The Republican fall guy in California: Blame Bush, not Davis, for CA's economic woes (Scheer Alert!)

Salon ^ | July 2, 2003 | Robert Scheer

[Dont Mention the War]

There is reality, and there is Planet Scheer.

[tallhappy]

Scheer proves again he is insane.

[Pukin Dog]

If Scheer was a horse, he would have been shot and turned into glue by now. What a nut.

[Rodney King]

What a jackass. Even if everything that he said is true, which it isn't, the amount of money doesn't comapre to the amount of the budget defict.

[Theresawithanh]

Glad you posted this from Salon. I won't sign on to the LA Slimes to read Scheer. He is a total nutcase. His remark about the state of the economy that Clinton left for President Bush is scheer lunacy.

The "about the author" bit should read: "Robert Scheer is a constipated sonambulist".

[DoughtyOne]

All I could do is laugh out loud at this idiot. These are the writings of a man the Los Angeles Times has on the payroll. Any questions? Ah ha ha ha ha, ah ha ha ha ha ha...

[Reagan Man]

Scheer is a liberal POS.

[ElectricRook]

Don't you guys know the rule? This one comes from the founder of the Socialist Democratic Party, no less.

"When you tell a lie make it a big one and tell it often."

--A. Hitler

[DoughtyOne]

If I were writing for the Los Angeles Times I'd try to write articles that would speak for the conserative or liberal point of view.  I would think this would appeal to the Los Angeles Times editors.  For the life of me I don't understand whose views Sheer are trying to address.

Democrats don't like Bush or conservatives, but as wierd as they are, they do try to speak to at least 40% of the populace.  Sheer can't be speaking for more than a couple of percent of the populace.  His views are so 'out there' there's very little chance of any but the absolute 'fruit loop fringe' buying into his offerings.

This begs the question, why would the Los Angeles Times present this man's views?  Worse yet, why would they pay a man who is often so far out there that you wonder about his sanity?  Where does he come up with this stuff?  I never run into people who express his views.  He must be hybernating in a room at the socialist university of transindental meditation or something.  What it is, I just do not know.

Robert Sheer, how does it feel to have most liberals thinking you're in need of hospitalization lock-down for psychological services, and the conservatives wondering how you escaped in the first place?

[Reactionary]

Yes, but Scheer is a horse. Just look at him.

His formulations are not horse-like, however. They are ass-like.

[Salem]

This guy is another typical leftist/Democrat liar. He forgot to mention a Democrat controlled state government from top to bottom, and that being so, a state economy completely given over to socialist philosophy, from the economy, to the schools and universities, to every other aspect of public policy. Thus, the abject failure of "the state."

If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny. Ah, hell, I live here and it's funny. Seeing Demos in the Letters to the Editors pissing and moaning because the cuts to "services" and all their other entitlement programs as their big government plans are shrunk by sheer market force. .

Pay attention, America. California will happen to you if you let the Democrats gain any semblence of control. Third world country status and pointing the finger at everybody else as you descend into moral and political squalor.

[optimistically_conservative]

Ok, but then who do we blame for Salon's economic woes?

Salon.com Sued by Landlord-Forfeits $400K Deposit for Decreased Rent, to Avoid Eviction

[optimistically_conservative]

This begs the question, why would the Los Angeles Times present this man's views?

Because Ted Rall only writes columns once a week and they can't afford him, or anyone else anyway?

[Thorondir]

Hey, fellas, this guy is right up your alley, and on that very same page!

Enjoy.

[DoughtyOne]

Are you saying they pay Rall too much? I don't even know who he is. I haven't sat down and read an LA Times in at least three years.

[optimistically_conservative]

Are you saying they pay Rall too much?

If they pay Rall, it's too much.

I haven't sat down and read an LA Times in at least three years.

Good for you, don't start on my account...

Circulation of the nation's 20 biggest newspapers

1. USA Today, 2,250,474, up 1.8 percent
2. The Wall Street Journal, 1,820,600, unchanged
3. The New York Times, 1,130,740, down 5.3 percent
4. Los Angeles Times, 979,549, down 0.6 percent (a)
5. The Washington Post, 796,367, down 1.9 percent
6. New York Daily News, 737,030, up 0.7 percent
7. Chicago Tribune, 621,055, down 1.1 percent
8. New York Post, 620,080, up 10.2 percent
9. Newsday of New York's Long Island, 579,351, up 0.3 percent
10. Houston Chronicle, 548,508, up 0.5 percent (a)
11. The Dallas Morning News, 532,050, up 1.1 percent
12. San Francisco Chronicle, 514,265 (b)
13. Chicago Sun-Times, 491,795, up 0.9 percent
14. The Arizona Republic, 486,131, down 2.1 (a)
15. The Boston Globe, 448,817, down 6.3 percent
16. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 419,568 (b)
17. The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., 407,730, up 0.3 percent
18. The Philadelphia Inquirer, 386,890, up 1.5 percent
19. Star Tribune of Minneapolis-St. Paul, 375,505 (a,b)
20. The Plain Dealer of Cleveland, 373,137, up 1.3 percent (a)

(a) includes Saturday circulation (b) paper had a change in the number of editions or a change in reporting periods. No comparable figures were provided

[bonesmccoy]

That's ok... I haven't read that paper either. There's too much that reaches print and has no basis in reality.

[DoughtyOne]

Twenty years ago the Times had a circulation of about 1.15 million, as I recall. I sometimes wonder how many actual SFDs get the paper. A lot of the issues are bought for the office, or for schools or for some other group purpose.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the listing.