Tag Archives: midterm

Take This to the Polls: Credibility Checking Senator Ted Cruz

Recently, Senator Ted Cruz wrote an op-ed for USA Today, primarily speaking on the 2014 midterm elections and why you should (presumably) vote Republican and why a G.O.P-led Congress was the best outcome for America.

Senator Cruz outlined ten of his priorities for the Republicans if they win back the Senate and have control of both houses of Congress after this fall’s midterms.

Being a student pursuing a Mass Communication/Journalism degree and being a member of my university’s newspaper, I went to the liberty of seeing just how much water Cruz’s op-ed held.

Get your goggles ready.  ‘Cause it ain’t pretty.

Fact-checking and checking for credibility.  It’s a wonderful thing.  Something that obviously no one at USA Today is capable of doing.  Either that, or they prefer to not hold their op-ed writers accountable for any sort of journalistic integrity.

As a matter fact, it took me longer to untangle my headphones to put some music on to write this post than it took for me to find Cruz’s first blatant misuse of media.  Let’s get started, shall we? When I quote Senator Cruz, feel free to click on the links in his quotes to see for yourself the horrible misuse of various articles from around the Internet!

I’ll even number mine, just as Senator Cruz did. I am going to do seven points, because the number seven is lucky, and I am hoping that Senator Cruz will read my article when I send it to him tomorrow via the Twitter-sphere  I have a feeling I am going to need all the luck I can get.

Re-linking to Senator Cruz’s op-ed piece in USA Today

Number 1.  Alright, first point, first misuse.

“For six years, the Obama economy has been trapped in stagnation, hurting millions,” wrote Cruz.

I wish I could call this a misuse of statistics because Senator Cruz seems to allude to some depressing statistics on job growth or unemployment, but it is actually Senator Cruz merely referring to a sour-puss on the Huffington Post ranting about Obama.  Highly credible and factual.

Number 2.  Still on the first point.

“A Republican Congress should immediately help Americans get more jobs by embracing America’s energy renaissance.”

Okay, so this article was about attacking the Obama administration for its obstructionist acts, yet the “energy renaissance” you hearken to in this Forbes article was literally brought in by the Obama administration itself in his quest to end foreign dependency on oil.  Did Senator Cruz even read the articles he linked to?

In the interest of time, let us move on through the op-ed, as I am trying not to print an entire encyclopedia on carelessness with referencing other articles and statistics, or lack thereof.

Number 3. Jumping to the fourth point, in the essence of time.

“….the lawless implementation of Obamacare,”

Oh, dear god, not this again.  Like it or not, Senator Cruz, “Obamacare” was passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.  By the way, you are citing http://www.breitbart.com/, a partner of Fox News.  I am afraid that is not very impartial.  Sorry, try pushing your Fox News agenda on another website, maybe one that does not explicitly say it partners with an unreliable news corporation.

Number 4. Still in the fourth point!

“And the Senate should stop confirming activist judges who will impose their own policy preferences, such as striking down state marriage laws. We must uphold the Constitution.”

You know, it is really funny.  A U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit did in fact rule in favor of the freedom to marry in Bostic v. Schaefer where same-sex couples sought the same freedom to marry that is legal in a majority of the states across the nation.  When the Supreme Court made the decision to not review that case, it essentially meant that they saw no blatant trampling of the Constitution. This means that the decision of Asheville, North Carolina’s U.S. District Court Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. to permit gay marriage licenses to be issued did not in any way, shape, or form violate the Constitution since his district court falls under the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

*drops mic*

*picks mic up*

Congrats, North Carolina!

Number 5.  Point number six, now, in Senator Cruz’s op-ed.

“Moving towards a simple flat tax would treat all Americans more fairly and end the massive time and costs wasted in dealing with the IRS;….”

I will not even argue why that point is wrong because a flat tax has no chance of ever being implemented in the next Congressional term.  However, I will point out that, yet again, Senator Cruz made the decision to cite yet another op-ed piece, not an article written by an actual journalist or any statistics compiled by a credible organization. The article is from USA Today from 2011 and features Dick Armey.  I pulled this blurb about Mr. Armey straight from the op-ed piece linked in Senator Cruz’s quote.

Former House majority leader Dick Armey is chairman of FreedomWorks, a group that advocates lower taxes and smaller government.”

Oh, how credible and unbiased, bravo!

Number 6.  Point seven in Senator Cruz’s op-ed.

“Americans are seeing near-zero interest rates on their savings accounts while median incomes are falling,…”

While it is true that median incomes are falling, just because President Obama holds the office of president does not necessarily mean this one is on him.  There is only so much the President can do in order to keep wages rising.  He can attempt to raise the minimum wage, which he has tried to do, very much to Senator Cruz’s party’s resistance, to the point where he had to sign an executive order to get job the done.

In order for solutions on how to fix the falling incomes of average Americans (because C.E.O’s incomes and probably even yours have risen as of late), I encourage Senator Cruz to read my own article for my university’s newspaper entitled “Guest Lecturer Remains Hopeful.”

Economist Richard Wolff visited Towson University n Maryland to speak on the growing inequality between C.E.O’s and the rest of America, and how the Great Recession was actually not President Obama’s fault, but Wall Street’s.  I encourage everyone to read the aforementioned article and to Google economist Mr. Wolff and his ideas on how to reshape America’s troubled economy and private sector.  An article on ExarExtra that goes more in-depth into my article linked above will also appear sooner than later.

(Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for updates on future stories!)

Number 7.  Lucky seven – this is focused on point ten.

“Tenth, deal seriously with the twin threats of ISIL and a nuclear Iran, including passing legislation that strips American citizens who join ISIL of their U.S. passports so they cannot return home and wage jihad against innocent men and women.”

First off, http://townhall.com. Seriously?  Senator Cruz is a Congressperson writing an op-ed for USA Today and are citing a website called townhall.com, a po-dunk conservative news website?  A website so conservative, they have a tab on their homepage dedicated to “Bearing Arms,” which is not even on the national political stage right now?


Need I say more?  I will, just for kicks.

“Waging jihad.”  Senator Cruz said it, he really did.  Nowhere in that article does it ever speak of anyone “waging jihad.”

Even more so, this idea of stripping Americans of their passports who were even suspected of being in ISIL is not a brand new idea.  Cruz tried it in the Senate before, when Senator Cruz begged the Senate to hurriedly pass the bill because it was some sort of imminent threat.  That was shot down by the Senate Judiciary Committee because it “affects fundamental constitutional rights, which should be given the full deliberation of the Senate.”  Senator Cruz wanted to hurriedly pass a bill that very possibly infringed on American’s rights.  Patriot Act, anyone?  As a matter of fact, his bill was even entitled, the “Expatriote Terrorist Act of 2014.”

There we have it.  A little fact and credible checking of Senator Cruz’s op-ed proves that perhaps he was skating on thin ice when he crafted it.  Let this be a lesson to us all: just because he is a senator, does not mean everything he says is factual.  Quite the opposite, actually.