Posted on 12/19/2005 10:25:05 AM PST by ncountylee
U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., will not go unchallenged in his bid for re-election. At least two Republicans intend to seek the GOP nomination to run against the state's senior senator next year.
Neither Ken Chase nor Kevin Scott are known statewide, and neither will have the money Kennedy can bring to the race.
Chase is from Belmont and ran unsuccessfully against U.S. Rep. Ed Markey last year. Scott is a former Wakefield selectmen.
Chase told the Cape Cod Times that despite 44 years in the Senate, Kennedy has failed to solve many of the nation's biggest problems, including its dependence on foreign oil.
Scott, meanwhile, said he's not running against the Kennedy of 1975, he's running against the Kennedy of 2005. He said he doesn't consider them to be the same person.
Kennedy, 73, has fended off many Republican challengers over the years. The closest any of them ever came was Mitt Romney, who garnered 41 percent of the vote in 1994.
I know Kevin Scott, he is no Ted Kennedy!
Might force a memorable sound bite or two out of the fat, disgraceful pile of crap.
"Neither Ken Chase nor Kevin Scott are known statewide, and neither will have the money Kennedy can bring to the race."
Then what is the point?
"Chase told the Cape Cod Times that despite 44 years in the Senate, Kennedy has failed to solve many of the nation's biggest problems, including its dependence on foreign oil"
THIS is his argument as to why he should be elected?! Because Ted Kennedy has not solved our dependence on foreign oil.... That's really sad.
Hey at least these guys are willing to at least get their names on the ballot and try to challenge him. Granted they would lose unless he steps down or something then it MAY be possible to eke out a win though i would never hold me breath
It is a race we will watch carefully all the while praying that the Republican wins.
Kennedy will have to spend some money and not divert all to closer races.
No Republican ran against Kerry last time. I think the only other name was on the ballot was a Libertarian. It's good for the GOP to run somebody against these guys even if the odds of winning are minimal.
Not only that but just by putting a Republican on the ballot for a fed campaign frees up fed money for other statewide races (i just learned this chestnut two weeks ago). so it will help the party all across the board. Ok probably wont matter since Mass is a lost cause anyway but hey at least they will try and force dems to spend some cash
Kennedy will pretend that they do not exist and neither Chase or Scott have the money to force the issue or a debate. I've met them both through the Malden Republican City Committee. I would throw my support behind Chase.
So far all the Posts on this thread are defeatist.
What we need is a nationwide effort to raise money to get this POS out of office.
He can be beat , no man is unbeatable. We need effort, I would send a check to a Orangutang who would run against this drunken killer.
Republicans on this thread sound like Democrats who claim we cant win in Iraq.
Minimal?
Well, I guess you could say that. About the same odds as for my beloved Vanderbilt Commodores winning the Orange Bowl next season.
That's my take on minimal.
It's better to have a name on the ballot than none at all. Running no one is almost like endorsing the other guy.
How about Romney?
That's the only election I could see him winning and being an improvement.
...He can be beat , no man is unbeatable....
You've never been to the St. Patrick day parade and see the Massholes fawning all over this fat, drunken, murdering commie.
Teddy IS unbeatable.
At least he'd have to actually run to beat Romney.
The Swimmer needs to go !
You don't even need open sights to hit Ted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.