Mediaboss Marketing

European liberals erupted into cheers in 2019 when the 45-year-old environmentalist and civil rights lawyer Zuzana Caputova was sworn in as Slovakias president. Even though she has fallen short of her ambitious goal of rooting out the persistent corruption and cronyism that course through Slovak society, she has chalked up many successes. These have earned her widespread popularity among Slovaks, who seemed to understand her project would always require more than one five-year term.

European liberals erupted into cheers in 2019 when the 45-year-old environmentalist and civil rights lawyer Zuzana Caputova was sworn in as Slovakias president. Even though she has fallen short of her ambitious goal of rooting out the persistent corruption and cronyism that course through Slovak society, she has chalked up many successes. These have earned her widespread popularity among Slovaks, who seemed to understand her project would always require more than one five-year term.

Theres just one problem: Caputova, facing new headwinds from the election of a new populist prime minister, has announced shes not prepared to fight on.

Not only was Caputova the first-ever woman to hold the office, but her progressive, pro-European outlook and squeaky-clean biography stood out in a regional landscape stocked with ethnic nationalists, authoritarians, and other questionable operators. Caputovas tough anticorruption platform was welcome relief to a country that had been rocked by graft, money laundering, and abuse of power scandals, as well as the contracted murder of a young journalist investigating organized crime.

In the course of her five-year term, the newcomer to elected office acquitted herself remarkably well, navigating Slovakia through the pandemic and then the war in Ukraine, a country with which it shares 60 miles of border to the east. Even as Slovakias southern neighbor, Hungary, prevaricated and obstructed transatlantic solidarity with Ukrainea course many Slovak nationalists applaudedCaputova, suddenly head of a front-line state, stood fast. She has remained unflinchingly pro-Western even in the face of an acute energy crisis and hundreds of thousands of refugees.

Her mission to clean up the Slovakian state also notched impressive wins. Dozens of investigations were launched and cases opened up against figures linked to former governmentsmany of which led to convictions. In August 2023, Caputovasometimes referred to as the Erin Brockovich of Slovakiafired the countrys counterintelligence service chief for interfering in corruption investigations. But her anticorruption drive grew larger in scope when parliamentary elections in September 2023 reinstated Robert Fico, the former prime minister and pro-Russian, anti-American populist with the interests of himself and his associates always foremost in mind.

Many supporters expected that Caputova, as the principled, popular face of a new Slovakia, would soldier on for at least another term come elections in March 2024: to finish the job she had started. But Caputovas tenure, she announced in June 2023, will come abruptly to an end. Her familys well-being, she said, was behind her choice not to run again. My decision is a personal one, she said. I am sorry if I disappoint those who expected my candidacy again. In office, she had received multiple death threats, she said. A year earlier, she had already complained about people who are threatening to kill me are using the vocabulary of some politicians. It does not only concern me, but also my loved ones.

At the time of her announcement, Caputova polled as Slovakias most trusted politician. I was surprised and disappointed when I heard the news, said Pavol Demes, a German Marshall Fund fellow in Bratislava, who served as Slovakias foreign minister from 1991 to 1992. Her track record proves that it was not coincidence that people elected her, Demes said, adding that he believes Caputova would have prevailed again at the ballot box.

Others admit theyre more than just disappointed with Caputovas premature departure, as the Slovak daily Dennik N put it. Having an opportunity and not using it is literally a sin, opined the Slovak newspaper Pravda, especially if it is one that will never come again. President Zuzana Caputovas decision not to run can be considered a mistake. At a time when the chaos in Slovak politics has reached unprecedented proportions and the disillusionment among the population is great, the president bears even more responsibility for the fate of the country.

In office, Caputova often punched back as hard as she was punched by her less principled opponents. She refused to let Fico, in the opposition since 2020, hound and bully her with impunity. In May 2023, she sued Fico for calling her an American agent and of appointing Soros government, referring to U.S. billionaire-philanthropist George Soros and the technocratic caretaker government she appointed in May 2023. Slovak authorities are still pursuing criminal cases involving dangerous threats made against the president.

Caputovas aversion to the nastier aspects of Central European politicsin 1995 the son of the then-Slovak president was literally kidnappedis understandable. But Caputovas presence is all the more necessary today as Fico and his Smer-SD party are back in power and bent on returning Slovakia to its former incarnation. In just four months, Caputova has checked Fico several times. In October, for example, Caputova quashed the nomination of Rudolf Huliak as environment minister by the Slovak National Party, a Fico ally. Huliak, a nationalist, is known as a climate skeptic and opponent of LGBTQ+ rights.

She is currently weighing a veto of the Fico governments move to dismantle the special prosecutors officethe body that handled the most serious corruption casesand modify the criminal code, which triggered weeks of protests across Slovakia and rule-of-law concern from the EU. By weakening criminal sanctions for financial crimes, Fico could rescue the likes of Smer-allied oligarchs who would otherwise face prison sentences. One opposition politico charged that the law looks as if the mafia itself had written it. If her veto is overridden, which is likely, Caputova could take the issue to the Constitutional Court.

Caputovas decision not to run thus opens the way for a multi-candidate race, the first round of which will be held on March 23 with, if necessary, a second in April. The vote is likely to come down to two candidates: National Council Speaker Peter Pellegrini, an on-again, off-again Fico ally; and Ivan Korcok, a liberal-minded former Slovak foreign minister and career diplomat. If Pellegrini triumphs, his victory will open the way for Fico to set in motion a pro-Russia political course that will greatly complicate the Wests defense of Ukraine, among other concerns.

Certainly, there would be no presidential corrective to hinder Fico in emulating his strongman counterpart next door in Hungary, Viktor Orban. Polands throwing off of its authoritarian leadership last year could have left Orban completely isolated in Central Europe. But Fico, though unlikely to amass the power of Orbans Fidesz party or act so defiantly as Law and Justice Poland, sees Orban as a blood brother.

Fico and his followers are fascinated by Orbans method of governance since 2018, Juraj Marusiak of the Slovak Academy of Sciences Institute of Political Science told Foreign Policy. They see this authoritarianism as efficient and Orban as someone who takes care of his countrys national interests. This has made Orban creditable in Central Europe beyond Hungary alone.

And Caputovas bright light will be missed beyond diminutive Slovakia. Upon her election in 2019, a Hungarian acquaintance said to me that the only reason someone like Caputova could win in Central Europe is because she seemed to have no drawbacks at all: She was politically clean, charismatic, down to earth, and smart. And in office, she learned the ropes quickly. But she wasnt perfect, apparentlyno one could foresee that there would eventually be limits to her will to lock horns with Slovakias ruthless profiteers.

Sadly, theres only one of her in the region. And soon, by her own choice, there will be none.

See the rest here:
Slovakia's Zuzana Caputova Has It AllExcept the Will to Fight Robert Fico - Foreign Policy

Theres a litany of potential explanations for the disastrous drop the Trudeau Liberals have seen in their polling numbers over the last 12 months, from rising interest rates and growing cost-of-living concerns to Pierre Poilievres image makeover. But the one that stands out from the rest is the one that might be the hardest for them to fix: Team Trudeau is really, really bad at doing politics.

This wasnt always a problem for Justin Trudeaus Liberals, of course. If anything, theyve survived the last two elections because theyve been better at doing politics than their Conservative opponents. But whether its pandemic fatigue or just a government thats long in the tooth and short on talent, they keep stepping on their own feet when they try to walk.

Case in point: Steven Guilbeaults declaration on Monday that our government has made the decision to stop investing in new road infrastructure. It came as part of his keynote speech at a fundraising luncheon for a public transit advocacy group called Trajectoire Qubec and probably wasnt intended to serve as fodder for Opposition attacks on his government. Its not clear whether he didnt think his comments would reach the broader public or he didnt care, but the net result is the same: they represented an act of political self-harm at a time when his government is already bleeding out.

Yes, yes, Guilbeault says his remarks are being misinterpreted, but its literally his job to reduce the risk of that happening. And sure, what he said is grounded in research about the climate impacts of so-called induced demand that comes from building new roads and highways. Its true the federal government has been clear for a while now that it would shift its funding towards infrastructure projects like LRT and other public transit. No matter. The job Guilbeault signed up for is called politics, not policy, and his comments were supremely unhelpful in that respect.

There will be no more envelopes from the federal government to enlarge the road network, he said. The analysis we have done is that the network is perfectly adequate to respond to the needs we have. This will come as a surprise to people in places like the GTA and Greater Vancouver, where traffic remains an enduring frustration thats only growing thanks to the federal governments ambitious immigration targets. Yes, roads and infrastructure are a provincial jurisdiction, but Guilbeaults comments and their dismissive tone are going to make it exceptionally easy for the politicians there to shift the blame on him.

Oh, but he wasnt done shooting himself in the foot. We must stop thinking that electric cars will solve all our problems, Guilbeault said. This is a very weird message coming from the environment minister of a government that keeps leaning conspicuously on electric cars as a solution, whether its the 2035 mandate for 100 per cent zero-emission vehicle sales or the tens of billions of dollars in subsidies and tax credits it keeps throwing at EV battery manufacturers. Again, theres a kernel of truth in what hes saying, but its going to get lost in the language hes using to communicate it.

Conservatives in Canada right now might be terrible at climate policy, but theyre no slouches when it comes to politics, and Poilievre, Scott Moe and Danielle Smith didnt miss their free shots. At some point, Guilbeault and the rest of his cabinet and caucus might want to decide to stop handing them out like free candy on Halloween.

This isnt a completely new problem for the Liberals, either. The handling of the carbon tax rebate, which was rebranded this week, has been a years-long example of political malpractice. Its allowed conservative politicians and pundits to confuse Canadians about the impact of the broader carbon tax the Liberal government's signature climate policy and pretend that its driving the cost-of-living crisis everyone is facing right now.

At first, the Liberals included the rebates as an income tax deduction, which was described as the Climate Action Incentive Payment.'' When it became apparent people werent noticing it or that their tax preparers werent drawing sufficient attention to the rebate, they shifted to a direct deposit system. But even then, they couldnt get the banks to label it consistently and still insisted on using opaque bureaucratic branding rather than simple language.

Theyve fixed most of that now, it seems, but Band-Aids dont tend to stop this amount of bleeding. If they have any hope of cutting into Poilievres lead in the polls, much less taking one of their own, they need to start doing the work of politics as well as policy. Housing Minister Sean Fraser seems to get that. So does Immigration Minister Marc Miller and Labour Minister Seamus ORegan. But until the entire cabinet and the prime minister himself start appealing again to the hearts of Canadians instead of just their heads, theyre going to keep getting their butts kicked by Poilievre and his growing legion of supporters.

The political beatings will continue, in other words, until the politics improve.

Read more:
The Trudeau Liberals need to be better at doing politics - Canada's National Observer

Remember when late-night comedy shows were funny instead of being populated by left-wing lecturers?

Case in point in our weekly Liberal Media Scream is Late Show host Stephen Colbert. Along with many people last week, he watched the televised testimony of Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis and her explanation of her affair with an attorney she put in charge of the election case against former President Donald Trump.

How good was this sex? Good enough to risk democracy over? he asked in his monologue.

Colbert then added, You know what feels really good? Donald Trump going to prison. That that, my friends is what they call a real happy ending.

From Thursdays Late Show with Stephen Colbert on CBS:

STEPHEN COLBERT: Now, I dont know whos telling the truth here yet, but I will say exchanging business cards isnt exactly a meet cute. The movies not called When Harry Networked with Sally. Now, at one point, Willis had had enough and really laid into opposing counsel.

FANI WILLIS: Youre confused; you think Im on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. Im not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial.

SEE THE LATEST POLITICAL NEWS AND BUZZ FROM WASHINGTON SECRETS

COLBERT: Damn straight. Yeah. Thats right. Thats right. Heres the thing. Yes, its true Donald Trump and his associates are on trial in this, one of the most important cases in the history of our republic. So, and, Ive just got one follow-up question here: Given that if you are removed from the prosecution, it could delay this trial until after the election: How good was the sex? Good enough to risk democracy over? Because Ive never had sex that good. You know what feels really good? Donald Trump going to prison. That that, my friends is what they call the real happy ending.

Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: Liberals love to complain that Donald Trump has broken many norms, but prominent entertainment media figures like Colbert have destroyed late-night TV. It was a comedy refuge from hard-edged politics, but Colbert is using his show to advance left-wing talking points and push his hate of Trump and conservatives in the guise of comedy. Its not funny, and a legend like Johnny Carson, whose political jokes were light-hearted and chided both sides, is rolling over in his grave.

Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.

Read this article:
Liberal Media Scream: Colbert says Trump going to prison better than sex - Washington Examiner

Tasmania's Liberal premier has defended the gender balance of his election team as he turns to former senator and conservative Eric Abetz to boost his hopes.

The island state will vote on March 23 after the nation's only Liberal government, which had been in minority for nine months, called an early poll.

Mr Abetz, who served in the senate from 1994 to 2022, was pre-selected in January with political opponents labelling it as a move backwards and to the right.

He was officially unveiled as a candidate as the Liberal launch on Tuesday in Launceston but didn't speak at a press conference.

Premier Jeremy Rockliff, considered a left-leaning Liberal, has previously deflected criticism about Mr Abetz's candidacy.

"I'm excited about the breadth of experience in our team," Mr Rockliff said.

"We have a very strong and capable team."

Mr Abetz's federal career came to a close after he was demoted to a virtually unwinnable position on the Liberal senate ticket.

In 2017, he voted against a bill to legalise same-sex marriage.

The 66-year-old is running in the southern electorate of Franklin alongside former state minister Jacquie Petrusma, who is also aiming for a return after quitting politics in 2022.

Mr Rockliff said his team was representative of Tasmania, even though women made up just 13 of the 35 candidates.

Former attorney-general Elise Archer and Liberal-turned-independent Lara Alexander have lashed the party in recent months for having a culture problem.

"We've got over a third of the team made up of very capable females and women which is fantastic," Mr Rockliff said.

"I'm very excited about the team we have. We have capable people right across our state.

"Every single candidate (has) life experience and (is) really passionate and committed to represent the Tasmania people."

Tasmania's lower house is increasing from 25 to 35 members at the election, with seven MPs to be elected in each of the five electorates.

Story continues

The Liberals are chasing a fourth successive term but recent opinion polls have indicated it will be difficult for either major party to form majority government.

"What I'm concerned about is getting out there every single day as we have been, delivering thoughtful, costed policy," Mr Rockliff said.

Labor, which accused the Liberals of recycling candidates, campaigned in the state's south, pledging to scrap charges for power connection and disconnection when people move house.

Labor leader Rebecca White said Tasmanians moving to a new house had to pay about $100 to connect the electricity and $64 for a final meter read.

"Labor's top priority is urgent action on the cost of living," she said in a statement.

The Liberals have 11 incumbent MPs, while Labor has eight, the Greens two and four independents.

Mr Rockliff called the poll after being unable to resolve a stand-off with Ms Alexander and another crossbench independent.

See original here:
Premier defends number of women in team, unveils Abetz - Yahoo News Australia

A controversial essay written by former New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet in The Economist is generating lots of buzz and criticism due to his contention that a culture of illiberalism has infected The Times.

If you care about the future of journalism and liberal democracy, ignore Bennets message at your peril.

In case youve forgotten, Bennet was pushed out of his job in 2020, after greenlighting an op-ed written by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), which argued that the U.S. military should be called in to quell violence if local law enforcement needed support. This, in turn, led The Times union to decry publication of the piece as a clear threat to the health and safety of the journalists we represent.

The case for publication was simple: Cotton was a U.S. Senator who had then-President Donald Trumps ear. He was also talking about a timely and relevant topic, and (for better or worse) his position was popular with many Americans. This is to say that Cottons take was relevant and, daresay, newsworthy. And, again, this was an opinion piece.

Bennets goal, though, is not merely to relitigate the past, butmore importantlyto warn his colleagues about a new brand of journalists who believe their (social justice) ends justify their (coercive) means.

These illiberal journalists, Bennet explains, are more concerned with group rights than individual rights, which they regard as a bulwark for the privileges of white men. Additionally, they have seen the principle of free speech used to protect right-wing outfits, and do not believe readers can be trusted with potentially dangerous ideas or facts. Bennet also notes that The term objectivity to them is code for ignoring the poor and weak and cosying up to power, as journalists often have done.

Predictably, this rankled some progressive opinion leaders.

Critics of Bennet can attack him on the grounds of identity politics, or say he is merely settling old scores. Likewise, they can point to conservative columnists and positions taken at the outlet as an attempt to undermine his premise. But none of that refutes what Bennet is describing. Bennet does not allege that The Times never publishes conservative viewpoints, but that it heavily skews progressive, and that the biases of young progressives in the newsroom too often bleed into the opinion section.

One neednt agree with every point Bennet makes, butthree-and-a-half-years after his resignationits hard to argue that he is some sort of right-wing culture warrior, or that he has tried to monetize his cancellation. Instead, Bennet is, to borrow a phrase, credibly accusing The Times of attempting to limit discourse on opinion pages, and effectively censoring it, via bullying tactics.

Those of us who care about the future of journalism should avoid the temptation to reflexively dismiss his criticism. Instead, we should admit that he has a point, and admit that we are losing (by we, I mean small l liberals who care about things like norms and institutions).

As populist forces on the right have sought to discredit outlets like The Times, labeling mainstream media outlets as fake news, too many of these institutions have behaved in ways that reinforce the charge. Old-school liberalism espoused open mindedness, diversity, and tolerance, but nowadays, it would be hard to keep track of the number of contrarian or unorthodox ideas that were wrongly dismissed (and, in some cases, censored) as conspiracy theories by todays progressive media elites.

As Bennet notes, The Times was slow to break it to its readers that there was less to Trumps ties to Russia than they were hoping, and more to Hunter Bidens laptop, that Trump might be right that covid came from a Chinese lab, that masks were not always effective against the virus, that shutting down schools for many months was a bad idea.

This is pretty clear evidence that reporters and editors at the newspaper of record are allowing political bias to render them unable to spot uncomfortable truths that run counter to their politics. No wonder so many Americans tune them out.

The people who think limiting the discourse and shielding people are going to work are wrong. Not only is it going to fail, it already has. What is more, Bennets warnings, rightly understood, transcend not just The Times, but the media.

Bennet recalls meetings with fellow leaders at the paper, where they would sit around and lament the proliferation of illiberal journalists. Inevitably, he writes, these bitch sessions would end with someone saying a version of: Well, at some point we have to tell them this is what we believe in as a newspaper, and if they dont like it they should work somewhere else.

That moment never came. Instead, the illiberal journalists swamped the most important mainstream media outlet in Americajust like the illiberal MAGA forces overcame the Republican Party establishment without much of a fight.

This is clearly a trend. And if you think the Democratic Party is immune, we are seeing this right now in the White House, where interns are rebuking President Joe Bidens handling of the Gaza war.

Meanwhile, the bubble Bennet describes at The Times looks eerily similar to what we are seeing at our most prestigious universities. And just as middle America has increasingly tuned out the mainstream media, they are likewise losing faith in a college education.

Whether its on the left or the right, too many of the adults in the establishment are too timid or impotent to tell young staffers, subscribers, or interns (or Ivy League students) no. Instead, they are appeased, which, as the saying goes, is sort of like feeding a crocodile and hoping he eats you last.

James Bennets essay is a clarion call. Anyone who wants to preserve our liberal institutions had better start fighting backand fast.

Go here to read the rest:
Liberals Should Be Disturbed By James Bennet's New York Times Revelations - The Daily Beast