“The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”
-Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, refusing to be evacuated
Russia Needs to Stop: Ukraine has EVERY right to self-determination. Russia needs to STOP being the bully in the neighborhood. The ONLY reason NATO expansion has continued is because Russia’s neighbors are afraid of Russia’s/Putin’s blustering. NATO is a defensive alliance that is a huge waste of resources because Russia is an irrational world player.
Russia needs to stop its illegal, aggressive behavior. And if not, the world needs to isolate Russia as the rogue state it appears to be today. The attacks on civilians ordered by Putin are most certainly war crimes and the civilized nations of the world should hold Putin responsible.
Democrats Backtracking?!?: Really, they didn’t mean it. Defunding the police, Critical Race Theory, Open Borders, bailing out violent criminals, massive debt, WOKE culture…
As soon as the polls started coming in CONFIRMING the liberal progressive Democrats have gone too far, some in their party are trying to backtrack and have it both ways.
Black Lives Matter: The Democrats empowered them. The Democrats used them. The Democrats covered for them. Now the Democrats can’t stop them. And now the Democrats own them. Another corrupt political Astro turfed Democrat ploy gone wrong.
Electoral Count Act: Few oppose technical and/or procedural fixes, however, Democrats just can’t help themselves. Democrats are already trying to add changes not directly related to the ECA to gain partisan advantage.
Just do the right thing. Get a bipartisan agreement to fix the problem with a clean bill.
COVID Spending: In a Tweet this week, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) pointed out “$58,000 per household. That how much the federal government spent in the name of COVID. Even if you consider the vaccines success, they allegedly cost les than $50.00 each. Where was all that money spent? What could your family have done with $58,000?”
–Saul Anuzis
Click Here for Past Commentary from Saul
60 Plus Weekly Video Rewind
Russia invades Ukraine and US lawmakers call for harsh response from the Biden administration!
Links to the articles discussed in the video:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/russian-invades-ukraine-largest-europe-attack-wwii
Amazon will help US if you say yes!
At NO cost to you, you can help the 60 Plus Foundation in its efforts to support conservative policies to protect senior citizens, get rid of the death tax and defend social security and Medicare using sound fiscal policies.
Sign up…and Amazon will donate 0.5% of what you spend to the Foundation! Please help us out by signing up here…at NO cost to you! Sign up Today!
Visit https://www.60plus.org/amazon-smile-program/
Anuzis In The News at CPAC – Conservative Political Action Conference
As President of the 60 Plus Association and former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, I attended the 2022 CPAC conference in Orlando Florida this week. In 1979 I attended my first CPAC conference at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC where about 400 conservatives from around the country came together. Today, nearly 10,000 activists, party leaders, opinion leaders and media show up in Orlando to hear from leaders in the conservative movement from around the country and the world. Since 1979, I think I’ve made all but 3-4 conferences as they serve as a venue to see old friends, share best practices, debate policy and hear from America’s future leaders. Here is a sample of some of some quotes in various interview with media outlets from around the country.
Would you mind telling everybody what CPAC is?
“So CPAC is a collection of conservative activists from around the country, that come together once a year to hear political leaders, Congressman and Senators and other people who are involved in the conservative movement in different ways. And they gather together to share best practices, share idea, meet on another and share best practices and network. I actually attended my first CPAC in 1979 and have been to virtually every one but three”.
Michigan Talk Radio Michael Patrick Shiels The Big Show
Saul Anuzis, a longtime Republican strategist and former Michigan GOP chair who has attended CPAC for decades, said that the burgeoning interest in DeSantis among conference attendees isn’t necessarily born out of a weariness or dislike of Trump, but rather a desire for a fresh face who can carry on the political movement that the former president helped give rise to.
“To me what’ll be interesting to see is, even if people like Trump, do they want to move on?” Anuzis said. “And I think that’s where DeSantis’s appeal comes from – that maybe it’s time for a new generation. Maybe it’s time for fresh leadership.”
The Hill
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/595887-desantis-gets-rock-star-treatment-at-cpac
Saul Anuzis, a longtime Republican strategist and former Michigan GOP chair who has attended CPAC for decades, said that the burgeoning interest in DeSantis among conference attendees isn’t necessarily born out of a weariness or dislike of Trump, but rather a desire for a fresh face who can carry on the political movement that the former president helped give rise to.
