Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Whoever those so-called unnamed Democratic Senators and ex-staffers were, who thought it was a good [View all]former9thward
(33,424 posts)56. Maybe it isn't.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
90 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Whoever those so-called unnamed Democratic Senators and ex-staffers were, who thought it was a good [View all]
JohnSJ
Apr 2022
OP
Article said it was from staffers/Senators. But the only name dropped was Feinstein's.
Budi
Apr 2022
#5
Here is the SF Chronicle link, and they said specifically there were three Democratic Senators
JohnSJ
Apr 2022
#14
the SF Chronicle is hardly 'sleazy', it is the No Cal paper of record and extremely well respected
Celerity
Apr 2022
#36
I disagree, and you are trying to frame your opinion as the only valid one, whist falsely assigning
Celerity
Apr 2022
#68
Why do you keep trying to drag in progressives in to this? I never raised that issue. Perhaps
Celerity
Apr 2022
#72
Your attempts to frame the San Francisco Chronicle as some sort of leftie prog-hugging newspaper
Celerity
Apr 2022
#74
calling the paper progressive-leaning isn't a 'frame,' not even a criticism, just an observation
bigtree
Apr 2022
#75
No deflection at all. You have repeatedly tried to falsely assign a lefty prog-loving agenda to the
Celerity
Apr 2022
#77
Idgaf if they stuff her and roll her around like a weekend with Bernie. I WILL vote straight ticket
onecaliberal
Apr 2022
#8
I literally just got a local news alert about this. This makes me really fucking mad.
onecaliberal
Apr 2022
#22
I do remember trent lott praising Thurmond's and his segregationist views, and how much better the
JohnSJ
Apr 2022
#21
No, I probably wasn't paying attention, regardless it definitely isn't the same club that it was the
JohnSJ
Apr 2022
#55
Meh. Feinstein is from a deep blue state. They probably wouldn't have done this otherwise.
JoanofArgh
Apr 2022
#19
Whoever they are they did the right thing. Someone with dementia should not be in government. nt
Autumn
Apr 2022
#31
You mean reporting it as an UNNAMED source is the "right thing to do"? That speaks
JohnSJ
Apr 2022
#32
I was being sarcastic, but you are saying Feinstein has "dementia". That is about as valid as Frist
JohnSJ
Apr 2022
#34
It was mentioned a few months back that she has dementia. I started paying attention. If people who
Autumn
Apr 2022
#35
There have always been unnamed sources in governemnet. Chuck Schumer had conversations with her
Autumn
Apr 2022
#38
Also, still unnamed people. I remember them trying to play this toward Biden, when the jackass
JohnSJ
Apr 2022
#42
You can't read the one about Schumer's talk with her either? Here you go. got his name and all.
Autumn
Apr 2022
#44
Welp. The first one I read and I'm not a member, how odd that is the one with Schumer.
Autumn
Apr 2022
#43
The Daily Mail is not "like any other newspaper". It is a right-wing rag and a questionable source.
lapucelle
Apr 2022
#46
Yet you still ignore the issue, there are other links about Schumer's talks with her. You don't have
Autumn
Apr 2022
#52
I have to laugh at the contempt for the use of "unnamed sources". Exactly what kind of news do
Midwestern Democrat
Apr 2022
#61
You do know that reporters will agree to not release names, which is why they are called unnamed
Autumn
Apr 2022
#80
That suits people who only want to hear what they want to hear perfectly. Mustn't spoil their
Autumn
Apr 2022
#79
Yet you ignore what had Schumer concerned so much that he talked to her about it. We won't agree on
Autumn
Apr 2022
#83
No. It's not a canard. It's just not playing out in the media out of respect for her. That's why
Autumn
Apr 2022
#87