EaBo Clipper checks and finds Curt Schilling is registered as unenrolled, not Republican.
Meanwhile, Lance reposts his first-in-the-nation call for Schilling to run for Senate - back in 2006.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Even better, run as an Indie and then have the Republicans endorse you. You get the benefit of the 10 votes the Republicans will muster for the general and the ability to claim your not a Republican and thereby easing the pains of thousands of Bosox fans that would not vote for a Republican.
I'm pretty sure unenrolled is the largest political affiliation in MA. Low wars, low taxes could win it. 2010 will be a lousy year for the Democrats.
Seriously, I'd like to see him try. He wouldn't know where to start. Its tough enough for an experienced person to mount an independent campaign let alone a washed up ball player with foot in mouth disease.
And what does it say about the GOP that they'd need to endorse a non Republican for Senate and not even be able to have candidate to call their own. Hysterical!!
They should embrace that attitude in areas where their name can not compete. I think many people in MA would vote for a conservative BUT NOT a republican.
The Dems do this in VT and now in CT. If you can not win the race you take what you can get.
Big Shill is a very religious man as far as I know. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the way its skewed his views and how different it is from the rest of MA in the past is not going to help.
MA residents, while grateful for his accomplishments on the field, aren't star struck little children. They won't even give him a second thought before showing him the door.
Tis true, more "unenrolleds" than Democrats in MA.
What I find interesting (frustrating?) is how the law (or, the Secretary of State?) works. In the US Senate special election, the deadline to choose your political party was August 5, weeks before the election was even a possibility.
This was also true in the 3rd Suffolk State Rep special election. The deadline for choosing a political party was at least three weeks earlier than when the election was even announced.
I'm not saying it's better or worse that way, just wondering why it's the rule (if not the law). Yeah, a call to Bill Galvin would solve the mystery.
Of course, a politician who changed parties just weeks before announcing a run might be seen as fickle or flighty. But, at the same time, why not let the deadline be after the election is announced, so that people can decide then what their party affiliation will be? It makes sense, maybe, given we have so many unenrolleds - they can change their party affiliation before the primary (that day, even) so why not before an election?
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy