Essentially, because Gomez cannot campaign on any particular policy issue or viable legislative proposal, the use of umbrage as a sort of deflector shield is really unavoidable. Because Markey has a lot more money than Gomez, he will have no trouble flooding the zone with shots at Gomez. The problem for Gomez is that crying foul on your opponent’s campaign rhetoric is defense, not offense. Understandably, Gomez is trying desperately to spin his defensiveness as offense by exaggerating the supposed dishonesty of Markey’s ads. Weigel’s piece, however, shows how this kind of exaggeration is a double-edged sword.

As long as the race is perceived as a tit-for-tat affair Gomez will be unable to close the considerable distance between himself and Markey. If boilerplate anti-politician rhetoric and “new” ideas like term limits and withholding Congressional pay are all Gomez has to offer, then I assume his handlers are playing for a big Markey mistake.

Lincoln and al-Awlaki

McLaughlin in turn will walk or serve a very short sentence on his federal plea deal and is not likely to face any state time for campaign finance violations. Our score card would read: Prosecutors get publicity for corruption crusades, McLaughlin and Murray walk. Can that be right?

According to the Boston Globe’s story on McLaughlin’s plea deal with the federal government for hiding his inflated salary, the former Chelsea Housing Authority head would get a light sentence or no time if he provides “substantial assistance” to the feds in other criminal investigations – the story does not say who the feds were interested in, but they were looking into $7 million in federal grants to the Housing Authority that disappeared. It does say that Attorney General Martha Coakley was “conducting an energetic investigation into McLaughlin’s illegal political fund-raising” – with Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray the probable target. McLaughlin would be unlikely to face any time on a state campaign finance charge.

I had assumed that the federal government was looking at Murray as well. But the other day the Globe reported that the feds are interested in HUD employees who may have tipped off McLaughlin to upcoming inspections of apartments so that the housing chief could have time to rig the inspections.

The Globe also did a lengthy piece on McLaughlin’s career, reporting that he has been the target of no fewer than five previous investigations all, strangely enough, ending with no criminal charges. Guy Santagate, a former Chelsea city manager who tried to prevent McLaughlin’s being hired, said “This is an extremely well-connected guy. He has friends at every level. This is not some clerk who got tempted over some petty cash. This is a shrewd, cunning operative who has survived for decades.”

“[F]riends at every level”? Let’s think back to when the latest McLaughlin scandal broke. On November 12, 2011 the Globe broke a story about former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger’s efforts to get McLaughlin a deal. Yes Scott Harshbarger, the state’s Mr. Clean, the guy called in to head almost any commission to investigate wrongdoing in the commonwealth. Here is something from the Globe’s story:

Harshbarger called Governor Deval Patrick on the governor’s cellphone this week trying to cut a deal on behalf of McLaughlin, whose entire agency is now under investigation by the FBI, the attorney general, and several other agencies over his extraordinary pay and his efforts to collect a state-record pension.

Patrick was alarmed by the call, during which Harshbarger asked if McLaughlin could end the controversy by accepting a lower retirement benefit, according to two people briefed on the phone call. The next day, Patrick’s chief of staff, Mo Cowan, called Harshbarger back and told him not to call on the matter again.

(Full disclosure: I worked for Scott Harshbarger in the Attorney General’s Office and think very highly of him).

McLaughlin looks like he’ll escape his sixth investigation with some minor scrapes and bruises. Murray seems ready to skate off to the Chamber with only some reputational damage.

So are we talking Salem witch trials in these highly publicized political investigations that lead to little? Or are we talking “extremely well-connected guy[s]”? Or something else?

Murray will be remembered of course for the early morning state vehicle car crash in 2011 and his alleged fund raising connections to disgraced (some one write in, can Mike McLaughlin be disgraced?)  Chelsea Housing chief McLaughlin. US Attorney Carmen Ortiz has reportedly been ready to give McLaughlin a sweet heart deal in exchange for testimony against Murray. Apparently the Chamber isn’t concerned and given the recent inability of prosecutors in this state to convict pols in politics-as-usual cases, perhaps they have reason for comfort. If Ortiz doesn’t get Murray out of the McLaughlin deal, you have to wonder.

Murray is reportedly popular in the Patrick administration. He cheerfully served as a campaign attack dog and handled a lot of the odious patronage dealings (McLaughlin’s son, maybe Sheila Burgess though he denies it) that are an essential part of Beacon Hill relations. In that respect he caught some of the attacks that otherwise might have reached the governor, another important function for the second in command.

I’ll be on with Michael Graham  of the New England Talk Network at 12:15 to discuss the resignation.

