Posted on 11/22/2015 12:22:28 PM PST by iowamark
Ted Cruz's Iowa moment has arrived.
The U.S. senator from Texas, who has worked for months to manage expectations in the first early voting state, is starting to flirt with top-tier status as his campaign zeroes in on this critical presidential proving ground.
He has visited the state five times over the last six weeks. His paid staff in Iowa has quadrupled from what it was just two months ago. His campaign has launched its first major ad buy in Iowa, an initial six-digit purchase on TV and radio. And he's secured a big-name endorsement from U.S. Rep. Steve King, with Bob Vander Plaats, expected to line up behind him soon...
Cruz's slow-but-steady rise in Iowa has not been accidental. While other GOP candidates were competing for oxygen this summer with Walker and then Trump, Cruz's campaign was a little more focused on laying groundwork in states deeper into the primary calendar,
"You know, Scripture talks about building your house on a foundation of rock and not on sand," Cruz said at the time.
Cruz's campaign has at least one county chair in all 99 counties of Iowa as well as congressional district coordinators covering the entire state. It has eight paid staffers â up from two in September and one over the summer,
Cruz's campaign in Iowa received a big boost Monday when he won the support of King, an influential figure in conservative circles who could open doors for Cruz throughout the state. By the end of the week, Cruz had picked up the endorsement of Loras Schulte, who had to give up his membership on the Iowa GOP State Central Committee to back Cruz...
(Excerpt) Read more at texastribune.org ...
And not about issues, but what we should do.
disappoint WHOM?
The first IS a function of the Executive Branch of government.
The second is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0
Now Jimmah will enter the conversation...
Divide and Conquer
We have ALREADY been divided and conquered as Republicans, so conquered that people are prepared to vote FOR the very things they oppose.
In 2012, those who voted for Romney voted for a functional Democrat and also voted for turning the Republican party even harder left than it was; those who re-elected guys like McConnel, Boehner, and Cochran voted to keep the Republican party functionally Democrat.
Of course, when they voted for those leftist Republican leaders, they denied it, saying they were actually voting against the opposing Democrat.
See my tagline.
Yeah, that was my point.
Wouldn't it depend on WHY they did not vote for Romney?
This is true!
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.