^ the least no-campaign of the four and thus the odd man out ? John Chapman, endorsed by Mitt Romney and Gabriel Gomez

—- —-

Four Republicans seek the party’s nomination to lose in November to current Congressman Bill Keating.

That is the fundamental dynamic in this campaign which isn’t really a campaign at all.

Because the four are running a race they will not win, the entire effort is to see which kind of Republican will win the nomination and thus give tone to the Republican party as it peoples the communities within the 9th District.

Minority parties often turn in upon themselves in this fashion. It becomes more important –MUCH more important — within them to see who will command the party than who might actually win an election. in Massachusetts, that’s how the entire GOP operates except for the very separate Governor GOP. The Governor GOP exists to win elections. It’s a normal political party and voices normal political policies that can very well win a majority vote. The same is definitely not true of the other MA GOP. It knows it cannot win and advocates policies that assure that it won’t win, policies advanced for the express purpose of keeping everybody else out. That is why the other MA GOP liberally offends all kinds of voters. The more voters it offends, the less competition for leadership of the party.

It is difficult to run a campaign for Congress within a framework of offending as many voters as possible. Most people who become candidates assume that winning is the objective. It takes them a while to realize that the opposite is what they’ve stepped into. It must be quite a revelation for them to realize that such efforts are won by the candidate who can successfully offend the most voters.

I call a campaign of this type “no campaign at all.” Just as accurate would be to call it an ‘anti-campaign,” a rejection of the very notion of campaigning as we understand the word “campaign” in a democracy. This sort of campaign is Leninist : his method was to direct the Bolshevik party to such extremes as to eliminate all but the hardest of hard core followers.

Leninism is the operative principle of the anti-campaigns that mark most of today’s GOP.

But the Leninists still do not have the ground all to themselves; within the MA GOP there are — to extend the analogy to Russia 1917 — Mensheviks too, and constitutional socialists like Alexsandr Kerensky, even some moderate democrats like Paul Miliukov. And these forces have money behind them, and voters, and they have no intention of being Lenin’d out of the GOP. Thus there is political significance to the GOP primary in the 9th Congress District despite its no-campaign thrust.


^ playing no-campaign in a District in which exist many issues that a no-campaign refuses to address

The leading candidates all talk the usual national GOP talking points : that the ACA is bad, that we need “job creation,’ that unemployment benefits and other social safety net programs are bad. Nothing could be more meaningless, or boring, not to mention stupid, than these mantras. Because they are utterly meaningless, the actual meaning in the 9th District Primary lies elsewhere, in the no-campaign groove. You must get this fact so as not to dismiss John Chapman, especially, as just another robo. Or to think Daniel Shores naive, or Vincent Cogliano passe’.


^ young, even normal, ambition : Daniel Shores

Shores is the kind of young, ambitious lawyer who in MA usually runs as a Democrat — in a state where “Demoocrat” means “i want to win’ just as much, or more, than it means anything about policy. Were Shores to win the primary, it would inject some measure of normal political ambition into a party in which ambition usually takes a darker turn.


Cogliano is a local politician’s local, and as all normal politics is local, his victory would add to the MA GOP some measure of attention to precinct, ward, and community politics, at which most of the MA GOP fails all tests.

Then there’s John Chapman. He has the endorsement of Mitt Romney and Gabriel Gomez, who lives not far outside the District. Gomez today is by far Massachusetts’s most -progressive GOP voice, more so than even Richard Tisei. His endorsement of Chapman, in the state’s most Portuguese District, will carry weight and should. (Gomez is not Portuguese, but as an Hispanic he knows the next-door Portuguese community better than most Anglos.) Chapman seems actually to be seeking voters who want to win the election. To do that, he will have to set aside his robo mantra and campaign on real issues that matter to Portuguese voters : fishing rights, Federal dollars for Section 8 housing and for port building, education reform, student debt reform,  transportation funding, immigrants’ rights : stuff that no-campaign Republicans loathe and spurn. Unfortunately for Chapman, the more he addresses such issues, the more anathema he becomes to Leninist GOP cadres.


^ Like Lenin with his mentor Georgi Plekhanov : Mark Alliegro with the no-campaign theorist (and former Congressman) Allen West

These cadres belong to the fourth candidate, Mark Alliegro, whose pronunciamentos epitomize the world of no-campaign, of GOP Leninism. Alliegro condemns the ACA, shoots his gun rights mouth off about ‘social engineering,” talks the “freedom’ mantra of those to whom “freedom’ means eliminating all social safety net — indeed, all federal government programs you can think of except (maybe) Defense. For no-campaign Leninism, Alliegro’s rant matches Mark Fisher’s failed governor effort and maybe even surpasses it ; because where Fisher assaulted the Governor GOP in its stronghold — liked the failed Bolshevik attempt of 1917 — Allegro is challenging only the 9th District outpost, a fortress not defended by the Governor GOP. He may not conquer the outpost; but do not bet against it.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

One Comment

  1. Good Evening Mike

    “Influencing Withdrawal from Competition
    ​An agency official shall not influence anyone to withdraw from competition in order to improve or injure the employment prospects of any person. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(5)

    This PPP means that an agency o​fficial cannot try to persuade an applicant to withdraw his or her name from consideration for a job. For a violation to occur, this influence or persuasion has to have happened in order to help or hurt another person’s employment prospects. However, the applicant does not have to actually withdraw from competition in order for the action to be a violation. This section does not bar an agency official from counseling an applicant to withdraw from competition for legitimate reasons, for example, because the applicant is not highly qualified or a b​​etter position is available.

    Example: A veteran is at the top of the list for hiring, which means that he is blocking other candidates from being selected for this particular position. The selecting official, hoping to hire another applicant lower on the list, encourages the veteran to apply for another vacancy instead. This would be an example of influencing a withdrawal from competition, and could also be a violation of a veterans’ preference requirements under 5 U.S.C. § 2302((b)(11)).

    “ Thank you for making a report to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s CyberTipline. All reports are reviewed by an analyst and made available to the appropriate law enforcement agency. In the future, if you have additional information on what you have reported here, call 1-800-THE LOST (1-800-843-5678) and reference this CyberTipline Report number: 92878217. To report a separate or a new incident, click here. To learn about additional resources, click here.
    Here is the information that you submitted
    What are you reporting?*:
    Child Sex Trafficking
    Where did the incident occur?: Newsgroup
    Subject Line: CSDPMX-HR-Candidates@international.gc.ca
    Date and Time:
    06/12/2021 10:00 PM EDT
    Person/User Being Reported
    First Name: 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Screen Name: DILF
    Your Information
    May we contact you? No, do not contact me
    Additional Information
    We do not need to loose international allies because the United States is providing Misinformation and Booking Time to run their own stories instead of factual university based evidences and related certificates it’s not fair Animal Farm Reader”

    I was personally abducted in October 4th 1999 so implementing laws that monitor safer education reporting standards is my main priority

    An agency official shall not retaliate against an employee for whistleblowing. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)

    This PPP prohibits agency officials from taking, failing to take, or threatening to take a personnel action because of an employee’s whistleblowing. To prove whistleblower retaliation, one must show:

    The employee must have disclosed what he or she reasonably believes to be:​

    a violation of law, rule, or regulation;

    gross mismanagement;

    gross waste of funds;

    an abuse of authority; or​​

    a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

    The personnel action in question must have been taken (or not taken, such in the case of a promotion), threatened, or influenced by an official who knew of the employee’s disclosure; and

    The employee’s disclosure was a contributing factor in the personnel action.

    ** This section also prohibits retaliation against government scientists who challenge censorship or make disclosures concerning the integrity of the scientific process if the censorship will cause one of the five types of misconduct described above.”

    Taken from
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s