“To me what’ll be interesting to see is, even if people like Trump, do they want to move on?” Anuzis said. “And I think that’s where DeSantis’ appeal comes from — that maybe it’s time for a new generation. Maybe it’s time for fresh leadership.”
FOX News
–https://fox2now.com/news/national/cpac-attendees-showing-interest-in-desantis-for-presidential-run/
Gabbard’s “not a traditional conservative by any means, but she’s expressing views that people care about,” said Saul Anuzis, former chairman of the Michigan GOP. “There’s interest in hearing her as a potential voice of a Democrat saying the Democratic Party went too far.”
“A lot of people have switched parties and gone to neutral,” added Anuzis, who will be attending CPAC and is currently a consultant for National Popular Vote. “This is not your father’s Democratic Party anymore.”
Just The News
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/years-cpac-anti-establishment-establishment
“The conservative alternative to AARP…Age isn’t the issue, it’s a question of whether or not they are capable. We have seen over and over again, that Joe Biden has a hard time keeping a rational thought together let alone putting a sentence together.”
“I think we are a center-right nation. I think more people share our values than theirs. And I’m not afraid of taking our values to the American people because I do think we would actually win.”
Talk Radio’s O’Connor & Company, Washington, DC
https://omny.fm/shows/oconnor-and-company/02-24-22-saul-anuzis-interview
Saul Anuzis, a former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party who attended the convention, said he expects Mr. Trump to win the 2024 GOP nomination, should he run.
“There is a strong potential field of candidates, but Trump is in the way,” he said.
While the former president has yet to say definitively whether he’ll run again, he has resumed holding political rallies and regularly teases the potential of another bid.
The Wall Street Journal
Jim McLaughlin, a veteran Republican pollster, said that in combination with the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan last year, Ukraine adds to “the general overall feeling that this administration and this president look weak.” Former Michigan Republican Party Chair Saul Anuzis said that politically for Republicans, “It’s going to be a big deal for us.”
POLITICO
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/25/culture-wars-ukraine-cpac-00011717
“If we are going to have a majority in the Sente, we have to win seats like Missouri. We can’t lose in a state like Missouri and have a majority…Missouri voters understand the importance of what is happening around the country, and why Republicans are such an important check and balance these days in Washington. Regardless of who your nominee is, I hope people rally around the winner and make sure that Republicans can stop some of these crazy policies that are being pushed by the far left.”
The March Cox Morning Show, St. Louis, MO
https://omny.fm/shows/the-marc-cox-show-podcast/saul-anuzis-we-cant-lose-in-a-state-like-missouri
America Is Not Divided; It’s Being Hijacked
We must break the propaganda spell and realize that we have the strength of numbers on our side.
It seems lately like everywhere, on both the Right and the Left, we are hearing a chorus of voices tell us America is hopelessly divided and on the brink of a second civil war.
The level of rancor and incivility characterizing much of our contemporary political dialogue appears to confirm as much on a daily basis. It appears Left and Right have arrived at irreconcilable worldviews, disagreeing on first principles, core convictions, specific policy choices and ultimate ends. Increasingly, they seem unable to see eye to eye even when it comes to pure matters of fact.
But what if the appearance of a great, insuperable divide is vastly overstated or even being deliberately amplified by forces that benefit from division? The gulf on certain significant matters is substantial, to be sure, and yet when we turn to look one by one at some of the most high-profile issues, we see that the split may be greatly overstated.
At this year’s CPAC, the anti-establishment is the establishment
With a growing base united against the left, Republicans look to 2024 with Trump in the driver’s seat.
In December 2019, Tulsi Gabbard was a Democratic presidential candidate who called then-President Donald Trump “unfit” to serve as commander in chief. Nikki Haley, meanwhile, was considered a (very) early favorite for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, beloved by Trump supporters and establishment Republicans alike.
Fast-forward to February 2022, and Gabbard is speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where Trump will headline the annual gathering of conservative activists and many of the most prominent Republican figures in the country. Haley won’t be attending.
It seems fair to say that 26 months ago, few people saw this coming. Yet, today, Gabbard’s inclusion is widely accepted.
