QOTD -- The Trump Revolution Is About To Fail

 

" ... Trump is the imperfect figurehead of a corrupt cabal of plutocrats and ideological fanatics, who have used his political movement to foment something like a revolution, short of igniting civil war: Collapse the democratic order globally, replace it with great power spheres, and subservient, corrupt courtier states. Collapse the democratic order domestically, replace it with a right-wing autocracy.

"That’s why they aren’t letting up; their objective is not to calibrate for public opinion; it’s to advance—pocket as many corrupt spoils, compromise as many institutions as thoroughly as possible—while there’s still room to maneuver. Trump wants his name on every building, to break ground on monuments to himself while impediments are minimal. Ideological fanatics want to make as much headway as they can, while they can—ideally in ways that makes reversals hard: As many people deported as the government can deport; as many thugs hired as the government can hire; as much damage to the social safety net as can be inflicted; as much A.I. infrastructure as we can build. [snip]

"This revolution is poised to fail in just six weeks. At least as a procedural matter. The nightmare scenarios you’ve no doubt contemplated, wherein Trump and the GOP manage to steal the midterms, would not cement the revolution so much as transform it into something different in type, and dramatically more repressive. Everything that’s happened to now has been predicated upon one successful election and single-party, autocratic rule, enabled by congressional negligence and a corrupt judiciary. It can’t function as intended if voters reject that arrangement and give control of Congress back to the out party. Which is what they’re poised to do..." -- Brian Beutler, in his "Off Message" Substack, on "The Revolution Has Been Televised -- It's About To Fail."  Beutler has some excellent, specific points about what the task is for Democrats starting on January 3 and proceeding through the next 2 years, generally summed up as backstopping democracy and preventing further authoritarian advance -- with unprecedented resolution.

Quotes Of The Day

 

There's apparently a group of Democratic operatives calling themselves "Project 2029" who are developing what they think is an analog to the MAGAt fascists' "Project 2025" -- that notorious document that gave them a running start on dismantling the Federal Government, Constitution, and "liberal administrative state" once the Malignant Fascist took office.  Here are two commenters who've seen a summary of an early version of the Dem operatives' work and have some serious concerns.

Brian Beutler

"...These liberals, all veteran Democratic operatives, have begun offering glimpses of their work, and I’m of two minds. First, generously: As the saying goes, there’s no bad ideas in a brainstorm. Ideas are good. Ideas that start out bad can become good. Ideas that seem unresponsive to the needs of today can become urgent—or they might just be worthy apart from any particular salience, easily slotted into some future appropriation bill without fanfare.

"Second, more importantly: We are not—at this rate—getting a Project 2029 that serves anything like the purposes Project 2025 was meant to serve. We’re getting competing factional agendas, from a familiar universe of people, all of whom want jobs in or influence over the next administration. And so they’re devising policy ideas meant for popular consumption, rather than governing stratagems for fixing the American state.

"This is an error of conception. It doesn’t discredit any particular idea let alone the whole suite. It just means that if liberals or progressives thought party operatives were hard at work on a blueprint for the first several months of the next Democratic administration—a series of steps that any Dem president could execute to put the country back on an even keel—they’re going to be terribly disappointed. Unless something changes..."  (our emphasis)

Josh Marshall

"... If you look at the challenges faced today by Democrats, their reputational problems, lack of trust not only by unattached voters but by their own partisans, the biggest problem is that people think they are weak, their espousal of values doesn’t match their willingness to fight for those values and goals. At the most basic level, they don’t have a strong understanding of political power and how to use it. A Project 2029 should be mostly a blueprint for how to use trifecta power to the maximum extent possible by law and constitution to make thoroughgoing structural changes to the federal government to buttress against authoritarian fascist attack. Reinforcing the structures of civic democracy is a central part of that. To use a sports analogy, that doesn’t mean running good plays. It means reshaping the entire playing field. They’re not the same thing. That means starting as the sine qua non with things like ending the Senate filibuster and reforming the Supreme Court. But those are only the start. Those are the ones that make all the other reform and structural changes possible. They are also the talismans of seriousness. Because if you’re not willing to tackle those, you’re not any kind of player or even on the field.

"The reason to do this is, above all, because it needs to be done. The country managed for a long time with a very imperfect system because none of its presidents actively wanted to govern as dictators or as though they owned the country. We don’t have that luxury any more. But there are secondary importances too. It is a demonstration that Democrats have become comfortable using political power to its maximal extent and are willing to do so. So it’s a demonstration of ability and willingness. The biggest reason for the Democrats’ unpopularity is the idea that they are weak and essentially useless. You can’t contest elections effectively, over time, without changing that perception. And you change the perception by changing the reality."  (our emphasis)

The operatives coming up with this are likely the same ones advising DNC Chair Ken Martin, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries.  Their playing field, from these indications, is that of 1980 or maybe even 2016.  They're not, to use Marshall's analogy, reshaping it to meet what needs to happen for the future, radical de-Trumpification of America.  It also might be said, to extend the sports analogy, that they don't have any balls.

 

QOTD -- Suppressing Indignation

 

"...I suspect most elected Democrats had the same visceral reaction you and I did to those images. But they largely suppressed their indignation. They did not treat it as an emergency (i.e. a political opportunity) and reverted instead to their own, socially-constructed, default opinion that Regular People™️ would not care.

"It is self evident to them that their feelings about what’s happening in the world, their instincts about what constitutes important news, are unreliable barometers of public sentiment. The fact that they’re upset about something doesn’t imply the voters they need to persuade will care. To the contrary, as out of touch elites, it’s likely that our fixations are of no interest to Joe Sixpack. They can not imagine that Joe Sixpack has few fixed views and is mostly just glancing around for cues about what’s important and what to think about it. They don’t reason that if people in Georgia can be made to care about school names in San Francisco, those same voters can be made to care about the White House reduced to rubble.  [snip]

"But none of this has to come at the expense of pouncing when he makes a mistake that has nothing to do with wallets and bank accounts—when he fantasizes openly about dumping shit on citizens exercising first amendment rights, or orders his defense attorneys, who now run the Justice Department, to pay him a quarter-billion dollars in taxpayer money.

"Or when he demolishes a priceless historical artifact to build a gilded monument to himself..." -- Brian Beutler, in his "Off Message" Substack, on how Democratic consultants and their Democratic politician clients react to shocking developments like the illegal demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make room for the "Epstein ballroom."  Beutler likens the difference between how Democrats react and Republicans react to having your finger in the wind to see which way it's blowing (Democrats) and making the weather (Republicans).  

There's nothing more visceral to most Americans than seeing the sudden destruction of part one of the iconic structures of our democracy, a house that belongs to the American people, not to a lawless, convicted felon temporarily living there.  Why hasn't this penetrated some political skulls by now?  We realize the fire hose of outrages is coming fast and furious out of the Malignant Fascist and his regime.  But this outrage against the American people, symbolic as well as tangible, deserves much, much more than a brush off from accommodating, tin eared politicians.

(Photo:  a scar where the East Wing of the White House once was)

QOTD -- Prebut The Lies

 

"...I can’t know exactly what Trump will say on Monday and neither can Democrats, but the certainty that it won’t contain a sincere assessment of life in America, or of how he plans to govern, drastically limits the element of surprise. It allows us to anticipate broad themes he might adopt, and increases the urgency of refuting or repudiating them in advance. The best way to inoculate people to deception is to give them the tools they need to detect it.

"And so I am pleading with Democrats: Enough post-election chastening and consensus rituals, and enough pretending Trump has earned the benefit of the doubt. Instead, prime Americans for the lies he’s likely to tell, and make it clear why he isn’t to be trusted."  [snip]

"Trump is also not set to inherit American carnage. He’s set, once again, to inherit a strong economy and social peace threatened almost exclusively by his fellow travelers. He’s also set to pretend otherwise.

"And so my plea to Democrats is to put just a little effort into limiting the number of people Trump will fool with whichever deceptive course he chooses. Assign someone, anyone capable of delivering remarks competently, to pick some platform, any platform, and say what’s true: Despite a campaign season worth of lies and agitprop, Joe Biden built an economy stronger than any in decades; when Trump predictably declares he inherited and reversed a disaster, it will be a lie. If and when he wrecks the economy again, it will be his fault. Joe Biden inherited a crime wave from Donald Trump and returned crime to below its pre-Trump levels. He inherited a depressed economy, and delivered full employment. Biden conducted his presidency with actual magnanimity—or, at least, without malice—and we’re about to be reminded why we voted him into office in the first place..." (our emphasis) --Brian Beutler, in his "Off Message" Substack, on why Democrats need to prebut the Malignant Fascist's upcoming barrage of lies with someone capable of increasing the pulse rate of the average American (that's not you, Chuck Schumer!).  The idea that Democrats should have a "shadow government/ cabinet" of articulate people (not always office holders!) to prebut MAGAt lies is perhaps too sensible for a party still enamored of "norms," tradition, and seniority to adopt.  But, consider if the party had forceful advocates in various policy arenas to puncture the torrent of lies about to become "official government positions" under the Malignant Fascist, as opposed to the disorganized approach taken historically by Democrats.  We've got to do better, somehow.

Telling A Better Story

 

Brian Beutler has some instructive thoughts about how Democrats must tell a better story contrasting the Malignant Loser's disastrous years in office with the historically successful rescue job by President Biden and Democrats.  Here are some excerpts:

... The story I would tell if I were Biden is pretty simple, and Biden occasionally gestures at it. When the White House press corps recently assembled to grill Biden about (what else) his age and memory, he reminded them. “I am well-meaning, and I’m an elderly man, and I know what the hell I’m doing,” he said. “I’ve been president. I put this country back on its feet.”

The story is that he inherited a country that Trump left in shambles, and did the painstaking work of rebuilding an economy that’s now stronger and more equitable than the one Trump wrecked. He could also pin inflation on Trump: it was, after all, an inevitable part of the difficult process of digging out from under the rubble Trump left behind. He could describe inflation as the endpoint of a cascade of events that began when Trump disbanded the government’s pandemic-response directorate and (thus) failed to contain the virus before it spread out of control.

That is a story people are more likely to absorb in full meaning than any recitation of raw fact...

We often fall into the habit of providing facts when the broader story can be more compelling.  If you hear the echo of the "facts" vs. "vibes" argument here, that's what this boils down to -- and the "vibes" seem to be holding the upper hand.  The thing is, Democrats have a story to tell that's both factual and compelling, if they can stick to it.  Beutler concludes with another stab at it, and the Republicans' relentless lying that needs to be countered now:

... The idea that inflation is the president’s fault, and he deserves blame for it when it happens, is just that—an idea. And it’s not an idea that occurs to millions of individuals independently on a population scale, because that’s not how ideas work, particularly complicated ones.

Voters think Trump was a good steward of the economy because he repeats endlessly that he built the greatest economy in history until the pandemic wrecked it. They almost never hear the truer counterstory: that Trump coasted on the economy he inherited from Barack Obama until he was confronted with his only real crisis and showed himself to be completely outmatched. They think Biden has been a bad steward of the economy because Republicans and the news media—to say nothing of social-media and the broader culture—harp on endlessly about inflation, and how the buck stops with the president, and how Americans are struggling, when, empirically, they are struggling less now than at any point in recorded history. 

Americans started searching the internet for “stagflation” these past few days not because of some major, detectable shift in economic fundamentals, but because Republicans are telling a new, false story about Biden’s economy.

For the most part, it’s the only story they’re hearing.

Democrats have six months to tell a different, better one. They have all the resources they need to get the good word out. We just have to hope that the stories Republicans have been telling with little pushback these past three-and-a-half years haven’t cemented impressions of the candidates irreversibly.

Democrats have more resources now than Republicans, though they're disadvantaged by the free propaganda provided to the Malignant Loser's party/ cult on Fox, Newsmax, etc.  Democrats have smart, experienced people running campaigns. They just need to get on message and be as relentless as the party/ cult of the Malignant Loser in telling the true story of the past 7- plus years.  Starting now.

(Image: via Spreadshirt.com)

QOTD -- Politics For The Attention Economy v. 1999

 

"...If you want a feel for how things have changed, think back to the role the economy, and news about the economy, played in 2012 compared to now. Back then, Republicans were just as invested in spreading doom and gloom as they are today, but they had fewer tools to work with. Mainstream news outlets still viewed economic data principally through the lens of horserace politics, but they were more or less on the same page about what metrics were important: how many jobs the economy created on net, the unemployment rate, GDP. Every month, journalists would wait on tenterhooks for the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ first-Friday report because they understood the economy’s centrality to the election. But when the reports came out, there was no sustained gainsaying of the numbers. If the economy created 200,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate dropped to 5.1 percent, that was the news—a boon for the Obama campaign. If the economy created only 100,000 jobs and the unemployment rate ticked up, a pall fell over the Democratic Party. 

"Today, it’s much less clear if and how regular people distinguish news media from every other kind, and (I think by no coincidence) wide swaths of the population believe we’re in recession when we’re not; think inflation remains out of control, when it isn’t; think gas prices are high, when they’re low.  [snip]

"While we weren’t paying attention, Republicans created a politics for the attention economy. Democrats are doing politics like it’s 1999. More generously, they’ve built politics around the insight that “the internet isn’t real life” and stuck with it for many years, even as the assumption itself has become less and less true."  -- Brian Beutler on the historical context of how the Democrats and Republicans conduct their information wars in the traditional media.  Beutler goes on to demonstrate how, in the intervening years, Republicans have adjusted much better to the social media climate, whereas Democrats seem to be fighting the last election with the same tools.  This is all absolutely insane to us, given the creative and intellectual edge Democrats have on Republicans, but that, too, may be an assumption (and you know what happens if you assume...).

 

QOTD -- Botching

"The idea that Biden 'botched' the 'execution' of this withdrawal became media and GOP conventional wisdom in advance of any critical thinking, and I still haven’t heard a single representative of either entity credibly answer the question, Compared to what? There are no shortage of nonsense answers, and there are those who articulate alternative scenarios that amount to surging in more troops, re-igniting the war. But accounting for everything that was and wasn’t under our control, all plausible withdrawal scenarios converge on some kind of morass.

"Even in a blackbox scenario where we stipulate that the U.S. could have safely evacuated everyone we intended to evacuate before the Taliban reached Kabul—where, say, Afghan forces fended off the Taliban for weeks instead of days, as Biden apparently believed they would—the scenes of desperation and brutality that Biden’s critics have referenced as proof of his failure wouldn’t have been avoided. They would have just taken place off camera. 

"The worst of those scenes played out on Monday, and a narrative congealed around them right away—in part because the national press has been on high alert for any storylines that lend themselves to 'tough on both sides' posturing..." -- Brian Beutler, in Big Tent's "Withdrawing Conclusions."  The media reeks with the desperate posturing Beutler mentions, looking for angles to knock President Biden down a few notches, and not particularly concerned with historical perspective.  In his interview, ABC's George "Steponaflagpinopoulos" covered the same ground over and over, and seemed skeptical that Biden couldn't see an outcome "without chaos ensuing."  Well, we couldn't see an outcome without the media botching the story through what Margaret Sullivan calls "nuance- deprived, overstated coverage."

QOTD II -- Media, Do Your Job

"It is a matter of universal consensus among experts, journalists, career officials, and people of good faith generally that Trump botched the response in tragic fashion. His desire to dramatically recalibrate public expectations of what constitutes success reflects an awareness of his own failures and a desperation to deceive people about them, all to minimize political harm to himself. [snip]

"The test here is not just whether he can game allied and broken institutions to present this falsified history as truth, or a matter of legitimate debate. It’s whether he can exploit a mass forgetting of the very thing that made the idea of a Trump presidency so unacceptable in the first place, now that one of the great warnings has come to pass.  [snip]

"It would seem to defy natural law that a man could do so much manifest harm, in such a well-documented way, with such horrendous consequences, and yet gain the lasting faith of one-time skeptics, while losing none of his supporters. But there are no fundamental properties of politics that consign failed leaders to defeat; they have to be defeated. Trump will exploit all the weaknesses he’s exposed in our systems of accountability to prevent that from happening, and he’ll do it shamelessly, because this is a final test for him, too. Whether he prevails or not is up to the very people whose power to spread truth and shape public opinion he undermines largely unchallenged every day." -- Brian Beutler challenging a largely supine media to report the facts and truth about the criminal incompetence of Donald "Moron Vector" Trump in responding to the coronavirus outbreak.  In other words, media, do. your. job.

Quote Of The Day -- The Non-Reckoning

"The question of how to scrutinize presidential candidates who aren’t congenitally dishonest, corrupt, or incompetent—when their opponent is Donald Trump—has been vexing journalists since before the 2016 election. Back then, their refusal to faithfully convey the differences between the candidates on matters of basic fitness for office handed Trump the presidency, and ignited widespread calls for the industry to reckon with its failures.

"Three years later, a reckoning has not happened, and in its absence, Trump has set about trying to recreate conditions under which the press will hound his 2020 opponent about a small number of trivial sins while his ubiquitous, mortal ones dissipate into the background."  Brian Beutler, on how "The 2016 Emails Nightmare Is About To Repeat Itself." We've said this many times before, but corporate journalism is as amoral as the existential threat in the Oval Office, and shares at least one basic characteristic:  it's all about the money.

Tweets Of The Day -- Keep Dumbing It Down!

The GOP playbook has never changed since the Florida recount in 2000 -- declare yourself the victory early and very loudly, try to cement public opinion, and then fight like hell against the actual truth

— Will Bunch (@Will_Bunch) March 25, 2019

And the Republicans have willing, puerile partners:

I’d like to collect all the news stories treating Barr’s summation interchangeably with the full report, but who’s got the time? https://t.co/dTpZnjAZFf

— Schooley (@Rschooley) March 25, 2019

Even if the Democrats manage to get the full report eventually released, the press that’s amplifying the narrative of the Barr summation being a full exoneration will look at a dense document and ask, “Too much, too late?”

— Schooley (@Rschooley) March 25, 2019

I'm curious which headline they're actually printing. pic.twitter.com/Qh1C2nYhFR

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) March 25, 2019

The letter is perfectly crafted to give Trump the headlines he wants from reporters unable or unwilling to do the proper parsing, while also making clear in lawyered terms that the report text is VERY damning. I anticipate Trump will go to great, revealing lengths to conceal it. https://t.co/R0CnjEvLIb

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) March 24, 2019

I learned in 2004 is that even the really good media outlets and reporters easily fall into the trap of “pack journalism”. They are now breathlessly writing about trumps exoneration and 2020. NOT ONE OF THEM HAS READ THE REPORT. They are likely wrong on both counts.

— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) March 25, 2019

Don't look for the corporate media to save our democracy, part infinity.

Monday Reading

As always, please go to the link for the full article.

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

After President Trump signed the Republican tax cut into law, companies put out cheery announcements that they were giving workers bonuses because of their expected windfalls from the tax reductions. The president and Republican lawmakers quickly held up these news releases as vindication for their argument that cutting the top federal corporate tax rate to 21 percent, from 35 percent, would boost workers’ incomes even as it added $1.5 trillion to the debt that future generations would have to pay off. 

Now corporate announcements and analyst reports confirm what honest observers always said — this claim is pure fantasy. As executives tell investors what they intend to do with their tax savings and their spending plans are tabulated into neat charts and graphs, the reports jibe with what most experts said would happen: Companies are rewarding their stockholders. (our emphasis)

Brian Beutler writes about Putin pawn Donald "Rump" Trump's other conspirators in allowing Russians to meddle in the 2016 election:

For more than a year now, people who take things like criminal conspiracies to subvert American elections seriously actually have kicked around whether Obama should have done more before November 2016 to alert the public to the still-unfolding plot. There are fair arguments on both sides of the question, but each has to contend with the fact that Obama knew the Republican congressional leadership—Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell most vociferously—would dispute his administration, call the intelligence into question, and accuse Obama of using the country’s vast spying powers to help select his own successor. Obama, rather than Vladimir Putin, would be the meddler in this telling, colluding with Hillary Clinton, against poor Donald Trump. 

This naked subordination by the Republican leadership of every national interest—of fair elections, and protecting the country against the risk of a major party presidential candidate having a corrupt relationship with a hostile power—should have been the source of unending shame since it was first reported in December 2016. But the indictments and the Schiff memo fill out the context in which McConnell and the others intervened to let Russia’s illegal efforts on behalf of Trump continue, and it is even more horrible than we knew. (our emphasis)

Lock them up!  Lock them up!

Of course, the Republican conspiracy continues:

Top Republicans on Capitol Hill have made a concerted decision in their Russia inquiries: They are staying away from digging into the finances of President Donald Trump and his family. 

Six Republican leaders of key committees told CNN they see little reason to pursue those lines of inquiry or made no commitments to do so -- even as Democrats say determining whether there was a financial link between Trump, his family, his business and Russians is essential to understanding whether there was any collusion in the 2016 elections.  (our emphasis)

Don't worry.  Special Counsel Mueller has no qualms about following the money.

In "only the best people" news:

The president’s personal pilot is on the administration's short list to head the Federal Aviation Administration. Trump has told a host of administration officials and associates that he wants John Dunkin — his longtime personal pilot, who flew him around the country on Trump Force One during the campaign — to helm the agency, which has a budget in the billions and which oversees all civil aviation in the United States. 

What I'm hearing: One industry insider equated this to the Seinfeld episode when Cosmo Kramer used his golf caddy as a jury consultant...  (our emphasis)

Apologies to Kramer for any comparison to Rump!

Lastly, for an enjoyable collection of information running the full gamut, we again recommend the link round-up at Infidel 753.

The Apocalypse Nears: Normalizing Trump Continues

Brian Beutler has a good read on the media's still- not- too- late obligation to bear witness faithfully to the abnormality of neo- fascist demagogue Donald "Rump" Trump.  Here's a snippet:

Whether you have a short or long view, you’ve seen enough to say authoritatively that Trump is different from all major party nominees in living memory. It is not normal in modern times for a major party nominee to be an erratic, racist demagogue; and it is almost definitionally abnormal for a major party nominee to be described as such by leading members of his own party. [snip] 

For several weeks now—including since Labor Day, when most Americans truly began paying attention to the campaigns—these truths, which we all took for granted six months ago, have not been communicated to glancing news consumers. They’ve receded from most article leads, headlines, front pages, and A-block TV segments. 

That development is the product of many collective choices and thousands of individual ones. It is an institutional failure, and as such, a major and abrupt course correction seems highly unlikely. But that doesn’t absolve reporters, editors, producers or anyone else who is part of the system. There’s still time to alter our focus, however incrementally, so that it better captures what’s new and alarming, and all journalists have some degree of power to nudge it in that direction. The goal is not to swing an election, or call Trump mean names, or render partisan judgment about whether electing him would be a world-historical mistake. It’s simply so that after this is all over, however it shakes out, we can say we bore witness faithfully.  (our emphasis)

Time is short, and the impulse to normalize this "world historical mistake" either by commission or omission continues apace in political reporting, McNews stories, and in a boot- licking corner of the entertainment world (or perhaps we should say, "hair tousling corner").

It's worth repeating what Charles Pierce said a few days ago:

... For the balance of this election cycle, and largely due to the presence in it of this ridiculous man and his ridiculous campaign, the American people have proven themselves profoundly unworthy of being called citizens.

And that goes double for those who know better and yet stand by and say or do nothing.

BONUS:  Regarding that cringe- worthy effort by Jimmy Fallon (WTF is wrong with you?)  to normalize (humanize?) Rump linked to above, this is our favorite tweet so far on the episode:

Somewhere in Trump tower:
"Make the call." pic.twitter.com/RRNIIhCaas

— Bob Schooley (@Rschooley) September 16, 2016

Republicans Getting Away With Their "Dishonesty And Buffoonery"

If nothing else, the Republican clown car bus "debates" have demonstrated anew that, when their crackpot lies are challenged by the media, the most successful course of action is to lie some more and blame the media (and, as Catherine Rampell explains below, the media is to blame -- for abetting this behavior).   It's a guaranteed winner with their low- information base, and it puts the media on the defensive in future encounters (example:  following their "suspension" from a February "debate," NBC News is already trying to make nice with Republican National Committee Chairstain Reince "Prepuce" Priebus, saying they want to "work in good faith to resolve this matter," i.e., make sure there are no hardball questions or followups the next time, and that the moderators' lips are firmly attached to the candidates' arses).  Please read both pieces in their entirety to see how the rules work for Republicans.

Brian Beutler on the "GOP's Grotesque Festival of Lies":

In the long run, conservatives suffer more the deeper they burrow themselves into an ecosystem of convenient misinformation. But in the short run, they've figured out that denying documented reality and attacking the messenger can completely snow over the truth. That creates a big problem for journalists, who should view the attacks against Harwood and the others as an affront to the profession.

Catherine Rampell on how the media rewards the liars and demagogues:

The Republican presidential candidates are right. The media do suck.

But not for the reasons the candidates complained about Wednesday night.

We in the media suck because we have rewarded their rampant dishonesty and buffoonery with nonstop news coverage. Which, of course, has encouraged more dishonesty and buffoonery.

Hence the aggravating behaviors that candidates doubled down on during the debate, based on lessons that we in the media taught them. To wit:

Lesson No. 1: Lie, but lie confidently.  [snip]

Lesson No. 2: Invent your own math.  [snip]

Lesson No. 3: If you can’t think of something better to say, just bash the media.   [snip]

Accordingly, by Wednesday, the candidates had all learned to dodge difficult questions by accusing the moderators of bias. Usually, the charge was that they were too liberal. (Yes, CNBC, the channel that launched the tea party and employs the United States’ most famous supply-sider, is apparently a commie paradise.) Or they accused the media of not asking substantive questions, right in the middle of ducking substantive questions.

In the end, the biggest applause lines were all media insults. They came from Rubio, Ted Cruz and Christie.

Guess whom CNBC then crowned the winners of the debate? Rubio, Cruz and Christie.

Well done, gents. We’ve trained you well.  (our emphasis)

This is a potential tipping point in how the media (especially corporate media) take on the challenge of confronting the Republicans' "dishonesty and buffoonery."  Judging from the initial reaction, they're going to fold like a cheap suit.

BONUS:  David Atkins at Washington Monthly has a good read about why this "attack the messenger" strategy will backfire come the general election;  color us skeptical.

BONUS II:  When you're Fox Business, the RNC never has to worry about who's asking the questions.

BONUS III:  Joan Walsh is right;  might as well let Hannity and Limbaugh moderate the next Republican "debate."