don't really know exactly how much extra time there will be at the end of each half, nor do they really know exactly when the extra time will expire. This lack of precision runs very contrary to American sporting culture and, quite frankly, raises the possibility of (corrupt) manipulation of the clock by a dishonest referee.
   
   
3. Who Reviews the Reviewers?: From the North American sports fan's perspective, it is reasonable that a play that might be judged wrong in real time can be reviewed. Pretty much all the major sports embraced that reality several years ago, because it's very easy to make errors in real time, and if people are spending all their time talking about how [GAME X] was decided by [WRONG CALL Y], that's not great for the sport. What is unreasonable, again from the North American sports fan's perspective, is that the VAR, who is also operating in real time, and so might also make errors given the time pressure, cannot be reviewed. The four major North American sports all allow decisions about extreme fouls/ejections/suspensions to be reviewed by the league office.
   
   
4. No Replacement: Again, from the North American sports fan's perspective, it's... wild that a player who gets ejected cannot be replaced. This carries with it the implication that a foul committed in the 10th minute of an association football match is roughly eight times worse than the same foul committed in the 80th minute. The NBA, NFL and MLB all allow an ejected player to be replaced immediately. The NHL does have a penalty box and power plays, but even then, a player (or his replacement) comes back after 5 minutes of game time (or, in the case of a 2-minute minor penalty, after a goal is scored by the team on the power play).
   
   
5. Flopping: Even non-North American fans are clearly unhappy about the tendency for association football players to behave as if they've been shot by a cruise missile the moment a player from the other team makes the barest of contact. But North American fans really dislike flopping (an issue the NBA has been trying to deal with for years).

This is not to pass judgment as to which system is better or worse, merely to lay out that the divide between association football and (most) American sports is actually pretty large, and not so easy to wave away.

Anyhow, there was much carping in the U.S. about the loss of Balogun, who was probably the country's best player in this tournament, given that Christian Pulisic has been playing hurt. And over the weekend, Donald Trump swung into action. He placed a call to FIFA head Gianni Infantino, the same fellow who bestowed the FIFA Peace Prize on the President. And after that phone call, Infantino announced that, whaddya know, the rules do allow the suspension to be... suspended. Someone at FIFA managed to find an obscure provision of the rules, last used in 1962, that allows for a suspension to be postponed for up to 1 year. So, Balogun was allowed to play, after all.

Let us now review five ways that this maneuver is a microcosm of the mind of Donald Trump:

1. What, Me Worry (about Corruption)?: We have written that Trump might be the world's most corrupt individual, while FIFA might be the world's most corrupt organization. It is not a surprise, in the slightest, that Trump and Infantino would conspire together to achieve their desired ends.
   
   
2. The Ends Justify the Means: Trump famously cheats at golf. He also enters "tournaments" that are run by his club, and that feature players who want to make nice with him. And when he "wins" a golf game, or a golf tournament, he gets on his social media platform for cheaters (and we mean that on several levels) and brags about it. All that matters to him is the winning; how you get there is immaterial.
   
   
3. He Doesn't Really Understand Sports: We do not propose that this is true of all sports fans, but it's true of most—they do not want to win by any means possible. They want to win fair and square, because otherwise that win is not nearly as satisfying and comes with a permanent asterisk. It is true that some MAGA sports fans praised Trump for his initiative (most obviously former USMNT player and current commentator and MAGA fanatic Alexi Lalas). However, for the majority of American sports fans, the thrill was gone. Even if the U.S. had won yesterday, that victory, and any subsequent victories, would have been tainted. If the U.S. had somehow claimed the cup, the story worldwide wouldn't have been "U.S. triumphs for first time" or "CONCACAF (North/Central America and the Caribbean) can now go toe-to-toe with UEFA (Europe) and CONMEBOL (South America)," it would have been, "Well, yeah, it helps a lot if your president is in bed with the leader of FIFA." The 2017 Houston Astros could say a few useful things on this point.
   