“I want her to feel welcome, even if she says some things I don’t agree with,” CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp told the “Just the News” television program. “I think it’s important to show Americans generally that we’ve always used this word ‘conservative,’ but at this moment, we’re really just Americans who love America.”
The CPAC chair added that he believes many people are rethinking their partisan affiliations due to progressive, far-left policies alienating certain Democrats.
Schlapp isn’t alone in welcoming a former Democratic congresswoman to be a featured CPAC speaker.
“I like Gabbard and would include her,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told Just the News. “I also like Haley and would include her.”
Gabbard’s “not a traditional conservative by any means, but she’s expressing views that people care about,” said Saul Anuzis, former chairman of the Michigan GOP. “There’s interest in hearing her as a potential voice of a Democrat saying the Democratic Party went too far.”
“A lot of people have switched parties and gone to neutral,” added Anuzis, who will be attending CPAC and is currently a consultant for National Popular Vote. “This is not your father’s Democratic Party anymore.”
BLM Is a Moral, Political, and Policy Disaster
The Democratic Party is finally realizing its vulnerability on culture issues, and perhaps no group better exemplifies the problem than Black Lives Matter.
The group’s eponymous slogan swept all before it in recent years. It was repeated by Democrats around the country. Corporate leaders paid obeisance to it. Sports leagues displayed it. Such was its totemic power that a more inclusive version of the three words — all lives matter — was considered a dangerous heresy.
The BLM agenda on criminal justice — based on the idea that fewer criminals should be arrested and held in jail — took hold in blue jurisdictions, and the slogan “defund the police” got traction despite its utter impracticality and obvious political destructiveness.
Now, it’s obvious how shortsighted and foolhardy all this was. The rise in violent crime is a clear and present danger to the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and progressive prosecutors allied with BLM who have pursued soft-on-crime policies in the midst of a crime wave are under fire, facing either recall or heavy criticism.
BLM’s disasters leave Democrats vulnerable
The Democratic Party is finally realizing its vulnerability on culture issues, and perhaps no group better exemplifies the problem than Black Lives Matter.
The group’s eponymous slogan swept all before it in recent years. Democrats around the country repeated it. Corporate leaders paid obeisance to it. Sports leagues displayed it. Such was its totemic power that a more inclusive version of the three words — all lives matter — was considered a dangerous heresy.
The BLM agenda on criminal justice — based on the idea fewer criminals should be arrested and held in jail — took hold in blue jurisdictions, and the slogan “Defund the Police” got traction despite its utter impracticality and obvious political destructiveness.
Now, it’s obvious how shortsighted and foolhardy all this was. The rise in violent crime is a clear and present danger to the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and progressive prosecutors allied with BLM who have pursued soft-on-crime policies in the midst of a crime wave are under fire, facing either recalls or heavy criticism.
BLM the group is continuing to find ways to underline its own extremism as it withers under scrutiny for its dodgy finances.
Republicans make gains among Hispanic voters
The GOP gains among Hispanic voters aren’t fading away after the 2020 election.
A poll by the National Republican Congressional Committee shows the party continuing to cut into the Democratic Party’s share of Hispanic voters. In 2020 exit polls, Democrats won Hispanic voters, 63%-36%. In the NRCC’s survey , Hispanic voters in battleground districts back the Democrats only 44%-37%. That’s a huge drop from a margin of 27 percentage points to a 7-point margin. And coming as it does among a demographic group upon which Democrats heavily rely, it could be devastating to their electoral prospects almost everywhere.
The news gets worse for Democrats from there. President Joe Biden is at 46% approval and 46% disapproval among Hispanics in battleground districts. But the “strongly disapprove” numbers are much higher (37%) than the “strongly approve” numbers (23%), a sign of the intensity of the opposition. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Kamala Harris are also underwater in their favorability ratings.
To top it all off, Hispanic battleground voters think Republicans can handle the economy, border security, inflation, and crime better than the Democrats. Most importantly, Republicans lead Democrats when it comes to being the party that is “better able to protect the American Dream, ” 41%-35%.
A Hardheaded Guide to Deterring Russia and China
Shore up alliances by holding allies accountable, helping key partners, and showing energy leadership.
