philadelphia inquirer 
|
|
Sat Oct 17, 2009 at 04:20:18 PM EDT
|
Saying he was still the best choice to lead New Jersey, the Philadelphia Inquirer today endorsed the re-election campaign of Governor Corzine:the Democrat's record shows a capacity to go against the state's traditional politics and improve its government. Given that record and the weak alternatives, The Inquirer endorses JON CORZINE. They took a good look at some accomplishments of the Governor over the last four years:Corzine has taken some of the sternest steps in memory to push school and municipal consolidation, while capping property levies. But he has managed only to significantly slow the growth of property taxes, not reduce them.
The governor has also pushed for the nation's strongest campaign-finance laws. But he has been stymied by an unrepentant Legislature and tarnished by his own generous underwriting of party bosses. And they had this to say about some successes that were less than hoped for, but more than has been done:Some of Corzine's imperfect victories are nevertheless remarkable for a New Jersey governor - and hard to imagine under the state's usual government by insiders.
The dual-officeholding ban he championed, for instance, is often criticized for excepting current offenders, but it will put an end to a backward practice that was thoroughly entrenched. The governor hasn't fully realized his school funding formula, but it replaces an unsustainable system of heavily subsidizing a few poor school districts - and undoes bad policies long protected by his fellow liberals. They said the other candidates haven't made the case for being a better replacement to the Governor and coupled with his accomplishments, Corzine should lead the state for four more years. We'll see which way other papers go in the coming days.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 12:32:33 AM EST
|
Here's how philly.com reports on bankruptcy for the major Philly papers:
Philadelphia Newspapers L.L.C., which owns The Inquirer, the Philadelphia Daily News, and Philly.com, filed for bankruptcy protection today in a bid to restructure its $390 million in debt load.
The company, bought by a group of Philadelphia-area investors for $562 million in 2006, said the voluntary Chapter 11 filing would not interrupt its daily operations.
While the recession has hit advertising revenue, the papers still make an "operating profit." The problem is the huge debt the owners took on to buy the papers. It's time to repeat the first lesson of investing:
Leveraging works both ways.
|
|
Discuss
:: (6
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:30:41 PM EDT
|
Matt Stoller quoted Josh Zeitz on the Philly Inquirer:
the Philadelphia Inquirer never covered my race once. Never interviewed me. Never sent a candidate questionnaire. Never responded to any of dozens of press releases. Purports to oppose the Bush tax cuts, the war, the bankrupcy bill, homophobia, and the Christian Right. But endorsed Chris Smith. This is the state of journalism today. They endorsed someone without even interviewing by paper or in person his opponent."
Having our news dominated by Philadelphia and New York media organizations that don't care about us is one of the many structural problems of New Jersey politics. Reading the quote above reminded me, though, that I've been meaning to thank the Press of Atlantic City for actually covering the NJ2 Congressional Race year. Besides commissioning a poll of the 2nd district race, here's a selection of articles in which the Press (mainly the reporter Daniel Wash) actually covers the candidates regularly:
Kurkowski claims LoBiondo broke 'Contract with America' (Oct 11)
LoBiondo votes against revised bailout bill (Oct 4)
Kurkowski says LoBiondo failed to oversee Coast Guard project (Oct 3)
LoBiondo's surprise: He'll debate (Sept 20)
Kurkowski challenges LoBiondo's long record (Sept 20)
Kurkowski challenges LoBiondo's effectiveness (Sept 11)
Now in my local paper, there is usually only a couple of articles covering the incumbent and the challengers. Here we see regular press coverage, which is essential to an informed citizenry.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:51:23 AM EDT
|
Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer-- one of the most widely read papers in South Jersey-- endorsed Barack Obama for President:
Both major candidates are trying to avoid association with Bush's failed policies. But only one does so successfully. On every issue important to America, Barack Obama offers a plan that would pull this nation from the precipice built by bad Bush decisions. The Inquirer endorses BARACK OBAMA for president.
While John McCain also promises "change," it's hard to believe that's possible from someone who, by his own admission, has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time. On key issues such as campaign finance, pork-barrel spending, and humane interrogation of terrorism suspects, McCain has indeed been a "maverick." But mostly, he and Bush have been on the same page.
More troubling was McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. This blatant overture to women voters and evangelical Christians who share her views on abortion backfired when Palin in interviews proved she is not prepared to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
The Inquirer also compared the two candidates' policy proposals on Iraq, taxes, energy, and health care, and it wasn't even close:
Over the past four months, this Editorial Board has compared the candidates' positions. In almost every case, Obama has a superior proposal for this nation. Consider:
Give McCain credit for supporting the successful "surge" of additional U.S. troops to Iraq. But McCain opposes a timetable for leaving Iraq, something even the Iraqi government wants. Obama wants a reasonable timetable for withdrawal, coordinated to protect U.S. troops, that would allow our focus to shift to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area, where Osama bin Laden is holed up.
One of the most persistent deceptions in this campaign is McCain's claim that Obama proposes "painful tax increases on working American families." Obama would raise income taxes on households earning more than $250,000 per year. Most households - 81 percent - would receive a tax cut. The nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has calculated that households earning between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would save $1,118 on their taxes annually under Obama's plan. McCain's proposal would save those same families, on average, $325.
On energy, both McCain and Obama favor alternatives such as wind, solar and biofuels to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But McCain wrongly emphasizes offshore drilling, which will have minimal impact, and building more nuclear plants, which will take decades.
Obama would provide health insurance to more Americans. He would subsidize premiums for the working poor, mostly paid for by repealing the Bush tax cuts but also by requiring businesses that don't provide medical benefits to contribute. McCain's idea to provide medical tax credits of $2,500 per person and $5,000 for families would come at a hefty cost, ending the tax break given workers whose health care is paid for them at work.
The board concludes with a powerful, simple argument:
These times demand steady, focused leadership. Leadership that takes America far from the policies that have created so much fear. Leadership that says it's OK to hope, because hope properly directed yields results. Barack Obama is ready to provide that leadership.
Now, why I did I mention in this diary's title that the Inquirer "Kind of" endorsed Obama? Because they took the highly unusual step of noting their endorsement was not unanimous among the editorial board, and as such, they posted a short bit on the dissenters' views. I'm warning you, it ain't pretty:
Ask people to describe McCain and the first response often is, "He's honest." What you see is what you get. There are no mysterious associations to dance around. No 20-year attendance of a church whose pastor preached anti-American sermons. No serving on an education reform panel with a domestic terrorist. No financial support from a convicted felon. No ties to a group currently under investigation for possible voter-registration fraud.
And McCain didn't hire as a strategist David Axelrod, who helped lead Mayor John Street's race-baiting reelection campaign.
Wow. Sounds like someone on the editorial board is not exactly a happy camper.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:10:58 AM EDT
|
|
So far, at least nine papers have published endorsements in the Democratic US Senate primary, and at least seven have endorsed in the Republican primary.
If you know of any endorsements that we're missing, post them in the comments and we'll add them to the table.
|
|
Discuss
:: (8
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:14:48 AM EDT
|
|
Is this the beginning of a trend? Philadelphia Enquirer: Rob Andrews has built a solid record in the House as a thoughtful legislator, and he would bring a fresh approach to the challenges facing New Jersey. For the Democratic nomination for Senate, The Inquirer endorses ROBERT E. ANDREWS
(T)his Editorial Board sees healthy competition. Lautenberg doesn't own this seat. Incumbent or no, Andrews is a highly qualified candidate. For those of you who aren't feeling intractable (we've all been there) maybe it's time for a second look at both candidates?
|
|
Discuss
:: (9
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:55:21 PM EDT
|
The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board endorses Frank LoBiondo in his Republican primary:
A hardworking moderate who understands the need for bipartisanship, LoBiondo, 62, has worked to improve homeland security in his district...
"Worked" is a interesting choice of words: As readers of this blog know, Frank LoBiondo was a key figure who supported the Lockheed Deepwater program against critics and reformers. The program went to on waste over 20 billion dollars while providing the Coast Guard with non-functional ships. That's his major contribution to "homeland security." You'd expect an Editorial Board to know better, but to my knowledge their paper has never reported on the matter. Maybe they should get a subscription to the New York Times, or if they can't afford it, the Gloucester County Times, or failing that, use the internet.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:37:15 PM EST
|
The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board has usually been on the leading edge of most issues. So it's sad to see that when it comes to civil rights for same-sex couples in New Jersey, they are complacent with a failed status quo and lining up on the wrong side of history:But with poll after poll showing that New Jersey residents are not ready to accept gay marriage, it would be more destructive to that movement were it to attempt to force the issue at this time. I completely disagree with their interpretation of what the polls really show. All recent polling data I could find is at the end of this post, and you can decide for yourself. But the larger point is that polls haven't and shouldn't determine whether or not our country extends civil rights to all.
If we had waited until polls showed overwhelming numbers before enacting civil rights laws, our country would probably be a very different place today.
In 1948, Harry Truman proposed civil rights legislation to desegregate the military, make lynching a federal crime, and end the use of poll taxes to disenfranchise poor blacks. A March 1948 Gallup poll found "deep ambivalence" among the 63% who had heard of the program. "A third (33%) said the whole program should be passed, while 31% said it should not, and 34% would not offer an opinion on the matter."
Truman faced opposition at election time even from within his own party. This provoked a firestorm of criticism from Southern Democrats in the time leading up to the national nominating convention, but Truman refused to compromise, saying "My forbears were Confederates... But my very stomach turned over when I learned that Negro soldiers, just back from overseas, were being dumped out of army trucks in Mississippi and beaten."
That's quite a contrast to the timidity of some of our candidates (and their supporters) today who are paralyzed by fear of doing anything brave during election season.
The public was also timid during the civil rights era. In a June, 1961 Gallup poll [The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion, page 237] where respondents were asked if integration "should be brought about gradually" or if "every means should be used to bring it about in the near future", 61% said gradually while only 23% said it should happen soon.
The echoes of the past still haunt us today. Our 'progressive' governor thinks we should drag our feet a bit more before providing equality. "It's my own view that that's where our society is at this moment in time," he says.
The proposed Civil Rights Act also did not have overwhelming popular support. A June 1963 Gallup poll identified a "mixed reaction to the idea of racial equality in public places, with a slight plurality (49%) in favor, compared to 42% opposed."
It wasn't until after the legislation passed that support grew significantly. In two polls conducted in September and October of 1964, the public approved of the legislation by 2-1, about 60% to 30%.
Most recent polling in New Jersey (see table below) shows either a plurality or majority support for extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.
We don't need to wait for utopian poll numbers before acting. Because the challenge we're facing today isn't harder than any past battle for equality. We need brave leaders who understand the promise of America. And we need those too timid to join the fight to step aside, or risk standing on the wrong side of history.
New Jersey Polls: marriage for same-sex couples
|
|
Discuss
:: (26
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:42:00 AM EST
|
The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial page regurgitates a myth that Blue Jersey readers are no doubt familiar with:
But with poll after poll showing that New Jersey residents are not ready to accept gay marriage, it would be more destructive to that movement were it to attempt to force the issue at this time.
I don't suppose they're talking about the New Jersey that has supported marriage equality in poll after poll.
I thought this blog and organizations like Garden State Equality had put this myth that New Jerseyans "are not ready for gay marriage" to bed. Even Governor Corzine has abandoned this argument. For the Inquirer to revive it at this time is utterly unhelpful, if not "destructive".
|
|
Discuss
:: (4
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:18:45 AM EST
|
|
We've recently been discussing North / Central / South Jersey, and central to most everyone's definitions is the recognition that South Jersey is in Philadelphia's orbit. We all joke about Eagles fans, but the Philadelphia media plays a major role for better or worse. I'm sorry to say that it still appears that a strike is a real possibility soon at the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News, which appear online as philly.com. The current deadline is midnight Nov. 30th.
Will Bunch has posted a diary at dailykos "The coming Philly newspaper strike -- a plea for support" which details the history and current situation at the Philadelphia papers. I suggest you click through and read it. Then, think about what Mr. Bunch, known online as attytood, has asked:
Good, so now that you're on board with us, what can you do to help?
Just a few simple things: 1. Today, the Newspaper Guild announced the site where we will continue to report on the important news of Philadelphia, and where the columnists and bloggers -- like myself -- of the Daily News and Inquirer will continue to write. It's called philapapers.com, and if you visit the site and read us every day, it will help build support and also help us attract advertisers as that becomes necessary. 2. Conversely, do nothing of any kind to support the management of the Daily News and Inquirer as they try to continue to publish during a strike. That means avoiding their Web site, Philly.com, and -- if you live in Philly -- not purchasing a newspaper or cancelling a subscription for the duration. 3. Bloggers -- and I know there are many in the DK community -- can particularly help, by writing on our behalf but also by linking to PhilaPapers.com and adding us to your blogroll, and also by pledging NOT to link to anything on Philly.com during the strike duration. If you wish to help in this way, you may also contact me at bunch.will@gmail.com to better coordinate this.
I myself will not link to philly.com if there is a strike or lockout.
[Update: 12-01-06 12:09AM The negotiations have been extended and the strike postponed. Let's hope there's a settlement soon.]
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:36:32 AM EDT
|
|
Progressives in NJ-3 have something to celebrate. Our candidate for Congress, Rich Sexton just picked up an endorsement from the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Calling both candidates "good choices" they give the edge to Rich, and for good reason: he's a better candidate. The paper also notes: This campaign has been refreshingly upright and issues-focused. But while Sexton has offered aggressive congressional ethics reform proposals, Saxton cavalierly dismisses recent scandals with a "bad apples in the barrel" shrug. Any one who can shrug off the Iraq debacle AND pedophiles in their midst -- as Jim Saxton does -- has a tenuous grasp on mainstream values. If you ask me, Jim Saxton is a rotten apple too, but that's just my two cents worth.
A lot of folks consider an upset in NJ-3 a longshot. To the doubters I say this: go out campaigning with Rich Sexton and watch him connect with voters. He's got that special something that tells me that he's the man to pull off a win in a district ripe for change. And ripe for an upset, too.
Can you help out with a $5 or $10 contribution? It seems like a small investment for a democratic majority, don't you think?
 
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
| Featured Stories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
