Sources claim Sen. Feinstein suffers severe cognitive decline

[Silly Green Monkey]

Twelve years ago she was younger and healthier, no? McConnell became Senate leader in 2010. No one could have known that he would focus on obstruction.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think she was incompetent. Her refusing to retire in a strategic way was likely a result of hubris, not senility.

She thought her legacy was worth gambling a whole generation's fate and she (and we) all lost when she gave up the ghost.

RGB squandered her legacy by refusing to retire when the opportunity presented itself.

To be fair, she probably figured she'd have plenty of opportunity to tap out during Hillary's second term.

 

[theprestige]

Twelve years ago she was younger and healthier, no?

The young always assume they're going to live forever. Hopefully Biden will nominate some justices who have the wisdom that comes with age and experience.

 

[Minoosh]

Really? You don't think it's a little bit weird for someone on a senator's staff to call up the New York Post and say, "my guy is senile, but you didn't hear it from me"? You don't think it's a little weird for media outlets to run with these against-their-own-interest stories?

Why would a politician want or have anyone like that on their staff?

Unless the leaks are intentional? In which case, why would the media want to just publish whatever the politician's office wants them to publish?

I'm sorry, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder how you can possibly not think it's weird.

It's human. People involved in the media and/or politics develop relationships with each other, and in many contexts, people gossip. A rumor can be passed along to curry favor, as idle scuttlebutt, for malicious reasons or even with protective intent - wanting "their guy" to step down before having a major lapse in public. Sometimes reporters see it for themselves and wrestle with the ethics of revealing the condition of a public figure's health, vs. covering up something the know is happening. I don't understand why you think this would be against the media's interest. When something is all-but-common knowledge, media outlets may feel they have to acknowledge that something is going on. Or it could be a complete hatchet job. At the end of the day, everyone involved is human and they do things for all sorts of reasons.

 

[theprestige]

I don't understand why you think this would be against the media's interest.

Against the politician's interest. As in:

In the scenario where the politician's office is intentionally "leaking" information that makes the politician look bad, in the hopes that the media will publish it as a "story".

Why doesn't the reporter ask themselves why the politician's office wants them to publish a story that's against the politician's interest? Why doesn't the reporter opt *not* to play the politician's game?

 

[theprestige]

It's human.

Of course it's human. What other options are there? Ursine? Arcturian? Fey?

Lots of things humans do are weird, or toxic, or both. I wasn't asking you if you thought this was a human thing. I was asking if you thought it was one of the weird or toxic things humans sometimes do.

It's not like we're gonna say, "yes, reporters do often form improper relationships with the subjects of their reporting, to the advantage of their subjects and the detriment of their readers, but that's okay, because it's such a human thing to do."

 

[Minoosh]

Against the politician's interest. As in:

In the scenario where the politician's office is intentionally "leaking" information that makes the politician look bad, in the hopes that the media will publish it as a "story".

OK, that wasn't clear. IMO we don't really know how this story developed but I haven't taken any deep dive into it.

Why doesn't the reporter ask themselves why the politician's office wants them to publish a story that's against the politician's interest?

How do you know they don't?

Why doesn't the reporter opt *not* to play the politician's game?

Same question. Conversations about a source's motivation are common or at least were when I was in the business. If a reporter is hearing it from multiple sources with multiple possible motivations, that will affect the handling of a story. Multiple editors will be involved.

Of course it's human. What other options are there? Ursine? Arcturian? Fey?

I'm saying, put the "politician" label aside for a moment. The clearest example that came up for me when reading this thread was not political - it was about a Hall of Fame basketball coach, a local institution, who as the result of a series of strokes seemed to be losing his connection to reality. Not just in a "senior moment" kind of way. He was doing and saying things totally out of character. The media handled this with kid gloves. It wasn't, "Let's get this guy" or "Let's protect this guy." What we eventually ended up saying (in opinion pieces) was that his health was failing and he needed to focus on his health instead of trying to continue doing a highly demanding, in-the-spotlight kind of job. There is a good chance his family was totally on board with this opinion, but I was not privy to those conversations.

