Truthiness in American Political Theatre Part I - Trump, Cruz and Rubio

As most of us are (or should be) aware, politicians are quite capable of spouting "facts" to back their stances on various issues, particularly during campaign season.  A very interesting website, PolitiFact, checks and rates the accuracy of claims made by American politicians.  PolitiFact is operated by the editors and reporters of the Tampa Bay Times, a Florida independent newspaper.  Staff at PolitiFact research statements and claims made by politicians and ranks their accuracy on their "Truth-o Meter" ranking from True to False with the most egregious and erroneous statements receiving their "Pants on Fire" ranking as shown here:

"TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.

MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

FALSE – The statement is not accurate.

PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim."

To help them assess the plethora of political statements, they use the following criteria:

"Is the statement rooted in a fact that is verifiable? PolitiFact doesn't check opinions, and recognize that in the world of speechmaking and political rhetoric, there is license for hyperbole.

Is the statement leaving a particular impression that may be misleading?

Is the statement significant? PolitiFact avoids minor "gotchas" on claims that obviously represent a slip of the tongue.

Is the statement likely to be passed on and repeated by others?

           

Would a typical person hear or read the statement and wonder: Is that true?"

For the purposes of this posting, I would like to take a look at the overall ratings for the top three contenders for the 2016 Republican presidential nominee (according to Real Clear Politics), Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

Let's start with Donald Trump:

Here's an example of one of his "Pants on Fire" statements that is gleaned from his first television ad of the 2016 cycle:

That video of people flooding toward a wall that appears at the 21 second mark when the "Stop Illegal Immigration " text appears is not located along the U.S. - Mexican border, rather, it is located in Morocco and shows migrants crossing the border into Melilla, one of two Spanish enclaves on the Moroccan coast, located 5000 miles from the United States as shown here: 

Now, let's look at Ted Cruz's record:

Here's an example of one of his "Pants on Fire" statements on Chuck Hagel's nomination as Secretary of Defense from his op-ed piece on Politico in 2013:

"Hagel’s nomination has been publicly celebrated by the Iranian government — surely an occurrence without precedent for a nominee for secretary of Defense. And Iran’s belief that Hagel will not stand against their acquiring nuclear weapons capacity makes it more likely they will charge ahead, which makes it more likely the United States will be drawn into military combat." (my bold)

Here's what was actually reported by Iran's Fars News Agency:

“We hope that the U.S. officials will favor peace instead of warmongering and recognize the rights of nations instead of interfering in the countries’ internal affairs. If such a trend is adopted (by the American officials), hatred for the U.S. hostile policies will decrease, although, that assessment only can be made in action."

Other experts stated that Iran's response to Hagel's nomination was far from "celebratory".

Lastly, let's look at Marco Rubio's track record:

Here's an example of one of his more interesting "Pants on Fire" statements from his 2013 FoxNews op-ed pieces:

"If you are a small business with about 47, 48 or 49 employees and you want to hire more people, ObamaCare encourages you to hold back on hiring new workers or cut the hours of existing ones so that you don’t reach 50 employees. That is why 75% of small businesses now say they are going to be forced to either fire workers or cut their hours." (my bold)

Marco Rubio sources his 75 percent claim from a survey released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in its quarterly Small Business Outlook Study.  The survey polls 1300 small businesses with fewer than 500 employees and with annual revenue of less than $25 million.  The actual results of the study showed that, of all small businesses, only 5 to 9 percent would either cut back hours or replace full-time workers in response to the Obamacare changes.  If you are interested in the details of Mr. Rubio's erroneous assessment of the survey, please click here.

As we can quite clearly see, among the top three GOP presidential candidates, according to PolitiFact, Donald Trump's statements are least likely to be truthful while Marco Rubio's are most likely to be at least half true or better.  In total, Donald Trump's statements are likely to be Mostly False or worse 77 percent of the time, Ted Cruz's statements are likely to be Mostly False or worse 66 percent of the time and Marco Rubio's statements are likely to be Mostly False or worse 41 percent of the time.  On the truth side of the spectrum, Donald Trump's statements are likely to be Mostly True or better only 7 percent of the time, Ted Cruz's statements are likely to be Mostly True or better 22 percent of the time and Marco Rubio's statements are likely to be Mostly True or better 37 percent of the time.      

I think that's enough for this posting.  Unfortunately, in politics, what passes as the "truth" is fluid and public perception, whether misguided or not, often becomes the "truth".  In the next part of this posting, I will take a look at the "truthiness" of the two main Democrat presidential candidates; Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Who are the Most and Least Conservative GOP Presidential Candidates?

While the presidential candidates on the political right seems to try to outdo each other in their "conservativeness", Conservative Review looks at key aspects of the platform of each of the current GOP candidates and assigns them a score of good, bad or mixed based on their views on:

1.) spending and debt

2.) civil liberties

3.) education

4.) energy and the environment

5.) foreign policies and defense

6.) free market economy

7.) health care and entitlements

8.) immigration

9.) moral issues

10.) the Second Amendment

11.) taxes, trade and economy

In this posting, I will open by looking at the rankings of all GOP presidential candidates for 2016 followed by a more detailed examination of the top- and bottom-ranked candidates.