As Russia wages war against Ukraine, the debate over how to respond has grown increasingly disconnected from the reality of American power in a world of great-power competition. The political landscape has evolved from the post-Cold War era, when a bipartisan coalition of Washington elites could readily call for the projection of American power in faraway conflicts, especially in Europe, even if the connection to U.S. interests was attenuated. After 20 years of counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans are understandably weary of foreign entanglements.
Further, there is a growing consensus that China’s emergence as the foremost strategic competitor to the U.S. necessitates a renewed focus on the Indo-Pacific. Voices on the left and right question why America should care about Vladimir Putin’s latest adventurism and why we should commit our prestige, diplomatic capital, military sales and economic well-being to stop him.
Our view is that Washington should take appropriate action to prevent Moscow from subjugating Ukraine. America can’t simply look the other way at the invasion of a sovereign European nation by one of our two great geopolitical adversaries. Such a move would undermine the post-1945 world order underwritten by U.S. power and revive the dangerous practice of territorial gain by conquest. Rank appeasement of Russia would undermine the confidence of America’s frontline allies in the Indo-Pacific as well as Eastern Europe.
Wielding the threat of war, a new, more aggressive Putin steps forward
The Russian president is leveraging a reconstituted military to force the world to reckon with his demands.
He is the man with the very long table who seats world leaders and ministers at an almost comical distance. He is a lone figure in a dark coat laying a wreath at a cemetery in St. Petersburg or sitting solo in his Olympic viewing booth in Beijing. He is aging, isolated, more powerful than ever, and on the brink of waging a possibly catastrophic war.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, in the 22 years since he first took office, has evolved from an afterthought of Washington leaders to the world’s most watched and pleaded-with man, using reconstituted Russian military might to force the globe to reckon with his interests after having complained for years about being ignored.
His latest belligerence follows two years of pandemic isolation and eight years of Western sanctions that analysts say have fed the bunker mentality Putin has exhibited since his earliest years.
Putin has changed the world — and the US must adapt or lose
Vladimir Putin has fundamentally altered the world as we have known it since the end of the Cold War.
The post-Cold War order was built on the absence of a meaningful Russian conventional military threat. U.S. military posture, NATO military spending and deployments, war plans, and national security strategies have assumed away the risk of large-scale conventional conflict in Europe for three decades.
The many thousands of Russian tanks around and moving into Ukraine today have crushed that assumption under their treads. The U.S. and NATO must rethink their national security strategies, defense budgets and deployments from the ground up and for the long term.
Putin has invested large amounts of money to rebuild Russia’s conventional capabilities over the last decade. His willingness to spend so much on his military, despite Russia’s dire economic straits, shows a Soviet-like willingness to sacrifice his people’s well-being for armed might. The process began after the Russian military’s poor performance during the 2008 invasion of Georgia and has accelerated dramatically over the past few years. Russian ground forces have reorganized themselves to be able to conduct large-scale maneuver warfare. Putin is re-equipping all his forces with more modern equipment. The Russian military has, most importantly, been conducting regular unannounced large-scale military exercises involving land, sea, air, nuclear and cyber forces, multiple times a year. Such exercises are very expensive. They also are essential to prepare a force for war.
Ukraine Conflict Proves Why Civilians Should Stay Armed
The conflict in Ukraine should serve as a powerful reminder to all nations in the world that an armed populace is an effective deterrent to invasion and an effective tool against any occupation. Unfortunately, Ukraine is learning this far too late.
By all accounts Ukraine has loose gun laws for a European country, but that isn’t saying much though. Stephen Gutowski points out in his article on The Reload that Ukraine has a population of 43 million and that there are 1.3 million civilian owned firearms in the country. For contrast, there are roughly 330 million people in America and there are over 400 million privately owned firearms in the country.
Understand that about 3% of the population in Ukraine can be armed with privately owned firearms. Also understand that the Ukrainian government is moving swiftly to stem bleeding and they are handing out standard military arms to civilians to use for both self and national defense. The Ukrainian Parliament also voted earlier this week to allow for open carry throughout the country. Small gun stores in the country were also selling out their entire stock in the past few days as tensions rose in the country.
This is all to say that Ukrainian civilians were willing to fight for their country but were underprepared. Ukraine was late to the party when it came to allowing civilians to defend themselves from foreign invaders.
