Philly's Inky & Daily News bankrupt

Well, I can't say I'm surprised.

Philadelphia Media Holdings, L.L.C., the company created by Brian Tierney (left) a few years ago that purchased both The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

It's another sad chapter in a long list of them for the nation's daily newspapers, and it's pretty sad to see. It's also sad to see that the once great Inky, as it is sometimes known, continues its downward slide.

Even though I personally dislike him greatly for being the partisan GOP hack that he is, I was pulling for Tierney and Co. to turn around Philly's newspapers. I feel his failure to do so is mostly a sign of the times - the newspaper itself is turning into a relic of yesteryear - something that Baby Boomers and grandfathers read. Personally, I no longer buy them, but I do visit my favorite paper's Websites on a daily basis: the Inquirer's, as well as the LA Times, the Washington Post and of course The New York Times. I don't think that any but the most successful papers have figured out how to make money off of their Websites, yet, but I think it will happen.

But, I do fault Tierney for a few decisions he's made. When the announcement was made that he would be operating the city's newspapers, Tierney pledged that he would not meddle with the editorial content of the papers. I don't think that even his biggest cheerleaders, if they were being completely honest, believed that one. And it didn't take the skeptics long to be proven right.

I couldn't help but laugh when Tierney hired former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who lost his reelection bid in 2006 to Sen. Bob Casey, to be a columnist for the Inquirer's editorial page. Hmm, that was a smart move - it didn't take a genius to figure out that one of the country's most Democratic cities wasn't exactly crying out to hear from one of the most polarizing Republicans in recent memory. Maybe Tierney can, ahem, inquire if Sarah Palin is available to write about her pathetic qualifications for being vice president or president? Yea, I'm sure Philly would love that.

A more damning incident about Tierney's stewardship occurred prior to the '08 election, when the editorial board voted to endorse Barack Obama for president. An editorial meeting about the endorsement reportedly became quite heated when Tierney forcefully pushed for the endorsement of Sen. John McCain. So much for not interfering with editorial content.

And so much for a comeback for Philly's daily newspapers.

Here's hoping that Philly's newspapers survive this latest sad chapter in their respective histories. My prediction is that the Inquirer will survive, but the Daily News will not. It's been rumored for years that the Daily News will be shuttered, and I think within the next year or two, we'll sadly see that happen.

Here's why Santorum is an ex-Senator

Here's another post that almost slipped through the cracks last week that I couldn't let go without writing about. Former-U.S. Senator-turned-political-columnist Rick Santorum just can't let the gay marriage thing go. I mean, will this guy ever get it? As Attytood noted last week, it's little wonder that this guy is an ex-Senator (I've said it before, and it bears repeating - it never gets old running the picture of conceited Rick conceding on election night in 2006). Anyway, someone living in a cave can monitor the political winds better than this guy.

Last week, in his Philadelphia Inquirer column, this is what Santorum had to say about California's impending recognition of gay marriages:

Bigot! Hate-monger! Homophobe!

Those were just a few of the terms hurled my way in 2003 when I said that the Supreme Court's Texas sodomy decision opened the door to the redefinition of marriage.

When I wasn't ducking the epithets, I was being laughed at, mocked, and given the crazy-uncle-at-the-holidays treatment by the media. Or I was being told I should resign from my leadership post by some Senate colleagues.

Five years later, do I regret sounding the alarm about marriage? No.

I'm just saddened that time has proved right those of us who worried about the future of marriage as the union of husband and wife, deeply rooted not only in our traditions, our faiths, but in the facts of human nature: as Pope Benedict said, "The cradle of life and love," connecting mothers and fathers to their children.

(Cue epithets: Bigot! Hate-monger! Homophobe!)

The latest distressing news came last week in California. The state Supreme Court there ruled, 4-3, that same-sex couples can marry.

In doing so, four judges rejected a statute that passed in a referendum with 61 percent of the vote that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

It's merely the latest in a string of court decisions that have overturned the overwhelming will of the people.

OK, if you're not inclined to hurl epithets, you might ask: Don't we have more to worry about than some court redefining marriage? After all, gas prices are soaring, health-care costs are rising, and our nation is at war. Why should we care what a few activist judges in California say?

