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.

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.

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.