I answer your post point by point, and you accuse me of not only being condescending, but not reading your post at all. Very interesting approach.
2000 GOP convention was in Philly. Bush lost PA.
That's right! I completely forgot that PA was Cheney's home state. Reading comprehension: Look into it.
:-D Well, this one's definitely out in left field. I'll take a stab and guess that you mean Giuliani as VP, not the convention, would deliver NY to Bush. Yet my comment was in response to your item #3, which made no mention of Rudy.
3) Republican Convention will be held in NYC and focus on National Security which has suddenly become the most important issue to NYC residents.
2000 GOP convention was in Philly. Bush lost PA.
See? I did read your post. [sweet smile]
Please don't attack, without foundation, my reading comprehension skills because you have a weak argument and/or flawed reasoning.
Three possibilities: (1) You didn't read my post, (2)You DO have a comprehension problem, (3) You enjoy being irrelevant. Which is it?
I say Guliani is a bad idea: You disagree, and tell me why Guliani is a bad idea.
And your attempted counterpunch that accuses me of having "hav[ing] a weak argument and/or flawed reasoning," also misses. Guliani's popularity was a big part of getting the convention to New York. Wether he is on the ticket or not, he is going to be a HUGE part of the convention, and the most important campaigner/fundraiser in NY. The Republicans did not have anybody of his stature in PA, so your example was irrelevant.
I trust that you already saw the flaws in your other counterpoints (Rev Al et al), which is why you let them go. Let the rest of it go as well. You are wrong. NY is winnable for the Republican party. This argument is not winnable for you.