Let's put aside the tired argument that the people should have a say in the laws of their government. That is so 18th-century white-male drivel. Thank goodness we have unaccountable judicial elites to make decisions for us bigots.

It's hard to know where to begin, here. First, I have to confess that it never gets old reading Ricky feeling sorry for himself. All sorts of epithets should have been thrown your way back in '03, Senator homophobe. Don't get me wrong - I'm not hateful like he is. He has a family and many young kids, and by all public accounts is a family man and a good father and husband. Good for him. (Really.) But, where I part company with Santorum in a hurry is when he feels the need to push his beliefs on everyone else, and as was the case in '03, on all Pennsylvanians and the Senate, too.

Next, Ricky talks about the "overwhelming will" of the people, and how they are opposed to civil unions. Well, let's talk about those numbers for a minute. As Kos points out, there are some pretty damning statistics that support gay marriage:

Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and have regular marriage laws apply to them? (Same question asked every survey throughout the years.) See the chart at right for the results.

It seems like the trend toward favoring civil unions and/or gay marriage is on the march, and has been for decades now, despite the bleak forecast of gloom and doom by Santorum. What's more, age in California is directly proportional to approval of gay marriage - the older are less in favor, while younger respondents are much, much more in favor (see below). So again, it doesn't take George Gallup to predict which way the trend will likely continue in the foreseeable future.

Santorum also decries what the new California Supreme Court ruling will do to organizations that do business with the state:

The California court just declared that those of us who see marriage as the union of husband and wife are the legal equivalent of racists. And openly racist groups and individuals can be denied government benefits because of their views, including professional licenses (attorney, physicians, psychiatrists, marriage counselors), accredited schools, and tax-exempt status for charities.

In Massachusetts, the first same-sex-marriage state, Catholic Charities, one of the state's largest adoption agencies, was forced out of business because it refused to arrange adoptions for same-sex couples. In New Jersey, a Methodist group lost part of its state real estate tax exemption because it refused to permit civil-union ceremonies on church-owned property.

People discriminating against gays, or in his words, "the legal equivalent of racists"? GOOD. Because they are. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was forced out of business because it refused to arrange adoptions for same-sex couples? Boo Hoo.

I hope I live to see the day where gays are mandated by the federal government to be treated on par with race as it relates to getting tax breaks and preferential treatment, be it taxes or any other benefit, including federal contracts.

How sweet would it be for Halliburton to lose one of its no-bid contracts because it wouldn't hire Dick Cheney's daughter? Pass me a slice of irony with pepperoni, please.

Keep pumping out that propaganda, Ricky. Before long, I'm sure the Inquirer, a once-great newspaper, will be run further into the ground by GOP hack activist Brian Tierney for hiring the likes of you.

No wonder I don't subscribe anymore. Any paper that feels Santorum is worthy of a columnist slot isn't worth my 75 cents every day.

Plus, who an forget the senator's insanely asinine comment leading up the the 2006 election about Democrats who were trying to take over the U.S. Senate and House: that their election would be a "disaster for the future of the world."

A year and a half later, I'm still thankful that Pennsylvanians saw fit to bounce his ass out of the Senate.

Yet another reason why I don't buy the Inky

Like an old hemorrhoid, every once in a while former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum flares back up to irritate most. (At right, a defeated Santorum concedes on election night in '06 after losing to Sen. Bob Casey. And NO, it never gets old running this picture.) What's worse, Santorum is now a columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer, thanks to the brilliant Brian Tierney, the former GOP activist hack who now runs the paper. Tierney couldn't get Republicans elected, so now he lets GOP losers spew their garbage on the once proud editorial pages of the Inky. Tierney couldn't even come up with a winning strategy to beat former Philadelphia Mayor John F. Street in an election, one of the worst mayors this city has ever seen. So, that's the intellectual capacity we're dealing with here, but I digress.

Anyway, after first publicly stating that he couldn't possibly support John McCain - SURPRISE! - now Santorum has decided to support McCain, quite simply because he has no other choice. From yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer:

I've disagreed with [McCain] on immigration, global warming and federal protection of marriage. I've taken strong exception to his view that the federal government should fund embryonic stem-cell research. But disagreement on such issues is one of the reasons we have presidential primaries - so each party's voters can sort out the issues and personalities and choose the candidate who best reflects their collective view. Republicans have done that. Now the question for conservatives is whether McCain fits the Reagan Axiom that someone you agree with on 80 percent of the issues is your friend, not your enemy.

