Pawlenty is currently on his ‘Road to Results’ tour of Iowa.  It was at his first stop of the tour, in Coralville, Iowa, where I met up with the Governor.  It was here, where several statements by the Governor lead me to conclude that he is no leader…he is a MIS-leader.

Claim: Today, Pawlenty again stated that his campaign had raised the second most in fundraising, second only to Mitt Romney.

Fact: Pawlenty came in third behind both Romney and Paul.

The Details: Pawlenty’s official FEC reportshows the following:

Yes, you in the back...what? You're saying 4.3M is not more than 4.5M...are you sure?
6. Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period   116,646.51
7. Total Receipts This Period   4,335,694.99
8. Subtotal (6 + 7)   4,452,341.50

 

Compare that with Paul’s official FEC report showing the following:

6. Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period 0.00
7. Total Receipts This Period 4518947.59
8. Subtotal (6 + 7) 4518947.59

 

The reports make clear that Pawlenty’s second quarter fundraising total was 4.3M while Dr. Paul’s second quarter fundraising total was 4.5M dollars.

When Pawlenty stated he raised the second most, I pointed out that Paul had raised more than him, he said, I think our revised figures showed that we raised 4.5M, so we tied.

Not satisfied, I contacted the Pawlenty campaign for comment, of which they had two. The following statements are from Alex Conant Pawlenty’s national communications director:

First comment: “Since most media are comparing what the campaigns have raised since they announced, the 4.5m number is most accurate.”

Fact: Yes and no, since Pawlenty was the only candidate to announce the formation of an exploratory committee prior to the start of the second quarter, it could be said that both claims are true, First that media was comparing campaigns since they announced and second that the media was reporting second quarter numbers only and inadvertently including Pawlenty’s first quarter fundraising at the MIS-Leading of the campaign.  With most media reports sprinkled with ‘second quarter’, I think this is a bit MIS-Leading for the Pawlenty campaign to release a press release stating 4.5M for stories to be written with that figure prior to the release of the FEC report showing the second quarter 4.3M figure.

Also Nick Ayers, Pawlenty Campaign Manager had this to say to supporters via email:  ” Today’s FEC disclosure reports make this point clearly. We came in second place in Republican presidential fundraising.”  Since the FEC disclosure reports he was referring to were of the second quarter, it is clearly MIS-Leading to state they came in second in fundraising.

Well then I at least TIED Paul...right? 4.3M = 4.5M right?

Second Comment: “We tied with Paul for 2nd, right?”

Fact: First of all, Pawlenty and staff are not going around announcing that they tied for second, they are claiming that they came in second.  In fact Nick Ayers’s email went on to say: “The reality is that Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, and Mitt Romney all built infrastructures as early as the Governor, and began organizing, yet only one raised more money and most raised far less.”  So they are clearly sending the message that the only candidate to raise more was Romney, all others including Dr. Paul raised less.  Here we get to debunk two MIS-Leading statements in one.

First that ‘Bachman, Paul, Huntsman, Gingrich, Santorum, Cain and Romney all built infrastructures as early as the governor”

Fact: In order to begin fundraising for a possible presidential run, you must form a exploratory committee.  Pawlenty was the earliest to form a committee, clear back on March 21st.  Next was Romney and Santorum at  3 weeks later, Paul at 5 weeks later, Cain at 6 weeks later, Bachman 12 weeks later and finally Huntsman 13 weeks later.  Clearly to say that they all started as early is MIS-Leading.

Second that they were tied with Paul.

Fact: First, there is a discrepancy between spokesmen as Mr. Conant says they were tied, while Ayers says they had more than Paul.  Both are MIS-Leading. In the second quarter Dr. Paul raised 4518947.59, whild Pawlenty raised 4,335,694.99.  Dr. Paul raised nearly 200K more than Pawlenty in the second quarter.  200K may seam like small potatoes, but tell that to Rick Santorum.   The best case scenario, to be considered tied with Paul requires including Pawlenty’s first quarter, AND requires Pawlenty to round UP, while Paul rounds DOWN.  You may stretch the numbers and consider them tied, but clearly to indicate that Pawlenty raised more than Paul as the campaign is doing is very MIS-Leading.  You may think arguing over a few hundred thousand is nit-picking, but when we are looking for someone to control our 3.6 trillion dollar budget, we don’t want someone who is going to be MIS-Leading with fuzzy math.

OH, you're good! There is no getting anything past you, is there? You must have passed the second grade.

While at the event, Pawlenty was a MIS-Leader regarding several more issues, but this article is long enough as is.  Check back soon as I write about two more ways Pawlenty is MIS-Leading on the campaign trail, Taxes and the Constitution.

 

You May Also Like

Kavanaugh Confirmation Vote Will Be Difficult for Red State Democrats

President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court could prove to be problematic for Democrat U.S. Senators in red states who want to vote no on confirmation.

Mitchell: Ford’s Case Is Even Weaker Than ‘He Said, She Said’

Rachel Mitchell about Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation: “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.

When “Washington” Solutions Create Bigger Problems

David Young: Yes, we need to strengthen health care. But we do not need another big federal government-run program with a one-size-fits-all mentality.

The American Model of Economics: Follow Harding and Coolidge’s Example

John Hendrickson: President Donald Trump can look to Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge’s example of following an American model of economics.