Tom Keane recently wrote a piece for the Boston Globe on Senator William “Mo” Cowan as the days dwindle down on his temporary tenure. Being a short-termer can be a disadvantage but as Senator Cowan said “I’m not constrained by dollars or donors.” When Charlie Baker visited my class in Massachusetts Politics last fall he told the students something similar: A Republican elected in governor in this state doesn’t owe people the way a Democrat who comes up through the system does.

In that vein either Ed Markey or Gabriel Gomez, whoever wins, will owe people. Those people are not called voters; they are called contributors.

But I’m sure you will agree that we voters have gotten the contributors’ money’s worth in TV ads. How can you not love Gabriel Gomez reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in his ad Idea? (See, he does have one). Best thing since Mitt Romney singing America the Beautiful. Not to be outdone is Ed Markey’s sidesplitting ad Innovation in which he takes credit for making Facebook, Skype, and Google possible.  The Lord is said to be very upset with Markey because in Genesis it is clearly told that God created the waters, light, moon, fish of the sea, beasts of the field, etc. and without these things Google, Skype, and Facebook could never have been possible.

Back on May 9 I posted People’s Pledge: Does It Matter that We Know the Donors? (It does). A Republican activist protested that the media seems preoccupied with outside “special interests” while ignoring the special interests that have sustained Ed Markey for so many years. He has half a point. There should be a lot more scrutiny of money in politics and the advantages of incumbents on Capitol Hill or Beacon Hill. (The Globe recently reported that a freshman congressperson can look forward to four hours of fund raising a day. Rest assured voters, that congressperson will incur no obligations). The reason the commenter had only half a point is that he didn’t seem eager to know who is contributing to GOP SuperPAcs. He should be.

By the way in order to link to the Markey “Innovation” and Gomez “Idea” ads above I went first to their home pages where I was greeted not with issues or endorsements but a full page request for money on each site. To quote Diddy, “It’s all about the Benjamins.”

As former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously stated, “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.” Republican Gomez is going to need some help so let’s focus on the unknown-unknowns.

The campaign has seen two big unknown-unknowns thus far. The first is the Boston Marathon bombing. The second is the cascade of scandals that have beset the Obama administration: Benghazi, the IRS, and the AP investigation.

The Marathon Bombing was an enormous tragedy and continues to preoccupy our thoughts. Terrorism was not much of an issue in the campaign but in the wake of the bombing it could be, and as a former Navy Seal Gomez would seem well positioned to take advantage of it. In 2004 terrorism was an important issue in the presidential contest between George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry and Bush actually beat Kerry among Massachusetts voters who considered terrorism their most important issue.

When I wrote Predicting the Gomez-Markey Outcome about an academic model that could be used to predict the results of US senate races, I noted that one factor is the president’s popularity. So the unholy trinity of Obama administration scandals could have an impact on the president’s approval ratings and thus on the special election and two of the issues, Benghazi and the AP matter, involve national security.

Can Gomez’s campaign benefit from these unknown-unknowns? A pro-Steve Lynch SuperPAC made what I thought was a rather mild attempt to interject the bombing into primary campaign but the heartbreak of the tragedy was so recent and raw that the group was forced to withdraw its robocalls. The nation and state are in a different place on terrorism than we were in 2004, when the idiocy of the Iraq invasion and the almost total incompetence of the Bush administration were not fully understood. The Republican Party is the W Party now and that is not good for Gomez.

The Obama administration scandals may also present an opportunity for Gomez; we just don’t know how much of one. Then there is the same problem he has with terrorism – the national Republican Party. Already some national Republicans have gone so far out on the right (talk of impeachment, for instance) that Gomez may not get much out of the scandals. They say you can’t choose your family but you can choose your friends. If you can choose your enemies the Democrats have chosen wisely.

There is another factor mentioned in my post on predicting the outcome, whether the challenger is low quality or high quality. By the academic definition, Gomez is low quality. Or as Professor Duquette has said an amateur.

Last week as the Obama scandals bubbled up Gomez spent his time defending a tax break on his home and addressing the unpaid claims of various local contractors. His TV ads have been unremarkable too. On Tuesday, aided by Vietnam war hero and 2008 Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain, Gomez sought to interject national security into the forefront of the campaign. Still Gomez was cautious, emphasizing 9//11 more than Boston.

Unless the public suddenly becomes electrified by his ability to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, Gomez is going to need to exploit unknown-unknowns.

