General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: re: Platner - But if personal imperfection disqualifies a candidate, Washington DC should empty itself immediately. [View all]QueerDuck
(2,009 posts)I believe we need to hold our elected representatives to a higher standard, rather than making excuses, looking the other way, or grading them on a curve based on our own personal flaws.
I am looking for honorable character, temperament, and professional demeanor in our candidates. It is simply not enough for me to relate to a candidate, or give free-passes, simply because we have both made mistakes, or because they seem like "someone Id enjoy having a beer with."
I find the claim that he "owned his past" to be disingenuous. The core issue here isn't just the poor choice of a tattoo; it is the implausibility of his denial. To claim he had no idea what the symbol meant, that nobody ever questioned it, and that nobody ever told him strains credulity --- especially given his education level, the age of the tattoo, and his history of political activism.
If he truly wants to 'come clean,' we need a confession and apology that actually rings true. What we have received instead is a flat denial coupled with a last minute tattoo cover-up, done only when it became politically expedient. This feels entirely transactional rather than a sincere, meaningful admission of wrongdoing. We deserve better than 'convenient' accountability.