Vargas, Magliocchetti Meet for Post-Primary Democratic Unity Breakfast

Posing for a photograph outside a Democratic unity breakfast Wednesday were, from left, Massimo Magliocchetti, Council Vice President Melinda E. Barrett, Mayor James J. Fiorentini, Councilor Andy Vargas, School Committeeman Paul A. Magliocchetti, state Democratic Chairman Gus Bickford and Councilor Thomas J. Sullivan.  (Courtesy photograph.)

Haverhill Democrats joined together Wednesday morning to demonstrate unity in the aftermath of the at times tense rivalry between the two Democratic state representative candidates.

Primary winner Andy Vargas, challenger Paul A. Magliocchetti and their respective campaigns pledged to work together toward the united goal of winning the Nov. 7 general election, according to a statement. The state Democratic Party quickly assembled the breakfast at Wicked Big Café in downtown Haverhill.

“Whether you voted for myself, for Paul or for a Republican candidate, we are on a mission to best represent all of Haverhill,” Vargas said.

Vargas defined the issues to be debated in the final election are economic opportunity, investment in education, access to quality health care and support for public safety.

The Haverhill Democratic City Committee and the state party also plans a “Unity Rally,” Sunday, Oct. 22, at 4:30 p.m., at the Barking Dog Ale House, 77 Washington St. to unite everyone behind Andy Vargas for the 3rd Essex State Representative seat. Committee members say they are working with former state Rep. Brian S. Dempsey, Democratic State Party Chairman Gus Bickford and Mayor James J. Fiorentini, Democratic state committeeman.

15 thoughts on “Vargas, Magliocchetti Meet for Post-Primary Democratic Unity Breakfast

  1. Magliochetti is now sucking up to the very people and ideas he ran against. That is pretty hypocritical if you ask me considering Paul knows what Vargas is up too. Why is it that politicians cannot stand by their supposed principals ? Maybe because they have none. What a joke all this is. The city is burning while you people are fiddling.

  2. This photo is ridiculous. Especially Barrett. Vargas won by playing to the cheap seats. No surprise there. City council positions are held by crummy business owners who pretend they’re not there for the gov. Insurance. Meanwhile in GAR park … needles and lude acts. Glad these people had the time to smile for the camera. Nothing to smile about last time I checked. The city is a mess.

    • Gil….Barrett has personally told me that her business has been “devastated” by the parking tax the mayor instituted downtown. Yet, she publicly says nothing in opposition to it. What’s that tell ya?

      • She’s ridiculous. the only person who takes Barrett serious, is Barrett. Unbelievable to me that she was ever elected. She knows she’s a do-nothing. Cracks me up to see all these do-nothings smiling and having brunch while Haverhill is rampant with crime, drugs, and slumlords. Nice job guys.

  3. the democrats could have held there unity breakfast in the back booth at mark’s deli…..magliocchetti supporters are running away from the anti police gang led by vargas. shaun toohey will win thanks to these crossovers. paul only went to pick up some donations for his campaign debt and votes for his run for the school committee.

    • “Anti police gang led by Vargas.” That’s cute little narrative you got there, too bad that it doesn’t jive with facts or reality.

      If I remember right, was it Toohey who battled with the Mayor to add more officers to the force? Oh yeah, that was Vargas.

      My bad for thinking that Billy Ryan’s sockpuppet was capable of doing anything constructive or having an independent thought.

  4. Can any democrats explain how nominating a candidate raised in an environment where breaking the laws of this country is perfectly acceptable is good for Haverhill citizens?

    In Andy Vargas democrats nominated a party candidate with a multi-generational family history of breaking the laws of this country. With total disregard for the laws of this country, Andy’s grandmother entered the country illegally from the Dominican Republic so his mother could be born here.
    Andy bragged at a democrat convention last July in Worcester that his father, with total disregard for the laws of this country, came to Massachusetts from from the Dominican Republic and took jobs from Americans. Andy still needs to answer the question of why his parents and entire family is not listed in the 2010 US Census, which completing is required by law. The answer is because criminal trespassers hiding in the USA don’t complete the census for fear of being found out they are here illegally.

    The city now has a candidate with a long familia history of breaking the laws of this country possibly being in a position on deciding on making laws? How does that make sense on any level? If that isn’t insanity I don’t know what is.

    • Jack, sometimes human freedom – you know the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness – are more important than laws. What you cite above is just this. We are agreed that when people who break the law you cite and then break other laws – murder, rape, burglary, crimes to property then there is a problem. Taking jobs imo not so much.
      But most people breaking the laws on immigration and settlement in the US do not hinder other individual’s freedoms.

      • Hillie, when my taxes keep going up because the city I live in has incurred excessive costs of policing, educating, housing, and feeding people in this country illegally, my freedoms aren’t infringed? Can I break the law by picking those laws I think are unimportant relating to my personal situation? How about if I chose not to pay my taxes at all because I’m fed up with supporting a socialist government more concerned with the rights of illegal invaders in this country than mine? My liberty is infringed when I have to turn over to a government the fruits of my labor, without my consent, to be used for supporting illegal activity. The problem with liberals relating to the criminal trespasser issue in this country is that you all believe laws are subjective instruments left to individual interpretation. They’re not.

        • It would be hard to make any valid arguments based on what you say.
          Haverhill on average underfunds police and education. So the big two expenses you mention are also below average.

          Break laws that unalienable rights is different than picking and choosing which laws to follow.

          Taxes, of course, are a grey area. They are forced extortion (mostly for a good cause, imho). In theory, of course it is not against your consent. You yourself could run on getting rid of all taxes. Or vote for those that think such. By most definitions there is in this country the consent of the governed.

          I looked up the so called costs of illegals and got a high number of around $120b (See FAIR). I rounded that number up to $190billion to divide into our slightly rounded up gdp of $19T. The cost is 1% of gdp. I then divided the original number into tax revenues on the federal level and got 3.3% but the $116b is for local, state and federal costs. So adding state taxes and am down to 1.6%. So you are complaining about at most 2 cents of every tax dollar going to illegal immigrants. And again, the $120b is a high number.

          Not sure where you are getting that laws are subjective. Never said that. I did say that human freedom (unalienable rights) are above them; but not that they are subjective. Do I have problems with certain laws? Certainly do. Do I think it is wrong to break such laws. Generally, no. I prize human freedom above such laws.

          But that one might have to pay the price for breaking such laws – arrest, detention, removal from the country, etc – and that certain government officials have the authority to enforce such laws I certainly understand.

          Might I recommend Lincoln’s Lyceum Address from 1838 – his first public speech:

          • Hillie….If someone robbed a bank because they wanted to use the money they stole to provide a better quality of life for themselves and their children, and years later that person was caught by the police, what do you think should happen to that person? Should they go to jail?

            If you think the person should go to jail, what do you think should happen to the money they stole? Should their children be able to keep it?

          • Robbing a bank is a crime against property. It is a non-sequitur.
            To answer your questions: That person should be arrested and go to jail and the money returned.

            Moving to a place using public conveyance is not a crime against property.
            Seeking a better life in ways that don’t infringe on individuals inalienable rights is certainly different than anything you state.
            The biggest public cost of illegal immigrants is education.
            If the children who are educated stay in the country those monies are paid back, on average, several fold.

            What exactly was your point, Jack?