Republicans with high hopes of finally defeating their arch-enemy, US Representative Patrick Kennedy, in next year's congressional elections have been feeling their oats, what with three candidates in the race and the much ballyhooed softening of Patrick's poll numbers. But the "Political Scene" column in the Other Paper of November 19 revealed that the two unknowns, Dave Rogers and Mike Battles, seem to be falling into the same pattern of self-destruction that has proved fatal to those who have taken on Patrick in the past.

Rogers sent out a big fund-raising letter, broadly attacking Patrick by loosely bandying about the "L" word and suggesting, by highlighting a few votes that hardly qualify as anti-national defense, that he's weak on national defense issues. Patrick had supported an amendment calling for full disclosure of intelligence spending in administration defense budget requests. We're sure that a lot of inquiring minds in America -- folks who aren't "anti-military," but who believe in reasonably open government -- would like to know to how much money is being spent in this area.

Rogers's mailing also cites Kennedy's 1999 vote to eliminate funding for the US School of the Americas in Georgia, the purported training ground for a number of Latin American death squad members over the years. P&J think that underwriting training for these thugs isn't exactly national defense issue Numero Uno. Patrick's vote on the issue is more of a principled stand on appropriate US behavior.

Trying to weasel out of responsibility for his gung-ho right-wing fund-raising effort, Rogers explained to the Urinal that the letter was put together not by him, but the Bruce W. Eberle & Associates consulting firm. Mr. Battles pointed out that Eberle was accused during a congressional hearing in 1992 of using false claims of POW sightings to garner contributions from veterans -- a charge that led then-Senator John Ashcroft to dismiss Eberle as his fund-raising consultant.

This sort of internal sniping is self-defeating for a couple of candidates who need, more than anything, to get their stories out to stand a chance to beat Kennedy. Meanwhile, Christine Ferguson, the former state human services head ramrod -- who has a name and some legitimate political credentials -- can lay back and focus on Patrick.

Of course, P&J's take is that none of this will matter in the end. Barring the entry of any other name GOP candidates into the race, Ferguson should easily triumph in the usual low-turnout Republican primary. But she'll still have an uphill battle challenging Patrick once the preliminaries are out of the way and people start focusing not on the titillating aspects of the Life of Patrick, but on the job he's been doing in Congress. And this is why, despite the naysayers, Kennedy will win.

In the interim, we really have to wonders about Rogers's explanation for the Eberle letter. Does this mean that Bruce W. Eberle should be on the ballot instead of Rogers? And did the moronic Rogers even have the sense to read the letter before it was sent, just in case some graduate of Journalism 101 might inquire about his comments?

Hey, just the kind of guy we want to see representing Vo Dilun in Congress, wouldn't you agree? Dave, please go home now and save us all the embarrassment.