   
4. Might Makes Right: Similarly, Trump was OK with special treatment because he believes that he, and the U.S., deserve special treatment. This message is obvious enough that even the Council on Foreign Relations, not generally known for its sports coverage, has weighed in with a piece headlined "The Balogun Red Card Reversal Shows That the U.S. Plays By Its Own Rules."
   
   
5. He's a Hypocrite: Balogun, the player Trump "saved," is both brown and a birthright citizen. Trump, of course, despises brown birthright citizens... unless they are of use to him.

As it turns out, even with Balogun, the USMNT played a lousy game yesterday and got blown out by Belgium, 4-1. That means that whatever benefit Trump might get with some voters will presumably be very short lived. At the same time, it's also possible that yet another example of corrupt behavior, in yet another domain, will help to solidify the "Trump is corrupt" narrative that Democrats look like they might run on in 2026 (as we wrote yesterday). At least, that is the argument that CNN's Aaron Blake made in a piece headlined "Crypto, red cards and Trump's corruption problem." When we first saw the headline, we thought it might be a stretch, but we think there's some merit in the observation that "Trump ran a shady crypto scheme" could be a little harder to grasp than "Trump arranged to bend the rules of a major sporting competition for the benefit of his team."

What's clearer is that a great deal of the goodwill that was generated during the tournament has evaporated. The U.S. has gone from being gracious and welcoming hosts to being the ugly Americans. This is ALL OVER social media. Of course, Trump has really never understood soft power, so it's no surprise that he did not foresee this and/or that he didn't give a damn. (Z)

Connecting the LIV Dots

As long as we're on the subject of sports, Donald Trump and corruption, let's also deal with something we've been meaning to get to for a couple of weeks: The decline and fall of LIV Golf.

When LIV was first formed, with the Saudis lavishing hundreds of millions of dollars on the venture, it made very little sense to us. The usual explanation was "sportswashing"—that is, that the Saudis were trying to buy some positive PR by supporting an activity that does not involve, you know, the brutal murder of journalists who make the royal family cranky.

This never, ever made sense to us. First of all, the Saudis have a pretty well-established, and pretty bad, reputation. It's hard to imagine that could be changed in anything less than several decades (if at all). And even if the Saudis think it's possible, a golf tour seems a particularly poor investment. Golf is a niche sport, and even a successful event only reaches a fraction of the American public. For example, the most-watched round of the most-watched tournament this year (final round of the Masters) attracted about 14 million viewers, or about 1 American in 24. And there was no chance LIV would get within a country mile of that (and, in fact, it never has). Reaching something like 1 American in 200, at a price tag of $200 million+/year, is a spectacularly bad investment. It would make far more sense to buy an arena sponsorship, or a college bowl game sponsorship, or to purchase ad space on an NBA uniform, or an MLS shirt, or maybe on a dozen MLB outfield walls.

A few weeks ago, the Saudis suddenly announced that they were done with LIV Golf, and that not only did they not intend to fund any future seasons, they might yank their money for the rest of the current season. One event has already been "postponed," and the four other events on the calendar are in doubt. This sudden loss of interest also makes little sense from a sportswashing perspective. Why would the Saudis give up this project so suddenly, and three-quarters of the way through the season? Why not at least run out the string, and then take the offseason to evaluate?

But now, let us put the facts together in a different way. To start, let us recall that the Saudis hired Jared Kushner to manage $2 billion in assets for the royal family. Despite the fact that Kushner has no track record as a successful asset manager, he and his firm are being paid $25 million annually for their services. The usual rate for this amount of money is somewhere between $2 million and $10 million annually.

Meanwhile, there has also been much business conducted between the Trump Organization and the Saudis, primarily through the Saudi firm Dar Global. What is known for certain is that the Trumps have been paid at least $38 million to license their last name. What is not clear is the extent to which the Trumps have additional financial interests in the projects that have been announced, including the $7 billion Diriyah Project (which includes a luxury hotel plus the Trump International Golf Club, Riyadh), the $2 billion Trump Tower Jeddah and the $1 billion Trump Plaza Jeddah.