Recall that Ortiz seems ready to trade a light sentence or not prison time at all for McLaughlin in return for his giving up Lt. Governor Tim Murray for campaign finance violations. Yesterday’s Globe article indicates that McLaughlin may also be giving up HUD officials he allegedly bribed to warn him of housing inspections, so that he could arrange to have the targeted apartments fixed and thus “earn” high management ratings from HUD.

Naughty, naughty Mike. But how big a fish is he giving up at HUD? Not very big, probably. So the big catch remains Tim Murray. Not to cheer for Murray, but what one can accomplish with political money in a legal fashion these days dwarfs anything you can do illegally.

Are campaign finance violations more blameworthy than stealing from the poor? Because that is what McLaughlin did at Chelsea — he stole money intended to help support the living conditions of some of the poorest among us. Here’s the takeaway from yesterday’s Globe: “Residents of Chelsea housing complained that their apartments were cold, leaky, and poorly maintained and often infested with roaches or rats while federal money that was supposed to go toward improvements was being diverted.”

Campaign finance violations and bribing HUD officials are crimes, but stealing from the poor is a sin.

How long has McLaughlin been tying prosecutors like Ortiz in knots? There have been up to five separate investigations of him. John Kerry tried to indict him — before he was lt. governor, before he was US Senator, before he was Secretary of State — back when Kerry was first assistant in the Middlesex DA’s Office.

You have to wonder if federal prosecutors are just more shocked by process crimes like campaign finance violations; or perhaps the lure of bringing down a major political figure like the lt. governor is the key to a prosecutor’s own political future — see Bill Weld, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, etc. Or maybe we just don’t know that Ortiz has a really big fish on the line (McLaughlin ought to make a terrific witness; impeachment of him could last a week).

Mike McLaughlin is one charmed Democrat.

Gabriel Gomez is “not a professional politician.” Nor is he “a fancy lawyer.” I know this because both lines are staples of his campaign shtick. However, at the same time that he is criticizing “Washington pols” for being incompetent and for not reading the legislation on which they must vote, Gomez’s principle approach to avoiding positions on controversial legislation is to claim that he has not yet “read the full bill.” It is very important that he include the qualification “full” because if he hasn’t read any part of the high profile legislation considered in the body to which he is seeking membership that would make him look …. well…. unprofessional.

If Gomez weren’t such an amateur he might be better able to straddle his two pronged campaign theme, which combines attacks on professional politicians as selfish hacks who are indifferent to the concerns of “real” people with attacks on professional politicians as incompetent and dim witted. You see Gomez’s resume indicates that he is a model of selflessness and service to community and country, as well as a model of academic and professional success. If only this Harvard educated/ Navy Seal/ millionaire businessman with a Spanish surname could simply submit his resume to voters and skip the interview process? But alas, even one-percenters have to actually campaign for elective office in our fair Commonwealth.

What do you think Mr. Gomez is learning on the campaign trail about the job he is seeking; about the profession he hopes to join by attacking it? Gomez likes to poke fun at politicians for refusing to give voters straight answers. To him, professionalism in politics simply means mastery of credit claiming and blame avoidance. Reading about his efforts to provide the voters with “straight” answers on public policy issues like abortion is likely to make even the most cynical voter long for “a fancy lawyer” or “professional politician” to make heads or tails out of Gomez’s awkward and inarticulate evasions.

The problem for Gomez is that while Bay State voters are as disgusted as the next guy with “politics as usual,” they are not disgusted enough to “cut off their noses to spite their faces” in the voting booth. Massachusetts voters may enjoy complaining about professional pols at the water cooler, corner bar, or on the sidelines of their kids’ soccer games, but most do not hold professionalism against politicians where it counts; in the voting booth. The state’s political culture has long been much heavier on “competitive individualism” and lighter on “morality,” a tradition that is only intensified by the extreme polarization of politics in Washington, D.C. of late. In fact, even in states with moralistic political cultures, partisan polarization has trumped virtue and inspired voters to consider much more prominently their policy preferences in the voting booth. For an example we need look no further than South Carolina’s recent election of disgraced ex-governor Mark Sanford to the U.S. House of Representatives. For frustrated Massachusetts conservatives (and South Carolina Democrats I suppose) this unwillingness to punish candidates for their personal foibles illustrates the ignorance and passivity of the state’s electorate. Go to Redmassgroup.com or any other conservative web site about Massachusetts politics the day after an election and you will see this frustration on full display. Complaints about the “Sheeple’s Republic of Massachusetts” abound.