Of all the issues confronting the United States today, none is more important than our nation's security. Although these issues don't dominate our news as they once did, we cannot forget that without a safe and secure country, all other issues don't matter.

McCain is clearly the candidate with the capacity, judgment, experience and will to confront America's enemies. He's served our country honorably - heroically - in war. I served eight years with him on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I can assure you he knows our military. Importantly, he also knows our enemies. He understands their capabilities and their aims. He will not sugarcoat the human or financial commitment and cost needed to defeat this enemy.

[Snip]

Those conservatives who still question whether they can support McCain should remember this: The next president will make more than 2,700 political appointments, those who really set policy, across the bureaucracy of our government. I, for one, will sleep better at 3 a.m. if Republicans are in the cabinet and in White House positions that make so many critical decisions. The idea of "Attorney General John Edwards" and "Energy Secretary Al Gore" should cause some sleepless nights for Republicans or conservatives - and those in a U.S. manufacturing sector now struggling to stay afloat.

Here's my final argument for John McCain. He's not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Both Democrats have made their case in chief on why they should be president, and we have every reason to be concerned.

Both want to cut and run from Iraq, give the radical jihadists a victory from the jaws of defeat, and leave the Iraqi people vulnerable to chaos. Both would put in place dangerous economic policies that would make Uncle Sam look like an Orwellian Big Brother. Both would nominate liberal activist judges who would pass undemocratic laws from the bench. Both support one-size-fits-all health-care policies that have been a disaster for patients and medical industries in Canada. Good-bye, American capitalism; hello, European-style socialism.

Pretty impressive, actually - Santorum hit on all of the GOP clichés in a very short amount of time - uni health care being socialism, his concerns about stem cell research and (of course) gay marriage, but most of all, a pinch of fear mongering when it comes to terrorism and keeping us safe. Oh, and some brown nosing about McCain's military record never hurts, either. And, what prominent Republican can write any political column without mentioning Iraq, and how Democrats want to "cut and run"? Psst - hey Rick - that phrase is about as passé as your reputation as a "rising star" in the Republican Party.

However, my favorite line of Santorum's whole piece was this one:

The idea of "Attorney General John Edwards" and "Energy Secretary Al Gore" should cause some sleepless nights for Republicans or conservatives - and those in a U.S. manufacturing sector now struggling to stay afloat.

Two things: First, as if "Attorney General John Edwards" would be any worse than John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales or Michael Mukasey? Puleeze. What is understood, needn't be discussed. And the same goes for "Energy Secretary Al Gore"; as if he would be any worse than Spencer Abraham, Samuel Bodman, or worse yet, Dick Cheney, who, along with energy company and Big Oil execs, have all been writing this administration's energy "policy" for the last 7+ years. Clearly, Santorum must think that Inquirer readers are stupid. Perhaps that's why he's "former" Senator Santorum.

And secondly, I sense a little boot licking going on here as well. It certainly isn't hard to imagine Santorum getting a plum position in McCain's cabinet, especially the more slick Rick shills for McSame on the editorial page of Pennsylvania's most well-known newspaper. What's more, McBush must carry Pa. if he hopes to move to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, so any bones Santorum throws McCain's way won't go unnoticed, or unappreciated.

Am I suggesting that Santorum's change of "heart" (assuming he has one) is politically motivated?

Absolutely.

See ya, Vinny - thanks for... nothing

I was heartened to hear yesterday that Pennsylvania State Senator Vincent J. Fumo is ending his re-election bid for Philadelphia's First District.

He will not be missed.

In Philadelphia's corrupt political system, Fumo is part of the problem, not part of the solution. I won't even get into all of his alleged improprieties - I don't feel like wasting the time by listing all of them here.

Recently, his health has been in decline - two back surgeries and a heart attack have taken their toll - but yesterday, he claimed that his health had nothing to do with his decision to retire from the Pennsylvania State Senate. He cited his 139-count federal indictment as his reason for stepping down.

Whatever the reason, I'm happy that he has decided to call it a day in the Senate. Now, Philadelphians who live in the First District (I am one) have another product of the city's political machine to oppose - electrical workers union boss Johnny "Doc" Dougherty.

