Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS      
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The Media's Spin on Greenspan
By Larry Elder
Poll
Will Hillary Clinton fight for the nomination past June 1st?


Let's play "Jeopardy!"

Answer: This news event triggered the following headlines. "Greenspan Faults Bush in Book; Ex-Fed Chief: Politics Trumped." "Former Fed Chair Greenspan Criticizes Bush in Book." "In New Book, Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan Bashes Bush." "Greenspan Book Criticizes Bush and Republicans -- 'They Deserved to Lose.'" "Greenspan Is Critical of Bush in Memoir; Former Fed Chairman Has Praise for Clinton." "Greenspan Decries Course of Bush and GOP in New Book."

Question: What is the publication of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's new book?

The headlines provide yet another glaring example of the liberal bias of the traditional press. For the headlines leave the reader wondering. Greenspan criticized Bush about what? His tax cuts? The sluggish federal response to Katrina? The war in Iraq? The alleged constitutional abuses in connection with the war on terror? The Bush position on immigration reform? No Child Left Behind? The prescription benefit bill for seniors? What?

But, in fact, Greenspan criticized Bush -- and congressional Republicans -- for excessive spending. How about a headline like "Ex-Fed Chair Says Bush Spends Too Much," or "Greenspan Says Bush Failed to Rein in Spending," or "Republicans Spend Like Democrats Says Ex-Fed Chair"? Why, you ask, did the newspaper headlines fail to say that?

The actual headlines accomplish two things. The traditional media can gleefully report on another Bush "defection," reinforcing the notion of near-universal unhappiness with Bush and his "failed presidency." But second, and more importantly, it protects Democrats. How? Take the excesses of the Bush administration -- examine the non-defense, non-homeland security, non-automatic pilot "entitlement program" expenses like Medicare and Social Security. Bush's excesses then consist of No Child Left Behind, the prescription benefit bill for seniors, and the pork-riddled highway and energy bills. In each case, Democrats criticized Bush for not spending more.

Democrats criticized No Child Left Behind, but not for its enactment. Instead they call the program "insufficiently funded." They similarly criticize the Bush prescription benefit bill for seniors because of the so-called "donut hole," which included certain seniors. In other words, Bush insufficiently funded the bill. And on the energy and highway bills, both parties larded them up with so-called earmarks. So if you scratch the surface, Greenspan actually says if you think Republicans are bad, wait 'til you get a load of the Democrats.

The liberal media also grabbed hold of Greenspan's assertion that President Bill Clinton's 1993 economic plan demonstrated "courage." Huh? Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate from former President George Herbert Walker Bush's 31 percent to 40 percent. Yet Greenspan supported, while most Democrats opposed, President George W. Bush's tax cuts. Greenspan even supported making the tax cuts permanent. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Larry Elder is host of the Larry Elder Show on talk radio and author of Showdown : Confronting Bias, Lies, and the Special Interests That Divide America .

Be the first to read Larry Elder's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Greenspan
I recall when the first Bush was President, and Greenspan raised interest rates too much, causing a recession, and likely causing Bush the chance to be re-elected. Did Greenspan screw up, or was this intentional?

Spin Right; Who's spin?
Yea Greenspan backed down from his original comments, but there is no doubt OIL was a BIG part of the Decision to attack, invade and occupy Iraq. Can we all agree it was a BAD IDEA?

The sad part is Bush and company spun the WMD at first and when that fell apart they went to SAVE TO POOR Iraq people under that bad man and spread democracy.

Now the FACT is we want their OIL. Admit it. I WANT THEIR OIL, and if you say you don't you are a liar. HOWEVER BUSH SPUN THIS Democracy BULL so much we ARE NEVER NEVER GETTING THEIR OIL. That is 1/2 Trillion in OUR MONEY and 3,800 soldiers lives down the drain and STILL COUNTING at a rate of about $300M to $400M a day and 2 to 3 soldier. For whose democracy? I did not know Republicans are so compassionate about others, after the Katrina deal with mostly poor and Blacks in the King Dome in New Orleans, with orders to shoot looters. NICE!

I don't know about you but I never cared for the Iraq people or thought about them ever before march 2003.

Spread democracy in a part of the world that has never had democracy in Mid East that has a culture, religion and history that is so hostile and incompatible to western EVERYTHING including democracy WAS A BIG MISTAKE AND WE STILL ARE NOT GETTING OIL. The only winner are NO BID contracts, Halliburton, Security companies and of course the big winners Exxon and other Oil Compainies. Losers, the American People.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name: