Michael Barone: If Bush Were a Dictator, New York Times Editor Would Be 'In Chains'

Photo of Justin McCarthy.

If President Bush is exhibiting dictatorial behaviors, the editor and publisher of The New York Times would be facing criminal prosecution. That hypothesis come from pundit and "U.S. News" columnist Michael Barone. Appearing on the October 30 edition of "Fox and Friends," Barone laughed off outrageous charges of a Bush dictatorship. He then noted that the true anti-civil libertarian measures are coming from the left, particularly Barack Obama and his supporters.

Barone exemplified such actions by noting Democratic attorneys calling for libel prosecution of Obama’s critics, but not McCain’s. Barone added "that would represent the first time that we have criminalized political speech since the expiration of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1801-1802." Barone also noted Obama’s co-sponsorship of the Fairness Doctrine, a backdoor way to censor conservative talk radio.

Barone of course also alluded to the media’s love affair with Barack Obama and their concern about harming the senator’s "electoral chances."

The transcript follows.

GRETCHEN CARLSON: Sometimes name calling can be downright nasty and some people on the left have talked about President Bush as a "dictator," people in Europe as well. Michael Barone is going to sort this out for us -- he’s a senior writer for U.S. News and World Report -- Because how would this affect whomever is elected as our new president. Good morning to you Michael.

MICHAEL BARONE: Good morning to you Gretchen. Nice to be with you.

CARLSON: So is that label of President Bush accurate? And as we look down the path now in just five days as to who will be our president, will we hear the same thing coming out of those people’s mouths?

BARONE: Well, I suppose you might think that, that label of dictator against President Bush was accurate if we had a picture of the publisher and editor of The New York Times in chains under indictment for printing material uncomplimentary to the administration. We haven’t seen that headline. We haven’t- that hasn’t existed. The New York Times continues to publish in the media- most of the mainstream media presents a unrelenting critique of the Bush administration as is its right under the First Amendment of the Constitution. I think what I find more disturbing on the political landscape is the move to suppress political speech from the left, from Barack Obama’s supporters. During this campaign- this fall campaign and the city circuit attorney of St. Louis County circuit attorney, both Democrats, said that they were going to prosecute -- bring criminal libel prosecution for, quote, "false," unquote, statements about Barack Obama. As I understand, they didn’t mention any other candidates, simply Obama. That would represent the first time that we have criminalized political speech since the expiration of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1801-1802. That’s a pretty chilling -- that is the sort of thing that has what First Amendment scholars call a chilling affect on, on First Amendment protected speech. We haven’t seen this from the right. We have seen it from the left.

BRIAN KILMEADE: Okay let me ask you this.

BARONE: Another doctrine-

KILMEADE: Go ahead. Go ahead.

BARONE: Yeah Brian- Yeah another suppression along those lines I think is the attempt by congressional Democrats, co-sponsored I believe by Barack Obama, to eliminate -- to restore this so called "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting. This is a transparent, by imposing an equal time requirement, to eliminate, rub out, abolish the one communications medium that’s been dominated by conservatives, talk radio. This is, this is an a -- this speaks an attitude that says "when I hear speech I don’t like, I want to shut it down." That’s not really consistent with our First Amendment.

KILMEADE: How does this all figure into some of the questions many people still have about Barack Obama and his connections, whether it’s the Columbia professor, or some of these other people, and tapes are suppressed? Does that give you -- does that add to your worry should he become president?

BARONE: Well, obviously, Barack Obama has got some -- a lot of people in the press who, let’s say, have taken a point of view that’s convenient to his campaign. They have been much more curious about the contents in Sarah Palin’s wastebasket in Wasilla, Alaska than they have about Barack Obama’s chairmanship of the board of a $100 million education project that was co-founded by the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers. And now as your previous segment showed, Brian, you’ve got "The Los Angeles Times" refusing to release tape of the celebration of this man, Khalidi, who has supported the PLO and its terrorist period, which Barack Obama and I gather may have spoken at. So what’s the rationale for this? "Well, we promised the source we wouldn’t do it or something." I think the clear rationale is a lot of people at the mainstream media have a very little appetite for advancing stories that might hurt the electoral chances of Barack Obama.

