Posted on 12/14/2015 7:26:10 AM PST by Isara
The Ted Cruz surge has officially arrived. Predictably, the same political class that previously didn’t give him any shot to win the nomination is now saying he’s “peaking too soon” or the “flavor of the month.”
Here are five reasons why they’re wrong (as they almost always are).
Accounting for the upcoming holidays when most people tune out politics, there are about 40 days until Iowans vote in their first-in-the-nation caucuses. Cruz is now the leader in the Real Clear Politics polling average in Iowa. By that point in the 2008 cycle, eventual winner Mike Huckabee was beginning his surge and had vaulted to second in the RCP average. The previous two Iowa winners, George W. Bush in 2000 and Bob Dole in 1996, were the established frontrunners from the outset. The only time someone pulled a rabbit out of their hat to win Iowa at the final gun was Rick Santorum four years ago. Iowa is an organization-driven state, and it takes months of retail campaigning to build that organization. That’s why Iowa does not “break late” and Cruz is not “peaking too soon.” In fact, he’s peaking at the perfect time. What you’re seeing is an Iowa harvest coming forth following a year’s worth of tilling the soil, planting seeds, and tending the fields. Cruz and his Iowa team simply out-worked everyone else.
The two big endorsements in Iowa are Congressman Steve King and conservative activist Bob Vander Plaats. Cruz reeled in both of those big fish, and he’s the first to ever do so. On a national level you’re seeing unprecedented coalescing as well. Cruz is the first three-time winner of the Values Voters Summit straw poll, and won the Freedom Works straw poll as well. No other candidate has been able to simultaneously appeal to social and limited government conservatives. National conservative leaders like Richard Viguerie and Dr. James Dobson endorsed Cruz, and reportedly there are even more to come. The National Organization for Marriage, which didn’t endorse in both 2008 and 2012, has endorsed Cruz, as has Gun Owners of America. This is the most united we’ve seen the conservative movement since the Reagan Revolution.
By coalescing the conservative movement, there is no means by which another conservative candidate could surge. Where would his or her support come from? For example, four years ago Santorum nabbed late endorsements by Vander Plaats and Dobson to kick-start his campaign. But as we’ve noted this time, those two heavy-hitters are already with Cruz. The resources and organization other conservative movement candidates in the race (Huckabee, Santorum, and Paul) would need to launch themselves are simply not available. Those candidates are now officially dead in the water. At this point, it’s just a matter of how long and for whatever reason they want to continue to stay in the race. That certainly doesn’t mean Cruz has the nomination sown up, but it does mean that if a movement conservative wins the nomination, it’s going to be Cruz.
Cruz became the first candidate to build a ground game that covers every county in all four of the early states back in October. While most candidates are still trying to catch up to him in Iowa, Cruz will be doing a national swing through Super Tuesday states next week—which he originally started organizing back in August. As a result, Cruz has better organization on the ground in those states than most of the GOP field has on the ground in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
Cruz ended the third quarter reporting period with the most cash on hand of any GOP presidential candidate. Even better, Cruz has received donations from a whopping 362,000 individuals, whose average donation in the third quarter was only $66. Translation: He has a donor base that is a renewable resource for the rest of this campaign and has not maxed out.
Steve Deace has endorsed Ted Cruz for president.
He’s consistent. He’s constantly right.
Cruz is the best choice.
I’m a Trump man but I have to say, Cruz will destroy Hildabeast in the debates.
great advice !
Egypt
Cruz sided with the terrorist Muslim Brother (MB) when the Egyptian military military over threw the terrorish MB.
"President Obama's detached and abstract statement yesterday on deteriorating conditions in Egypt is only the most recent manifestation of this Administration's failed policy in that country. As there can no longer be any reasonable doubt that what occurred in July was a military coup, the first step is to send an unequivocal message that the United States is a nation of laws and suspend aid to Egypt."
But ..... Cruz praising the Egypts' al-Sissi that lead the coup to over throw the MB.
Let me contrast President Obama, who at the prayer breakfast essentially acted as an apologist. He said well gosh the crusades, the inquisitions ... We need a president that shows the courage that Egypt's President al-Sissi did as a Muslim when he called out the radical Islamic terrorists who are threatening the world.
On the Patriot Act Texas Senator and GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz
praised fellow presidential candidate and Senator Sen. Rand Paul's speech against the renewal of the Patriot Act on Wednesday.
Cruz began, "I would note he [Rand Paul] and I agree on a great many issues, although we don't agree entirely on this issue, but I want to take the opportunity to thank the Senator from Kentucky for his passionate defense of liberty. His is a voice that this body needs to listen to." And praised the prior work of Rand and his father, former Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX).
He continued, "I think protecting the Bill of Rights is a fundamental responsibility of the federal government. And it is heartbreaking over the last six years that we have seen a federal government that not only fails to protect the Bill of Rights, but that routinely violates the constitutional liberties of American citizens, routinely violates the Bill of Rights."
Cruz added, "It is the position of the Obama administration that the federal government has the full constitutional authority to track the location of every American citizen, no matter where we walk. That is a breathtaking assertion of power."
But .... Senate Renews Patriot Act and Rejects Bill That Would've Ended NSA's Domestic Spying Program
Here's the roll call, vote by vote position. Notice the four Republican Senators who voted for it: Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Dean Heller, and Lisa Murkowski.