Tucker Carlson is wrong. Conservatives should care about what happens in Ukraine.
Prominent conservatives such as Fox News host Tucker Carlson have been making the case that Americans shouldn’t care about what happens in Ukraine. We’ll see if they change their tune now that Russia has attacked Ukraine, but the larger point remains open for discussion: Should conservatives care about Russia’s invasion and the future of Ukraine? The answer is yes, from both a historical and an “America First” perspective.
Americans have always understood that freedom at home is endangered by autocracy and dictatorship abroad. Our republic was the only large self-governing nation in the world when we gained independence. Even Britain, the “mother of parliaments,” was still at best an aristocratic republic with an extensive political role for its hereditary monarch. Our founders understood it was in America’s interest to keep these powerful forces far from our shores so that they would never be tempted to stamp out our flickering flame of freedom.
That recognition led to a consistent policy that lasted decades. The United States wouldn’t involve itself in European wars, but it would not tolerate those wars being used as cover to establish despotic power in the Americas. The famous Monroe Doctrine was the first tangible expression of this view. Laid out in 1823, it stated that the United States would oppose European attempts to expand colonies in the Western Hemisphere. This effectively placed the United States as the guarantor of security for the new republics in Latin America that had thrown off Spanish rule in the preceding decade. Far from being unconcerned with what happened thousands of miles away in a time without rapid communications, the United States understood that its security depended on keeping autocratic nations with imperial designs as far away as possible. Indeed, that’s why the United States threatened to intervene in Mexico’s civil war, forcing France to withdraw its military support for an emperor it imposed on our southern neighbor…
… America’s overseas alliances are the linchpin of our own security. The invasion of Ukraine, coupled with the effective Russian conquest of Belarus, means Russia’s military will again be stationed in strength on NATO’s borders. Putin’s demand that NATO not station troops in its own member states indicates he will not stop with Ukraine. And his unprovoked war shows the lengths to which he will go to reach his goals.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine presents conservatives with what Ronald Reagan called a “time for choosing.” Conservatives should stand with our historical commitments and lead America into the coming global conflict, which we cannot safely avoid.
Families of US troops killed in Kabul airport bombing question whether Pentagon distorted investigation findings
As the sun faded on another anxious, adrenalized day, Kareem Nikoui, a 20-year-old U.S. Marine from Southern California, balanced on top of a concrete traffic barrier and scanned the crowd. Thousands of Afghans had packed into the fetid, open-air corridor outside Kabul’s airport, desperate to flee Taliban rule and undeterred by warnings of a suicide bomber in the area.
Nearly 8,000 miles away, Nikoui’s mother, Shana Chappell, had a sinking feeling. She was aware the hastily orchestrated evacuation was growing increasingly perilous and worried about how her son would process the reality that thousands would be left behind.
It was Aug. 26. At 5:36 p.m. local time, the bomber struck, detonating a vest packed with explosives and ball bearings. Nikoui, standing barely 30 feet away, was killed, along with 12 other U.S. service members and an estimated 170 Afghans.
The attack at Hamid Karzai International Airport’s Abbey Gate was not preventable, the Pentagon determined, though critics of commanders’ decision-making have said the entry point was especially vulnerable and questioned why it was left open. The Americans were due to close the gate for the final time within a matter of minutes.
“All those Marines who were there will tell you that they felt scared,” Chappell said. “They were surrounded by the freaking Taliban. They were out in the wide open, and they were sitting ducks.”
For Chappell and some of the other families of those killed that day, the release this month of a U.S. military investigation examining the attack has caused them to question whether Defense Department officials distorted its findings. In interviews, they castigated the Biden administration for placing their loved ones — most, like Nikoui, barely 20 years old — into such a dangerous situation and said that the Marines who survived the explosion told them they endured a firefight afterward — claims the Pentagon has dismissed.
The release of a 2,000-page investigative report — first obtained by The Washington Post through a Freedom of Information Act request — has revealed stark new detail about the operation, providing the fullest account yet of what happened during the 17-day sprint to exit Afghanistan after 20 years of war.
Among the documents are sworn witness statements from senior U.S. military commanders, who told investigators that they believe administration officials lacked a sense of urgency as the likelihood of a total Taliban takeover became increasingly evident and failed to heed their warnings to prepare for an evacuation weeks before Kabul fell. In response to those assertions, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby has said there was no effort in Washington to slow-roll the final withdrawal and that the White House coordinated closely with senior defense officials.
The airlift succeeded in getting 124,000 people to safety. It has been celebrated as a historic achievement by the U.S. military, even as the full scope of the danger and misery involved have become apparent.
War of the States
In a battle for jobs and people, Republican governors challenge the Biden agenda with tax-cutting and deregulation.
In 2009, facing a revenue drop-off from the previous year’s recession, states raised taxes collectively by $29 billion—at the time, the largest annual hike in history. Many of the biggest increases occurred in Democratic-leaning states, including New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, which targeted businesses and upper-income residents especially, even as newly inaugurated president Barack Obama touted a similar agenda in Washington. What seemed like a new taxing trend dissipated, however, after the 2010 midterms, when Republicans captured seven governorships and full control of 23 state governments, up from just ten before Obama’s election. The newly elected governments quickly began cutting taxes and reducing business regulations, setting off an intense, often acerbic, state competition to attract wealthier residents and employers. This battle transformed the American economic map, right up to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Now, with another pro-tax Democrat, Joe Biden, in the White House and a lockdown-induced recession in the rearview mirror, another clash among the states is breaking out. Several Democratic strongholds, claiming fiscal stress and the need for “equity” in taxation, have initiated big increases on individuals and firms. Meantime, a group of largely Republican-leaning states have cut levies. The rise of remote work and the vastly different Covid strategies that states have adopted have added unique elements to this conflict. The Biden administration has also joined the fray. Having learned from the Obama years how effective the GOP strategy can be, Biden is trying to blunt some Republican state economic policies through federal mandates. But only a year after Biden’s victory, Republicans have already won the governorship and legislative control of one solidly Democratic state—Virginia. The battle over states’ futures will intensify in the run-up to November’s elections, with 36 governorships and more than 6,000 state legislative seats in play.
It’s hard to overestimate the influence that the 2010 state elections had on America’s political and economic landscape. Republicans went from complete control of just one-fifth of state governments to nearly one-half, and that momentum kept building until the GOP had won 33 governorships by 2016. The party also gained a remarkable 900 additional state legislative seats.
Understanding today’s Left through the two concepts of liberty
Today, the Left controls government, academia, and America’s treasured institutions, trampling our individual and Constitutional norms. How did we get here? The cautionary roadmap was laid out decades ago by the great British philosopher Isaiah Berlin. The path is best understood by Berlin’s two dueling concepts of liberty: negative liberty and positive liberty.
Berlin’s essay on the two competing types of liberty was delivered in a lecture at Oxford in 1958.
Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers, or constraints external to the individual. The person is free to choose their own way for their own good without obstruction from others. The individual is not dictated to and is left alone.
Positive liberty is someone or something acting to take control of the individual’s life and to help realize the individual’s purpose.
Positive liberty often justifies external agents, such as government, to impose conditions to assist the individual in making good choices.
The ideal society will look to maximize the amount of negative liberty and apply only the minimum amount of positive liberty to address the most pressing issues or emergencies. That was the foundational premise of the United States.
The 2024 presidential race has already started online
Potential candidates in the next presidential election are already spending big money to build online fundraising machines.
Most politicians with national ambitions are playing coy about running for president in 2024. But behind the scenes, Republicans are on a quiet and unprecedented spending spree to build the foundations for potential national campaigns.
A half-dozen potential GOP candidates, most of whom won’t be on the ballot in 2022, still spent more than $1.4 million each on email list rentals, digital consulting and online fundraising in 2021, according to a POLITICO analysis of campaign finance disclosures. Some were building an online base from scratch, while others were expanding on existing programs. But all of them are already running a race to build the type of fundraising base that can sustain a national campaign and test their appeal to a national audience.
The prime example is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), whose campaign committee spent a whopping $13.6 million overall in 2021 — more than almost every senator running for reelection in 2022, even though Cruz’s seat isn’t up for two more years. At least $3.3 million of that went into digital services, while Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-Mo.) campaign spent $1.7 million online last year. Two PACs started by contenders currently out of office, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, spent $2.4 million and $1.4 million online, respectively.