CARLSON: Yeah, it will be interesting to see what kind of stories are written after the fact. Michael Barone always great to see you. Thanks for joining us this morning.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If Bush was a "dictator",

If Bush was a "dictator", we wouldn't be having this freakin' election in the first place and wouldn't be just a hair away from getting our first radical left president. 

McNotObama '08

Chris,

I wasn't even going to comment on this silliness, but there is absolutely no evidence of any sort of Bush dictatorship. That just indicates how distorted the democratic worldview is.

Hugo Chavez, Saddam Hussain,  Khaddifi, THOSE are dictators. 

Whether one likes Bush or not he is not the antichrist much as the left would like to portray him as one.

 

I was merely pointing out

I was merely pointing out the painfully obvious to illustrate how the stupid radicals among us bandy about extreme labels, having no idea whatsoever of what they are talking about. These are the same people who bridle when their hero, Obama, is accused of having socialist tendencies. As if dictator and socialist are the same thing.

McNotObama '08

The editor was not shot!

Saddam put a bullet in the head of the offending person. Chavez is closing radio stations. Those are the actions of dictators. The proper action of a president should be to bring charges of treason against the editor and publisher of the NY Times, specifically for releasing government secrets to our enemies we are currently fighting. Freedom of speech does not allow you to aid our enemies under any circumstances.

Chavez

is bringing an opposition member up on charges of killing another opposition member.

My bet is that Chavez is behind the killing and is using it to frame the opposition leader.

Clarification?

"...the true anti-civil libertarian measures..." I thought a libertarian was for letting the people decide? Almost the opposite of a dictatorship?

The New York Times

The New York Times advertising department called my office today. I really wanted to rip into them but since I couldn't make the company look bad for my personal views I could only get pleasure from saying "no" over and over again as they tried to sell me add space. A small joy compared to the one I would have gotten if I said what I really felt about the New York Times.

Here's a good non-biased

Here's a good non-biased site about dictators, if anyone is interested in looking at and seeing what the charachteristics of a dictator is. Dictators don't allow dissent and appoint themselves as rulers for long periods of time. Bush isn't a dicator, Clinton wasn't a dictator, Bush Sr. wasn't a dictator, Reagan wasn't a dictator, Carter wasn't a dictator, Ford wasn't a dictator, Nixon wasn't a dictator, etc.etc. Dictators oppress their opposition.

http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/English/English_welcome.htm

 

Lincoln

Funny......

Abe jailed newspaper editors and others including military officers who did not agree with his decision to invade the south

LIBERAL FASCISM...

 I always laughed at the idiots in the MSM 7 on the progressive left crying about the evil Bush & Cheney & how "fascist" they are. They are the neo-con dictators who have trashed the constitution... Riiiiiiiight, actually, they have been too nice to the many in the MSM who have been very hatefull of their very existence. Too willing to tolerate the most intolerent amongst us, in my opinion.

Barone is right, the NYSlimes would be in chains. How about BathTubBoy? If 10% of the crap he spewed were true about how bad Bush & Cheney are to our constitutional rights, his @$$ would have been dragged away years ago...too an undisclosed location of course. Hell, Anyone involved at BSMNC, CNN, ABCnews,NBCnews, See-BSnews, AirAmerica (remember, Randi Rhodes was "attacked" by neo-con thugs a while back) & those in charge at loony left websites like Kos, DU, MoveOn, & MediaMatters would all have been abused, harrassed, or had their rights violated in sme way. The fact that NOTHING has happened to any of these halfwits is proof that they were/are/will always be wrong about this.

I wonder if there will be the same uproar from these very same idiots if Obama is elected with Reed & Pelosi in charge & they clamp down on free speech with the "fairness doctrine" & start cencoring the internet(yes kids, it CAN be done) & investigating those who oppose or expose (Joe the Plumber), or send the IRS to look into them...again & again. I doubt it, & it will happen, some of it already has, & under the Dems, it will happen. Will the MSM care before it's too late? I'm not betting on it.

 

 

"...it's still We The People, Right?"  Megadeth