Oh, I don't doubt he's very smart. But there are both laws and traditions in place to prevent the kind of subservient lapdog press he wants to have. And he lacks the cajones to just toss the First Amendment out the window on a broad scale (yet).

Reuters' point was that even without the First Amendment and other protections afforded journalists in America, they're capable of publishing important, relevant news anyway. So that's not just a statement of intent. It's deliberately poking at Bannon's bluster. We are not afraid of you. He's trying to intimidate the press, and Reuters, at least, is having none of that.

So Bannon is smart. So what? That won't keep Reuters from doing their jobs.

edit: I should probably add here that I think assuming one's political opponents are stupid is a pet peeve of mine. Of course Bannon is very smart, or he wouldn't be where he is today.

First, it's cojones. Cajones would be something related to boxes (from "caja" - note that Cajon Pass in California is named for a box canyon).

Second, it may or may not be that he lacks the courage. He may lack the desire to go where you suspect that he wants to go. Mostly, though, what he lacks is the freedom to do so.

Just tossing the First Amendment out the window, at the current time, would not have the support of the courts. It would be declared illegal in no time. It would then require using the power of the office to suppress free speech by force - literally having police or military shut down radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, and the internet (don't forget cell networks and ham radios). The military is unlikely to undividedly follow such a course. Now you very likely have a civil war.

So even if he wants to, he can't blatantly toss the First Amendment out the window, and not because of lack of courage. It's because the people won't put up with it (at least not yet).

My pet peeve is when people assume that being smart is the most important thing in politics (or any other endeavor). Clever people may make fewer mistakes, but when they do make them they are much more difficult to fix. Just as true for software as it is for running a country.

I am not saying that his smartness is a good thing but a thing to consider. Al Capone was a very smart guy too probably. Even if you don't agree with him you should not think he is dumb. He may be smarter than his opponents. I remember the same thing happening with Bush. A lot of people who opposed him called him dumb but in reality a dumb person won't become president. Never underestimate people.

The mainstream media are already lap dogs. They've been taking orders from the rich and powerful for decades, and are a complete and utter joke.

Trump calling them to heel is just a method of pulling the already right-wing mainstream media further to the right. The far right will never settle for anything less than FOX, and for some of them even FOX is "too liberal".

It's not the smart that people should be concerned about. It's if he's going to go as far as some governments do in suppressing journalists: Harassment, imprisonment, or execution.

Covering the current administration is so far not a life-threatening exercise. That's what people mean by "amateur". There are other countries where reporting carries real, immediate risks to one's safety.

Consider the luxury of being a US-based reporter when there's people like Raif Badawi facing execution just for blogging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raif_Badawi

Exactly. Bannon isn't tossing Wolf Blitzer in jail for saying something bad about the administration. Lesser journalists aren't just disappeared off the streets and never seen again.

Amateur, by standards of suppressing the media.

As much as that's true today, I have no idea what tomorrow brings. They've already terminated a high-level judge for obstructing the administration. What if they "detain" a reporter for "leaking classified information"? What if Manning-like detention becomes the norm for those that speak out?

I'm extremely concerned that in the next few weeks the President will appear with generals flanking him at some big military event and he'll make some incoherent speech about something or other and, at a quick glance, you might not be able to tell him from Muammar Gaddafi.

Once he crosses that line there's no telling what will happen. There are too many utterly terrifying historical examples to draw on.

Are you talking about the firing of the acting Attorney General? Not a judge.

It wasn't really that big a deal, it was as much a political statement on her part as it was on the administration's. It's concerning, but it is unlikely to become part of a pattern, the top officials at the Justice Department will soon be appointees of the administration rather than people that agreed to carry out necessary functions during the transition.

> ...it is unlikely to become part of a pattern...

And that's where we disagree. I think this is the first of many.

What are you talking about? This type of incoherent rambling gives normal liberals a bad name.

People I know who've had to escape tyrannical regimes would say this isn't incoherent rambling.

If Glen Beck and Newt Gingrich are raising concerns this is not a "liberal" problem. Get a grip.

They don't have to suppress the media if they just undermine their credibility. I think this is the strategy and they are successful with it. If people view the New York Times and breitbart.com as equally biased then you have a problem.