Finally, LIV golf hosted seven tournaments at Trump-owned golf courses, mostly in the United States. The amount of money involved was relatively small compared to the other grifts (a few million dollars per tournament). But Trump loves all money and, more importantly, hosting LIV tournaments gave his golf courses something to brag about, since especially since the PGA basically stopped doing business with Trump.

So, what has the Kingdom of Saud gotten since Trump became president? Well, to start, the U.S. has waged a war against the Saudis' mortal enemy, namely Iran. Sure, the Saudis have taken a little damage, and have contributed a few missile volleys. However, the U.S. has expended $130 billion and counting, which is rather more than the Kushner money, the real estate projects, and all of LIV golf combined and multiplied by ten.

In addition, the Iran War has caused the world to turn to the Saudis for oil. As you can see in this chart, the Saudis profited handsomely in the first month of the war:

That increase in March equates to about $7 billion U.S. in additional sales. They also picked up about $2 billion in sales in April, relative to last April, and the good times figure to continue once numbers for May and June are in.

Of course, the Iran War is still ongoing, so the benefits outlined in the previous paragraphs figure to improve in a Saudi direction. And at least one of the reasons that the war is ongoing is that the U.S. and the Iranians can't reach agreement on what will be done with the $24 billion in Iranian funds currently frozen by the U.S. government. The Iranians want all the money. Saudi employee Kushner, by contrast, wants to redirect some sizable chunk of that to Saudi Arabia, so they can "rebuild."

Oh, and Trump has also agreed to sell $142 billion in arms to the Saudis, including a bunch of F-35 jets. This is something the three previous presidents, and in particular Joe Biden, were unwilling to do.

In short, the Saudis have realized some impressive returns on their various investments in Trump and his family.

Now, everything we have written to this point is uncontroverted fact. You can click on the links and confirm for yourself, if you wish. But let us build on this with a little bit of speculation. Note that we have no direct proof for our suspicions, and we haven't even seen anyone who connected the dots in this way. So, take this all with at least a few grains of salt. Or maybe grains of sand. But while LIV Golf never made sense as sportswashing, it makes perfect sense as, well, Trump ba**washing. And the sudden loss of interest from the Saudis also makes sense, if you look at it in this way. They have already gotten just about everything they could have hoped for; there's not much else to be gained from more LIV, at this point.

One thing worth keeping an eye on is that one of the LIV tournaments that is up in the air is LIV Golf New York, scheduled for Aug. 6-9 at Trump National Golf Club (Bedminster) in Bedminster, NJ. If that one goes forward, while all the other remaining tournaments are "postponed," that would certainly be... instructive. (Z)

Never Forget: T-T-F-N!

For those not up on their children's literature, T-T-F-N! is Tigger's shorthand way of saying "Ta ta for now!" in the Winnie the Pooh books.

We were very pleased with the run of "Never Forget" reminiscences this year. In case anyone wants to look back, here they all are, in one place:

• Never Forget: Dave Lara and "The Group," in the Navy
• Never Forget: The Last Voyage of the Walter Q. Gresham
• Never Forget: The Cost of Empire
• Never Forget: Buffalo Soldier
• Never Forget: Volunteer of America
• Never Forget: Short Stories, Part IV
• Never Forget: Folsom Prison Blues
• Never Forget: The Civil (Rights) War
• Never Forget: P.O.W. Wow
• Never Forget: Here Comes Da Jug?
• Never Forget: Short Stories, Part III
• Never Forget: Happy Birthday, Papa
• Never Forget: Not Every Rosie Was a Riveter
• Never Forget: Hermann Monster
  
• Never Forget: Dear Mother, Good-Bye
• Never Forget: Short Stories, Part II
• Never Forget: And Now, the Rest of the Story
• Never Forget: The Life You Save
• Never Forget: Thanks, Kenny
• Never Forget: Short Stories, Part I
• Never Forget: Boompsie
• Never Forget: Pop
• Never Forget: Helicopter Uncle
• Never Forget: Welcome to Korea

We saved a few responses to the series that readers sent in:

B.D. in St. Agatha, ON, Canada, writes: The "Never Forget" series is superb, no surprise. And "The Life You Save," from P.H. in Orlando, was, as (Z) wrote... wow.

---

G.A.R. in Basel, Switzerland, writes: The story of Matthew Patrick Berecy from P.H. in Orlando? I wept reading it.

Saving Private Ryan was a good movie. My God, this would make a better one.

---

J.M. in Portland, OR, writes: Thanks so much for running "Never Forget: Not Every Rosie Was a Riveter." about my mother. I only wish I had thought to include the subtitle: "They also serve who only stand and wait." -- John Milton

---

K.H. in Corning, NY, writes: I have been moved by the many reader stories in the "Never Forget" series. I was surprised, though, by the depth of my reaction to one small statement in many of them. Surprised, because years ago I would only have barely noticed, but a comment from my grandfather when I was a child, combined with some much later deliberate work at learning. has made it non-ignorable to me.

"Because of the G.I. Bill..."

Now, in my head, every single time I read those words, I pause and mentally insert: "Which was a benefit only offered to him because he was white; his 1.2 million fellow service members who were not white were denied access to this benefit. It was his leg up above them in getting his life back."

My grandfather, who served in both World War I and World War II, once made a passing comment when talking about his service as an officer, "My Black peers could not have this." I cannot even remember the exact context, only that he acknowledged, in the 1970s, that his position was blocked to people he served alongside of. They had a right to it, but were prevented from exercising their right. I have since learned so much more about rights that have been blocked and the subsequent generational effects of this denial, and the multiplying effects of failing to acknowledge it.

In respect to Memorial Day remembrances, this fact is part of what I remember. Part of me wishes everyone would add the parenthetical, because it is there, as part of the story.

---

J.L. in Ridgewood, NJ, writes: The "Never Forget" series has inspired me to present my story. It's a candidate for the most boring of the entire series, but some readers may benefit from hearing the moral.

Both my parents served in World War II. While they lived, I knew almost nothing more than that. It was a sort of background fact that I never bothered to pursue. After their deaths, I learned a little more, from the discharge papers that I found in the house. Now, how I wish I had asked them about their experiences!

For any reader who has a friend or relative who served, in World War II or since, the lesson is: Take the opportunity to learn more while you still can.

---

B.A. in Portland, OR, writes: I enjoyed the "Never Forget" series. It is a powerful way to honor the individuals who shaped our history, and I am always struck by the richness of the personal accounts.

But the vast majority of these submissions focus on those who served in World War II. I wonder about the absence of stories from Korea, Vietnam and the decades of conflict since. I understand you can only publish what is submitted. Is the lack of submissions a reflection of how our culture values different wars?

Perhaps the country doesn't value service in these wars. There were no parades when these veterans returned. Perhaps they sensed that the country wasn't interested in their experience, and their stories weren't told or remembered.

Is it possible that we honor the war more than the service? World War II is often framed as "The Good War"—a moment of singular national unity and clear, decisive victory. When the narrative of a conflict is complex, ambiguous, or divisive, do we inadvertently silence the individuals who served in it?

I would be very interested to hear the thoughts of your readers on this. Why do you think some military experiences become part of our collective, celebrated history, while others seem to fade into the background? Are we missing a crucial part of our own history?

If readers have thoughts in response to the questions raised by B.A. in Portland, we are happy to hear them at comments@electoral-vote.com.

And with that, "Never Forget" goes into mothballs for now. It will be back next June, along with some of the stories that were submitted this year that we were unable to get to.

Tomorrow, we start the series in honor of the United States' 250th birthday. We did not expect this result, but the vote was a landslide. The series that readers want to see is "Lies Across America: Things about U.S. history that most people get wrong." We've already worked out a list of potential entries, but if readers have particular subjects they would like to see addressed, now is the time to let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger