By Don | January 8, 2009
It didn’t take long for Harry Reid and the Democrats to reverse course on seating Roland Burris.
From the Politico
Harry Reid is poised to let Roland Burris take a seat in the Senate — an embarrassing about-face for a Democratic leader at the pinnacle of his power.
Just a week ago, Reid said unequivocally that anyone appointed by scandal-tarred Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich “will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.” But after a 45-minute meeting with Burris on Wednesday, Reid and Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said they had come up with a three-part plan to get Burris into the Senate — and that the hurdles in his way would be “pretty easy” to clear.
Sources say Reid and other Democratic leaders underestimated the spectacle that would be caused by blocking Burris’ appointment and that they’ll now have to explain themselves as they clear the way for him to take President-elect Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat.
“It wasn’t Reid’s finest moment, that’s for sure,” said an aide to one veteran Senate Democrat. “This looked bad from the beginning, and it hasn’t gotten any better.”
Reid bristled at the suggestion that he’d been outmaneuvered by Burris.
“It’s simply not true,” he snapped at a Capitol press conference.
Temper, temper.
By Don | January 8, 2009
With Charles Rangel embroiled in an ethics investigation, lobbyists are busy sifting the tea leaves for a clue on his future.
From the Politico.
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of one of the most powerful congressional committees, is under fire and under investigation. What’s a lobbyist with business before his House Ways and Means Committee to do?
When a Capitol Hill giant like Rangel begins to totter — and while his fate is far from decided, the ongoing ethics investigation into his alleged financial misdeeds creates a cloud of uncertainty around his ability to lead the panel — the K Street community scrambles to anticipate and exploit the next move.
Politico spoke with several lobbyists — all of whom requested anonymity as long as Rangel remains a powerful chairman — and a couple of experts to explain how Rangel’s troubles are playing on K Street. So here’s an amalgamated checklist that smart lobbyists with business before Ways and Means will be ticking through as Rangel fights to keep his gavel.
1. Check his vital signs. Lobbyists are pounding the Capitol’s hallways in search of news about how safe Rangel is with the Democratic leadership. So far, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and others are sticking by him until the House ethics committee completes its investigation.
But that investigation grew longer when the ethics panel announced it was expanding its inquiry to include allegations, first reported by The New York Times, that Rangel helped an oil company retain a lucrative tax loophole after it donated $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York.
The expanded investigation means the panel’s report is likely to come out far later than the early January date that Pelosi initially had in mind for a resolution.
Lobbyists also want to get the best reading possible on the direction of the ethics committee’s investigation, though that front should be rather quiet until the panel starts debating what action to take. Some lobbyists are even in touch with the many investigative reporters digging up all the dirt they can on Rangel.
2. Study up on the parlor game. While it’s now merely a topic of speculation, the biggest question on K Street is who would replace Rangel, should the investigation’s findings force him to give up the gavel.
“You have to spend a lot of time being ready for that eventuality and assessing as best you can what a possible successor’s priorities are going to be,” said one strategist whose firm has clients with business before the Ways and Means Committee this year.
Lobbyists have to face questions such as: Does the leadership change help or hurt your client? Can you get a fair hearing from the new chairman?
“You’re doing business as usual, but you’re playing three- and four- and five-dimensional chess on other issues,” the strategist said.
With Pelosi protecting Rangel and making a shambles of any investigation, the lobbyists will probably be able to proceed as usual.
By Don | January 8, 2009
Fox News Channel host Greta Van Susteren attacks CNN for its treatment of Sarah Palin.
From Greta Wire Blog
MORE ON CNN-GATE: (and, yes, I am having some light hearted fun calling it CNN-GATE…this IS Washington, DC!)
I just talked to a source who told me that CNN, from its Political Director, through a Wolf Blitzer producer Jill Chappell emailed a PRIVATE apology to the Governor of Alaska for putting her (unfairly trashing her) on the list with Senator John (”my wife is in cancer remission so I figured it was ok to cheat on her”), Governor Elliott (” has anyone seen my other black sock? the dryer again?”) and others….and then blasting the unfair trashing around the world ! The producer emailed that she did not know about the trashing and neither did Wolf nor the Political Director.
so now two questions:
1/ why didn’t CNN PUBLICLY apologize for this one? they sure unfairly trashed her publicly on that list….should not exposure of the apology equal the round the world exposure of the unfair trashing? That is what is done in court - you do what is necessary to make the person whole in the damage done to the person…and then it is over.
2/ a producer? why did she get stuck doing the dirty work on this one? why didn’t someone higher up the corporate food chain send the message of apology if CNN really means it? the job stature of the person making the apology can mean much. This IS the Governor of the largest state…a former candidate for VP….and the trashing went world wide and was really lousy….
(and yes, mistakes can be made….but how you respond to your mistakes says much about the person or the news organization.)
To place Palin on a list that includes Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards and Rod Blagoevich after she came out of nowhere and reignited the conservative base is ridiculous, but to remove her quietly and issue a private apology after placing her on a public list is cowardly.
By Don | January 8, 2009
The New York Times is scrambling to raise cash to avoid defaulting on its debt.
From the Atlantic
Virtually all the predictions about the death of old media have assumed a comfortingly long time frame for the end of print—the moment when, amid a panoply of flashing lights, press conferences, and elegiac reminiscences, the newspaper presses stop rolling and news goes entirely digital. Most of these scenarios assume a gradual crossing-over, almost like the migration of dunes, as behaviors change, paradigms shift, and the digital future heaves fully into view. The thinking goes that the existing brands—The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal—will be the ones making that transition, challenged but still dominant as sources of original reporting.
But what if the old media dies much more quickly? What if a hurricane comes along and obliterates the dunes entirely? Specifically, what if TheNew York Times goes out of business—like, this May?
It’s certainly plausible. Earnings reports released by the New York Times Company in October indicate that drastic measures will have to be taken over the next five months or the paper will default on some $400million in debt. With more than $1billion in debt already on the books, only $46million in cash reserves as of October, and no clear way to tap into the capital markets (the company’s debt was recently reduced to junk status), the paper’s future doesn’t look good.
“As part of our analysis of our uses of cash, we are evaluating future financing arrangements,” the Times Company announced blandly in October, referring to the crunch it will face in May. “Based on the conversations we have had with lenders, we expect that we will be able to manage our debt and credit obligations as they mature.” This prompted Henry Blodget, whose Web site, Silicon Alley Insider, has offered the smartest ongoing analysis of the company’s travails, to write: “‘We expect that we will be able to manage’? Translation: There’s a possibility that we won’t be able to manage.”
With subscriber and ad revenue slumping papers like the Times will be forced to scale back or eliminate their print editions altogether in a last ditch attempt to remain viable. Until they master the eb though their future is dim.
By Don | January 7, 2009
Add Phil Rosenthal to the growing list of the members of the media joining Twitter.
From the Chicago Tribune
A media person today must be a multimedia person. It’s not enough to write for the newspaper. I must blog. I must Facebook. I must Twitter.
So I’ve signed up for Twitter. Now, my stream of consciousness flows through twitter.com/phil_rosenthal in spurts of 140 characters or …
… less.
It will take time to get used to this “tweet” business, I’m sure. But I’m evolving as fast as I can, and on as many platforms as possible.
Hopefully Rosenthal won’t have his account hacked like CNN’s Rick Sanchez, but as Sanchez and others have shown twitter is a great way to communicate and get instant feedback.
By Don | January 7, 2009
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) challenges the GOP to try and beat him in 2010.
From the Politico
Harry Reid vowed Tuesday that he’ll lead the Senate until 2015 and beyond, taunting Republicans who’d like to unseat him and dashing the hopes of Democrats who’d like to succeed him.
The Nevada Democrat, who is up for reelection in 2010, said he’s actually looking forward to being considered a “vulnerable” incumbent then.
“You know, to be honest with you, I hope I am,” he said. “That way, [the Republicans are] going to spend lots of resources on me and leave states we’re looking at. They won’t have as many resources — and we have a lot of targets.”
In a wide-ranging interview with Politico on the first day of the 111th Congress, the Senate majority leader:
• Promised that Senate Democrats won’t be “rubber stamps” for the new Democratic president. “I like Barack Obama very much. He won a classic election, never have we had a better one,” Reid said. “But I don’t work for him, I work with him.”
• Criticized Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for suggesting that Democratic leaders would be undercutting gubernatorial appointments everywhere if they barred Roland Burris from the chamber. “That’s not valid, her statement,” he said. “I told her that. OK?”
• Declared the Minnesota Senate race absolutely, positively done. “Al Franken has won the election,” he said. “Norm Coleman will never be a senator unless he beats [Sen. Amy] Klobuchar,” who isn’t up for reelection until 2012.
Reid said he’s spent the last eight years as “a point on a spear going against George Bush.”
Reid will have to overcome an approval rating of just 38% and a disapproval rating of 54% in his own state if he hope sto lead past 2010.
By Don | January 6, 2009
The “Today” Show scrubbed a scheduled appearance by Ann Coulter to discuss her new book “Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America” to cover in their words “breaking news”.
From The Hollywood Reporter
NBC News denied Monday that conservative author Ann Coulter has been banned from the network after “Today” dropped her from Tuesday’s program because of breaking-news events.
The Coulter incident garnered huge headlines on the Drudge Report, which reported that network sources said NBC was not going to allow the frequent guest to appear any more.
That’s not true, NBC News said Monday. Coulter’s segment was dropped from the schedule because of news that the show was expecting to cover in the Gaza Strip with the Israeli military action there and in Washington with the Obama transition. “Today” had booked former British prime minister Tony Blair. Coulter was to promote her new book, “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America.”
“We’ve had Ann Coulter on ‘Today’ many times, but because of the news in Washington and the Middle East, we decided to cancel her appearance tomorrow,” NBC News said in a statement Monday. “Understanding the media as well as she does, we are sure she knows this happens from time to time. We look forward to welcoming her back in the future.”
Instead, Coulter will appear on CBS’ “The Early Show” to promote her book, according to an announcement on Coulter’s Web site. It wasn’t confirmed immediately by CBS.
“I guess this ends the ‘they just want to get ratings’ argument about liberal media bias,” Coulter wrote on her site of NBC. She was scheduled to appear January 9 on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes.”
I don’t think there is any conspiracy on NBC’s part to silence Coulter, after all they agreed to book her, but they should have known that canceling her appearance after the ruckus she created on her previous guest shots would be seen by some as such.
By Don | January 6, 2009
Despite puny revenues, plunging web traffic and a deep recession, the Huffington Post was able to attract a large investment from venture capitalists. They probably will never see their money again based on current valuations.
From AdAge
What if the privately held Huffington Post is worth not $200 million—a cracked-out number floated last year—or even $100 million, but, say, $2 mil?
This is not entirely an academic question, given that in December HuffPo astonished media watchers by securing $25 million in additional funding from Oak Investment Partners, a Palo Alto, Calif., venture-capital firm. The timing was particularly amazing, given that the lefty uber-blog’s traffic has lately been plummeting—a possibility my colleague Nat Ives examined way back in October. At the time Arianna Huffington insisted to Nat that the “Huffington Post is no longer as dependent on politics,” and so she wasn’t particular worried about the usual post-election readership swoon of politically-focused publications.
That $200 million figure first appeared in a Brian Stelter piece in The New York Times last spring. “According to one person who was briefed on discussions but was not permitted to speak for attribution,” Stelter wrote, “the company has at least looked at the value of the site if it were put up for sale, and a figure around $200 million was used.”
Amazingly, that number actually gained currency, though anybody with basic math skills and a halfway-decent bullshit detector knew the figure was nonsense, even before the economy melted down. Consider, for starters, HuffPo’s revenue. As Nat reported, from January through August of last year—the site’s most-trafficked year—“the site collected just $302,000 in ad revenue, according to an estimate from TNS Media Intelligence.”
Well at least it won’t slow Arianna down for now.
By Don | January 5, 2009
The New York Times has succumbed to the ad climate and the recession by agreeing to sell display advertising on its front page.
From the New York Times
In its latest concession to the worst revenue slide since the Depression, The New York Times has begun selling display advertising on its front page, a step that has become increasingly common across the newspaper industry.
The first such ad, appearing Monday in color, was bought by CBS. The ad, two-and-a-half inches high, lies horizontally across the bottom of the front page, below the news articles and a brief summary of some articles in the paper. In a statement, the paper said such ads would be placed “below the fold” — that is, on the lower half of the page.
In the past, The Times has printed an occasional front-page classified ad — two or three lines of text at the bottom of the page. And a few years ago it began selling display ads — which are much larger and can combine images and text — on the front pages of sections inside the paper.
If the ad slump continues it probably won’t be long until more ads appear and take over the front page.
By Don | January 4, 2009
Thanks to an unfolding federal grand jury investigation, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has withdrawn his name as the nominee for Commerce Secretary.
From the Politico.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson announced Sunday afternoon that he is withdrawing as President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for secretary of Commerce because of unanswered questions about a federal grand jury investigation back home.
“I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process,” Richardson said in an e-mailed statement issued by the transition.
Obama accepted the withdrawal with regret, saying in an accompanying statement that he looks forward to Richardson’s “future service to our country and in my administration.”
Richardson said he had told Obama that “eager to serve in the future in any way he deems useful.”
The grand jury has been investigating “pay-to-play” allegations concerning a New Mexico state contract awarded to a California firm that has contributed to three political committees formed by Richardson, The Associated Press reported last month.
A source close to Richardson told Politico, “There are too many unanswered questions and while he thinks the results of the grand jury will turn out in his favor, he doesn’t want to distract attention from the administration.”
Obama will need to move quickly to name a replacement if he wants to start on January 20 with a complete cabinet.
Visit the complete
Blog - Don Irvine archives.
