Posted on 04/02/2007 12:01:50 AM PDT by FairOpinion
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is leading in national polls of the Republican presidential field, is picking up support in North Carolina. Giuliani will be the guest at a fundraiser on April 25 in Greensboro at the home of Dr. Aldona Wos, the former U.S. ambassador to Estonia, and her husband, Louis DeJoy.
Jim Culbertson, a Winston-Salem businessman who headed the two state campaigns for George W. Bush, will chair Giuliani's North Carolina campaign. DeJoy will be a co-chairman.
"We were pretty much blown away by him," Culbertson said.
Culbertson said Giuliani could help Republicans win in Democratic-leaning areas.
"All we need is New Jersey and Pennsylvania and we have the next election," Culbertson said.
"He is basically conservative, outside the social issues."
Two days after his Greensboro fundraiser, Giuliani will be back in North Carolina to kick off the Conservative Leadership Conference, which will be April 27-28 at the Sheraton Raleigh Capital Center.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
I'm sure pretty much anyone would accept their fundraising efforts. And they'd probably love Mitt as much as Rudy -- he can give lip service to those silly social issues as well as anyone.
My point? Read my post, and your post, and the one you responded to. Getting some more Rockefeller Republicans on board doesn't mean anything more than money, and all the money in the world won't cure the many fatal flaws in the Giuliani candidacy.
I read your initial post (#12) and it was pointless other than stating the obvious... people with lots of money have expensive houses. Now you're making assumptions that are not born out by the numerous polls. And if Thompson gets in, McCain and Romney are history. It'll come down to Rudy vs. Thompson for the nomination.
They don't seem to know a hell of a lot about politics, but they are great beanbag players and seem happy to remain so.
That wasn't my post.
Some of us were foolish enough to believe it had to do with issues we care about.
It is intellectually dishonest to keep posting this chart without a corresponding chart of annual increase in city receipts.
Who hosts fundraisers except wealthy, successful people? You apparently have zero knowledge of American politics. Envy and resentment of "the rich" is pure socialism.
Convincing a wide range of people about your issues is the ticket to winning elections, not forcing your issues by judicial means.
"That wasn't my post."
Sorry about that. That's what is called "bait and switch".
You're implying that I resent the wealthy, I'm stating that I don't. I will state that I believe candidates become beholden to wealthy donors and organizers at the expense of the common man.
Horses--t!!! It is your side, the abortion-"rights" team, that has imposed its views on the rest of us. It is your side that makes it impossible for us to pass even the most minimal restrictions on abortion without jumping through hoop and after judicial hoop--and then, often as not, finding ourselves facing a permanent injunction against a democratically legislated measure like parental consent.
After years of seeing popular efforts defeated, of course, many people come to see as normal and acceptable what they formerly regarded as evil and unthinkable. It's the Kalifornia outlook, and your side will not be satisfied until you have Kalifornized the rest of the country. Taking back the GOP for the country club crowd is a major step in the process.
Yeah, I got that vibe from you.
Who are you, John McCain? American Politics 101: The primary season consists of raising funds and support for the general election. This is the basic test of the depth of a candidate's support. It is measured in DOLLARS.
You're missing the point of electoral success. Especially in a presidential race with so much free media, money is #3 or #4, well behind Candidate and Message.
Pay attention. The poster sneered at the size of the house of the fundraiser. Fundraisers are by definition wealthy. This is a good thing, not bad. Money is the mother's milk of politics, the disapproval of jejune posters notwithstanding.
I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about your OTHER stupid (sorry - "jejune") point. That's why I quoted it. Get it?
"You're missing the point of electoral success. Especially in a presidential race with so much free media, money is #3 or #4, well behind Candidate and Message."
Dear expert on "electoral process", Romney should then concentrate on #1, #2 and maybe a #3, instead of focusing on Money which is #3 or #4.
Ha ha, I agree, he should look at supporting a new candidate who has a genuine conservative message.
"Yeah, I got that vibe from you."
Thanks for agreeing on post #29.
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.