Here is a graphic showing Conservative Review's overall ratings:

Let's look at the top-rated (i.e. most conservative) candidate and look at why Ted Cruz received the top ranking amongst all candidates and why he received the highest score on three key hot button issues; spending and debt, immigration and the Second Amendment:

1.) Spending and Debt:

2.) Immigration: 

3.) The Second Amendment: 

Ted Cruz gets a good rating on all eleven aspects deemed key by Conservative Review except one, the area of free market economies.  This is because he voted to protect tobacco grower subsidies in 2013 and voted in favour of extending the termination date of the Terrorism Insurance Program in 2014.

Now, let's look at the GOP presidential candidate who is voted least palatable by Conservative Review, Lindsey Graham, and his views on the same three issues, spending and debt, immigration and the Second Amendment:

1.) Spending and Debt:  Conservative Review states that Mr. Graham is arguably one of the biggest spenders and has been a significant proponent of earmarks throughout his career  Here are a list of his errors in judgement:

Key to his poor rating on spending and debt is the fact that he has voted 10 times to increase the debt ceiling by a total of $5.132 trillion.

2.) Immigration:  According to Conservative Review, Mr. Graham has voted for every immigrant amnesty bill that he has come across.  Here is a list of his errors in judgement on immigration:

3.) The Second Amendment:  While Mr. Graham has voted against banning assault weapons, he has voted in favour of expanding background checks and allowing the PATRIOT Act to give the federal government access to firearms records of law-abiding citizens:

While we may not agree with Conservative Review's rankings of the current crop of Republican candidates for president, at the very least, it helps us to better understand what issues and actions are considered to be the most important to the right side of the political game.  It is also interesting to see that both of the current GOP front runners in the race are considered to be middling conservatives at best, particularly when compared to those who are well back in the pack.

The Billionaire Republicans Who Will "Restore Our Future" - January Donors

The Romney-leaning Restore Our Future Super PAC released its financial summary for the month of January 2012 to the Federal Election Commission and to say that their numbers are eye-opening would be an understatement.

Here is the summary page for the one month period:

In one month alone, Restore Our Future raised $6,617,550.00 and spent $13,938,397.62.  This single Super PAC raised an per day average of $213,469  and spent a per day average of $449.626 over the 31 day period.  The $6.617 million was raised from 138 individuals for an average donation of $47,953.26 per donor. When all of the revenues and expenditures are accounted for, Restore Our Future is left with $16,301,262.01 in cash.

Here is a chart showing the donors who have donated more than $100,000 to Restore Our Future in this reporting period with confirmed billionaire donors highlighted in bold:

Of the $6.617 million raised in the month of January 2012, $4.925 million or 74 percent of the total came from only 25 big donors who gave an average of $197,000 each.  One thing that you will notice right away is the large number of either CEO, Presidents or Chairmen on the list; of the 25 big donors, a total of 10 or 40 percent of the total are at the top of the executive heap according to their declaration.  Of the 25 big donors, 8 or 32 percent of the total are billionaires, far, far outweighing their representation in society as a whole. 

Some of the names are recognizable but don't necessarily have an executive position.  For example, Alice Walton is the daughter of Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, and is one of the heirs to the Walton fortune, worth an estimated $20.9 billion and lists herself as a "rancher".  Jim Walton is her youngest brother and he just happens to be ranked as the 20th richest person in the world with an estimated fortune of $21 billion. 

Joseph W. Craft is a name that you will not likely recognize.  He is the President and CEO of Alliance Holdings, a major American coal mining company.  Here is a look at his compensation package for 2010:

Here is a look at his share holdings in 2010:

His 47,536,123 Alliance Holdings GP common units are worth a cool $2.377 billion at the current market price of $50 and his 15,902,620 Alliance Resources Partners LP common units are worth an additional $1.113 billion at the current market price of $70.  I guess that puts him in the billionaires club, doesn’t it?

A name that you may recognize is J.W. Marriott, Jr.  Mr. John Marriott is the President and CEO of Marriott International, an American operator and franchiser of hotels.  He just happens to be a fellow member of the Church of Latter Day Saints along with one, Mitt Romney.  According to Forbes, Mr. Marriott's net worth in 2010 was $1.3 billion.  Richard Marriott, John's brother, controls Host Hotels and Resorts and also hits Forbes billionaire list with a net worth of $1.3 billion in 2010. 

Another name that you may not be familiar with is Bruce Kovner.  This gentleman was the founder of Caxton Associates, a New York-based trading and investment firm (or hedge fund by another name).  According to Forbes, he is worth $4.3 billion.   

   

Last but not least there's Meg Whitman.  Ms. Whitman was named Hewlett-Packard’s CEO in September of 2011 after a rather lucrative career as the President and CEO of eBay.  She is has political experience from her run against Jerry Brown for Governor of California in 2010.  She spent $144 million of her own money in the lost cause.  According to Forbes, her net worth is $1.3 billion.

Despite all of the big names among the donors, it is interesting to see that there are still a few small donors among the lot, keeping the populist political movement alive.  Several donors gave $25 to the cause and one donor, a self-employed manager from Florida donated $5.  I think in the Holy Bible they referred to a small offering as the "widow's mite"; a donation that meant far more than its nominal value to the giver.

I wonder if the Presidential candidates see it that way?