Cruz is for legal status (amnesty) for illegal immigrates
"And I'd like to make a final point to those advocacy groups that are very engaged in this issue and rightly concerned about addressing our immigration system, and in particular about addressing the situation for the 11 million who are currently in the shadows. If this amendment is adopted to the current bill the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for RPI status. [Registered Provisional Immigrant] They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed under the terms of the bill they would be eligible for LPR status as well [Lawful Permanent Resident], so that they are out of the shadows, which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as their principle objective -- to provide a legal status for those who are here illlegally to be out of the shadows. This amendment would allow that to happen.
And a second point to those advocacy groups that are so passionately engaged. In my view if this committee rejects this amendment, and I think everyone here views it as quite likely this committee will choose to reject this amendment, in my view that decision will make it much, much more likely that this entire bill will fail in the House of Representantives. I don't want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass, and so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle, if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration, and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows, then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromise to come together and this amendment --I believe if this amendment were to pass the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically, and so I would urge the committee to give it full consideration and to adopt the amendment."
But ......
"A majority of the candidates on this stage have supported amnesty," he said. "I have never supported amnesty, and I led the fight against Chuck Schumer’s gang of eight amnesty legislation in the Senate."
On TPA Cruz wrote
By establishing TPA, Congress will send a signal to the world. America's trading partners will know that the U.S. is trustworthy and then put their best offers on the table. America's rivals will know that the U.S. is serious and won’t abandon the field. And the American people will know this trade agreement is a good, fair deal—because they'll have the information they need to decide for themselves. Promoting American trade will create more opportunity in the country, and so I strongly urge our colleagues in Congress to vote for trade-promotion authority.
But ..... Ted Cruz Flips on Trade Bill on Eve of Key Senate Vote
On Justice John Roberts Cruz wrote
But, as a jurist, Judge Roberts's approach will be that of his entire career: carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and legal precedent.
He is a mainstream judge, respected across the ideological spectrum. Thus, he's earned praise from liberal icons such as Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe, and Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein, as well as from Clinton Solicitors General Walter Dellinger and Seth Waxman, and Carter and Clinton Counsel Lloyd Cutler, the latter two of whom both described Roberts as a man of "unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness."
But ..... In St. Louis, Cruz asked the room to imagine what America would be like if Roberts and retired justice David Souter were never on the court.
"In 1990, in one room, was sitting David Souter," said Cruz. "In another room was sitting Edith Jones, the rock-ribbed conservative jurist of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. George Herbert Walker Bush picked David Souter. Let's fast-forward to 2005. In 2005, in one room was John Roberts, and in another room was my former boss, Mike Luttig, a rock-ribbed conservative jurist on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals -- and George W. Bush picked John Roberts."
lol
It good that you have a sense of humor, you will need it should the “flexible” Senator from Texas be the nominee.
Ted Cruz likes to be on both sides of an issue.
***************
Don’t know about being on both sides....
But Cruz has excellent training in that regards with his
skills as a debater. In competition debates you have to be
skilled at taking either side thus you need to know both.
You Cruzties are faster.
lol
Go, Ted, go! The conservatives’ choice.
Some read this the other way
“If he [Trump] decides to declare war, let it be one-sided.”
Well, based on Cruz’s private hit that became very public, that advice is outdated.
As one poster has already noted, Cruz’s refrain from negative campaigning is only a tactic and not based on principle, as the leaked private remarks reveal. That remark shows he is willing to jump in the mire with the best of them.
In keeping with his supposed nobleness of character, Cruz will not attack, but the moderators will not let him slide during the debate. His slur about Trump’s judgment and Trump’s response will be the first subject brought up. They will both downplay it. At this very moment, Cruz is trying to craft a response; you can book it.
Cruz does not have the smooth sailing that Deace supposes. For example, he will have trouble squaring some votes he has made with his campaign rhetoric. That is where Trump, and Trump only, can hurt him. Rubio has the same voting pattern.
Lifelong Republicans who during their lifetimes voted for candidates such as Nelson Rockefeller, Lowell Weicker, Petie Wilson, Hugh Scott, Charles Percy, Ed Brooke, Nancy Kassebaum, Ed Zschau, etc. would be far more comfortable with Hillary than they would with Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.
Steve Deace has endorsed Ted Cruz so he has a personal stake in pushing him and his campaign. He’s not an objective observer.
Yes he is an excellent debater, lawyer and as such his is skilled in presenting both sides of an argument or simply running out the clock and saying nothing. I've watching him do all three and he is impressive. Not exactly the skills I am looking for in a president, but hey that's just me.
Evidently a sizable chuck of people here want to get on with the globalist NWO thing. Why be a citizen of the USA when you can be a citizen of the world?
I just can't wait to see the new wonders our ruling class have planned for us. Go Cruz /s
Funny that I remember in 2011 that Palin was viciously attacked by the usual PDS'ers for not building any kind of campaign infrastructure or raising money for a potential run, and here we have Cruz who's doing it, and yet, he is getting attacked for it.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't with this crowd.
How is it a "hit" when he's talking to his own donors in a private setting? What's he supposed to say, "Ignore me, and send all your money to trump?"
I completely understand that Cruz can’t run without money. Like nearly every candidate he’s caught in that reality.
But it doesn’t take the obligation piece away. He can’t tell his donors to go pound sand. Thus his amnesty stand, Only against the word citizenship, wants legal status for those here. That will open a can of worms I don’t even think about.
But to your point yes, he has to raise money to win.
I listened to it several times and read it several times and I do not consider it a hit or attack at all. Trump better learn to wear iron panties if he cannot take a simple statement like that and let it roll off his back.
He will have to learn to play chess and leave the gutter smash mouth behind. I don’t think he can.
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.