In short, forget it. No way will I support another thuggish character from South Philadelphia. This morning, I read one of the most poignant editorials I've read in a long time in today's Philadelphia Inquirer. It is nothing short of a spot-on assessment of Dougherty and his corrupt, thuggish brand of politics; the kind of politics that may have been effective or at least desirable in this city 20 or 30 years ago, but those days have long passed in Philadelphia (I hope). The editorial from the Inky:

An old pol for a new day

State. Sen. Vincent J. Fumo's decision to not seek reelection leaves union boss John Dougherty as the clear front-runner.

That's good for Dougherty, but troubling for reform-minded voters. In some respects, Dougherty is a junior version of Fumo - though without the Mensa membership.

Both are brash, colorful, South Philadelphia characters.

In fact, Dougherty was once a Fumo acolyte. Like Fumo, he can be pugnacious and charming. Dougherty also does lots of good work, but he and his union buddies at times have acted like thugs.

Also like Fumo, federal prosecutors have a thick file on Dougherty. But unlike Fumo, Dougherty hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing. Dougherty's attorney said yesterday that prosecutors had told him that the union boss wasn't the target of any investigation.

In launching his bid for state Senate last week, Dougherty scoffed at the hint of any federal investigations into his dealings.

"I've been subpoenaed for 15 years, being a labor leader," he said. "It's a tough environment when you're aggressive and take on business."

Right. Just ask Jimmy Hoffa.

Johnny Doc's union tough-guy shtick might sell well with Johnny Friendly, the character Lee J. Cobb played in On the Waterfront. But that act is old.

Dougherty is a throwback in a town trying to move forward. He argues he gets things done. Fine. But it's also how things get done.

Mayor Nutter's election demonstrated that Philadelphians are fed up with the old-style politics of pay-to-play, cronyism and nepotism. Even lawmakers in Harrisburg are dragging themselves out of the Dark Ages.

Dougherty was a big supporter of former Mayor John Street, whose administration was marred in a broad corruption scandal. He also backed former City Councilman Rick Mariano, now in prison after being convicted of bribery.

Dougherty was never linked to either of those probes, but his choice of political allies is worth noting.

For example, his good friend Donald "Gus" Dougherty was indicted last summer on 100 counts of fraud and tax evasion. Gus is accused of making illegal payments to John by selling him a house at the Jersey Shore below market value and of doing $115,000 worth of work for free on Johnny Doc's Philly home.

John Dougherty denies any wrongdoing and says he wouldn't be running for public office if he faced legal trouble. He says all the poking around by the feds has been a good vetting process.

Yes, but that the feds are always hovering is disturbing.

For the record: Dougherty wants to replace Fumo, who is under indictment. In 1978, Fumo replaced Buddy Cianfrani, who was also indicted - and convicted.

Voters don't need a three-peat.

Amen to that. Normally, I don't have much love for the Philadelphia Inquirer these days, especially considering who runs it - the über-partisan, Republican hack Brian Tierney - but I certainly agree with the Inky's assessment of Dougherty. I was bummed about this editorial for one reason, though - it didn't mention Dougherty's opponent in the Democratic Primary, which is about five weeks away.

It's awfully tough to overcome labor politics in this city, but we are sure going to try. By "we" I mean supporters of Anne Dicker, (right) who is vying to knock off Dougherty in the April 22 Democratic primary.

Last night, we attended a fund raiser for Dicker at Johnny Brenda's. More on Dicker in a minute in a separate post.

Here's why Michael Nutter is getting my vote in today's Philadelphia Mayoral Primary

Up until a few days ago, I was undecided on who was going to get my vote in today's Democratic Mayoral Primary. However, Tom Knox made my decision pretty easy when I started receiving anti-Michael Nutter propaganda in the mail a few weeks ago. Here's just a sample of what I received. Above is the front cover, and below is the back cover.

Inside was all sorts of smear and garbage about Nutter. I was on the fence, until I got this stuff in the mail.

We'll see who prevails - so far, Philly.com's Website is reporting that turnout is very low.

The great thing about tonight's election coverage is that I won't have to see Brian Tierney on TV, telling us what he thinks about the election, since he is now CEO of the company that owns the Philadelphia Daily News and the Philadelphia Inquirer.

It's too early for prez polls

People from all walks of life have been carping and complaining that our next presidential election is starting earlier than ever. You'll get no argument from me; we can now officially debate which begins much to early - the Christmas buying season or our presidential elections.

Anyway, call me crazy, but even though the candidates, declared and undeclared, seem to be getting a fair amount of press these days, isn't it a little early for polls? At least six months early? The first primary is about nine months away, so polls are meaningless now, right? Yea, sure.

This is a cover that the Philadelphia Daily News ran on February 28, pimping a poll proclaiming that Pennsylvania is turning red. More specifically, that McCain or Giuliani would beat Hillary or Obama, according to the latest poll.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what a meaningless cover story. I'm not saying it because I'm no fan of Giuliani or McCain. I'm saying it because nine months is an eternity in American politics.

While Pennsylvania is a closely divided state, recent history has it trending it blue; the DemocratIC nominee has carried the state during the last four presidential elections, and Democrat Ed Rendell just began his second term as the state's governor. And it's not exactly like Republicans haven't tried, either; President Bush visited Pennsylvania more than any other state (aside from Texas) during his first term, and the state still went to John Kerry in 2004. (Democrats won the "Battle of Pennsylvania," but lost the war.)

I wonder if the motive for the Daily News running the above cover on Feb. 28 has anything to do with the paper's chief executive, Brian Tierney (right)? The former PR flak and Republican operative led a group of investors that bought both of Philadelphia's newspapers in March 2006.

So far, the jury's out on Tierney's influence over editorial content, (so that rates as a positive)but there's no question that the 2008 presidential election will be the biggest test of Tierney's leadership.

I'm no fan of Tierney's, and never will be. He has a checkered past as a PR executive when it came to the press. It's more than a little ironic that he became the chief executive of Philadelphia's two daily newspapers and philly.com. I certainly don't miss his ridiculously partisan election night diatribes on Comcast. (How a PR executive qualifies to give prognostications about politics is beyond me, but Comcast doesn't have a good track record of picking commentators at all; having Ed Rendell do post-game analysis of Eagles games is equally stupid.)

My point is that polls are a waste of time and money right now. It's much too early, but that's not likely to stop the media from conducting them anyway and reporting the results like the 2008 election hangs in the balance.

Tierney now heads the Inky. Great.

Brian Tierney, left, new chief executive of The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Philadelphia Daily News, and publisher Joe Natoli announce the completed purchase of the Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News, Philly.com and related media properties last Thursday.

Pardon me if I'm not jumping up and down with enthusiasm. I have a personal dislike for Tierney, a conservative with a strong partisan streak. I recall with laughter when Tierney headed the mayoral campaign of Sam Katz vs. John F. Street for Philadelphia mayor. It was clear pretty early on in the evening that Katz was going down to defeat, but Tierney and Katz waited to concede until after the 11 p.m. newscasts were over. Petty and amateur, guys. He was asked why they waited, and he said into news cameras, with a guilty look on his face, that his cell phone hadn't rang all night. Uh huh. Hey, even Gore was a good sport in the end after he had an election stolen from him.

I also stopped watching the Comcast election updates, because every election they would have Tierney on, giving us his conservative verbal diarrhea. I always wondered aloud what qualified him to be on there? Answer - his money and prominence in the city. Big deal. Every bit as stupid as having Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell on Post-Game Live. How is Rendell qualified to give us analysis on football games? And what's more, who cares what he thinks? I wonder if I can be on Post-Game Live? Who's next? (And I love Rendell, by the way, but I call it as I see it.) Who the hell is making programming decisions at Comcast?

There are two good things about Tierney being CEO of the Inky and Daily News. I probably won't have to watch him on the Comcast election shows any longer, because as a journalist he's not supposed to reveal his views or talk in a politically biased way (but his conservative politics are the worst kept secret in the city).

The second good thing? To be fair, it's good having a local company owning both papers. He's got a lot of work ahead, including impending labor strife, but if he makes it throught that, he could do some good for the paper. I do wonder if the Inky will become another Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, or Pittsburgh Post Gazette (Read: Conservative Rag). He claims he won't interfere with editorial content, but I'll believe it when I see it. Let's revisit this in a year.