Bay State voters look at successful politicians in much the same way many folks look at successful personal injury attorneys; they are all self-serving, ambulance chasing hacks with outsized egos. But they are also exactly the kind of guys you want when you need an advocate in the dog-eat-dog game of politics. Bottom line: if you want to be a politician in Massachusetts, you have to prove that you’ll be good at it, and you have to run FOR the job, not AGAINST it.

It appears that Mr. Jones is a bit more sensitive than his former colleague realized. His rather emotional response to the affront may help explain why his political career was so short. After two terms, Jones lost his re-election bid in the Democratic primary. Nonetheless, Jones’ broadside makes its point. Hardball politics ain’t pretty or polite.

There is one line in Jones’ op-ed that may have taken a bit of the sting out of it for Markey. In his detailed defense of himself against the implication that his affection for the Confederate flag is racist Jones writes, “Since I can remember I have had a deep affinity for black folks…” Well, kiss my grits Cooter, that’s mighty nice of you. I’m thinking that “Fast Eddie” may actually have dodged a bullet here.

These companies haven’t shared their business plans with Rosenthal of course but he makes an interesting case. Every time there is a gun massacre (not the boring daily drip drip drip of 150 people shot and 87 killed by guns in this country) there is renewed call for congressional action. Sometimes there is even legislation proposed to provide for background checks to make sure gun buyers are not criminals, mentally ill, or terrorists; or to restrict sales of assault weapons like the Bushmaster AR 15 or AK-47. This is terrific for business because the gun manufacturers which own the NRA (which owns the Congress) have the NRA pump up fears among gun owners that the government is coming to confiscate their weapons, etc. Gun aficionados then rush out to buy more Bushmasters AR 15’s and AK-47s before the government can cut off sales of these prized weapons.

Of course there is no chance of the government even requiring universal background checks for criminals and terrorists never mind putting access to these weapons at risk because the Congress of the United States serves at the pleasure of the NRA. (In this light see the satirist Andy Borowitz’s piece in The New Yorker, N.R.A. Leader Warns of Rising Cost of Senators).

Add to this the fact that the Congress, according to Rosenthal, has relieved the gun industry from all consumer goods regulation and has exempted the industry from being sued for the harm guns may do, and you have an industry position that would make a tobacco company executive crimson with jealousy.

Say for instance that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was not so dumb as to have only one firearm after the Marathon bombing, but instead had thought ahead. He could have bought a weapon at a federally licensed dealer and passed the background check even though apparently he was on a terrorist watch list; then by law (so as to keep big government from infringing our liberties) the FBI would have been required to destroy the record of his purchase within 24 hours. Or he could just have driven up to New Hampshire, which lacks the laws we have here in Massachusetts, and bought an arsenal from some entirely unregulated gun show dealer.

Then you have the NRA’s response to Sandy Hook, which is to have armed guards at all schools – about 130,000 nationwide. Add to that the idea pushed by industry puppet NRA that we’d be so much safer if only all of us packed heat. Ringle ringle coins when they mingle make such a lovely sound!

I thought I had better check out Rosenthal’s idea so I turned to that radical expositor of anti-Americanism, Forbes Magazine. Here’s an excerpt from The Republicans’ Surprise Gift to the $32 Billion Gun Industry:

GOP lawmakers want an amendment added to the gun-control legislation currently being considered in Congress that would allow people with concealed carry permits to bring the hidden weapons into other states. Several states now make it tough to do this, as many refuse to recognize an out-of-state permit. By cutting away this red tape, Republicans would make receiving a permit more enticing, thereby increasing demand for the small, compact, highly profitable firearms favored by concealed carry holders–an unquestionable boon for gunmakers.

. . .

Republicans and pro-gun Democrats had already ensured that any legislation wouldn’t really harm the gun industry–the first victory gun companies scored.

. . .

Already, the nation’s appetite for weapons has never been higher. At least in the 14 years of FBI data on gun sales. The FBI’s figures show 7 million guns sold in the last three months, compared to 4.9 million sold in the same period a year earlier and 2 million sold a decade ago. And with toothless gun legislation coming through Congress, the gun industry’s profits will remain at record highs, as will share prices.

Memo

From: George Kollitides, Chairman and CEO, Freedom Group

To: Stephen A. Feinberg, CEO, Cerberus Capital Management

Re: Business Plan

We project rising profits to accompany rising gun violence. Don’t thank us, thank Congress.

________________________________________________________________________

This is the tip of the iceberg. Listen in to my interview with John Rosenthal, Chairman of Stop Handgun Violence, on Commonwealth Journal, WUMB radio, 91.9 FM, Sunday, May 26, from 7:00-7:30 PM.