Lots of things humans do are weird, or toxic, or both. I wasn't asking you if you thought this was a human thing. I was asking if you thought it was one of the weird or toxic things humans sometimes do.

It doesn't immediately strike me as weird or toxic based on situations I experienced.

It's not like we're gonna say, "yes, reporters do often form improper relationships with the subjects of their reporting, to the advantage of their subjects and the detriment of their readers, but that's okay, because it's such a human thing to do."

It happens and I don't jump to the conclusion that these dynamics are improper or "to the detriment of their readers." Readers want to know things, readers (used to?) want to know that news media are vetting their information, not jumping to conclusions or covering anything up. It might seem idealistic to you, but that's my experience.

 

[angrysoba]

When exactly did she show she wasn't competent?

When she died?

 

[Minoosh]

When she died?

Yeah, she really shouldn't have done that.

 

[Upchurch]

To be fair, she probably figured she'd have plenty of opportunity to tap out during Hillary's second term.

From what I heard on NPR following her death, that had been her plan. Apparently, she like the idea of a woman President choosing the replacement for a woman Justice. Her only option then was to wait out Trump's term which, obviously, she did her best.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yeah, she really shouldn't have done that.

It was being alive that killed her, ultimately.

 

[TragicMonkey]

From what I heard on NPR following her death, that had been her plan. Apparently, she like the idea of a woman President choosing the replacement for a woman Justice. Her only option then was to wait out Trump's term which, obviously, she did her best.

Not entirely: another option would have been to convince Trump to get a sex change. I'm sure he could be tricked into it, he's not very bright. Or perhaps he'd take it willingly if he thought he would look like Ivanka afterward.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I don't think she was incompetent. Her refusing to retire in a strategic way was likely a result of hubris, not senility.

She thought her legacy was worth gambling a whole generation's fate and she (and we) all lost when she gave up the ghost.

RGB squandered her legacy by refusing to retire when the opportunity presented itself.

Why should a woman in her mid-70's and two minor health issues that were 10 years apart need to be forced from the job if she was still competent?

If anyone is to blame for losing her seat it is Democrats and the progressives who failed in turning out in sufficient numbers to make sure that the Democrats held the Senate in 2010 and retained the Presidency in 2016. Blaming RGB for not being able to see 11 years into the future is pretty low.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

She thought her legacy was worth gambling a whole generation's fate and she (and we) all lost when she gave up the ghost.

RGB squandered her legacy by refusing to retire when the opportunity presented itself.

You are probably right, but why stop there? Calculate the resources you are using on this planet and you will find that your refusing to give up a comfortable life is gambling a whole generation's fate. For the good of future generations you should retire from existence now.

What, you don't think it's your time yet? Such hubris!

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
She thought her legacy was worth gambling a whole generation's fate and she (and we) all lost when she gave up the ghost.

RGB squandered her legacy by refusing to retire when the opportunity presented itself.

You are probably right, but why stop there? Calculate the resources you are using on this planet and you will find that your refusing to give up a comfortable life is gambling a whole generation's fate. For the good of future generations you should retire from existence now.

What, you don't think it's your time yet? Such hubris!

 

[xjx388]

It’s weird how there is no mechanism to remove members of Congress due to incapacitation. Apparently, it has happened where people have been absent for years due to stroke or some other debilitating illness.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/w...ted-and-cannot-perform-the-duties-of-the-job/

 

[rockinkt]

I don't think she was incompetent. Her refusing to retire in a strategic way was likely a result of hubris, not senility.

She thought her legacy was worth gambling a whole generation's fate and she (and we) all lost when she gave up the ghost.

RGB squandered her legacy by refusing to retire when the opportunity presented itself.

Well said.

 

[rockinkt]

Why should a woman in her mid-70's and two minor health issues that were 10 years apart need to be forced from the job if she was still competent?

If anyone is to blame for losing her seat it is Democrats and the progressives who failed in turning out in sufficient numbers to make sure that the Democrats held the Senate in 2010 and retained the Presidency in 2016. Blaming RGB for not being able to see 11 years into the future is pretty low.

You should try and get at least the basic facts straight.
After all - we do try and pretend that this is a sceptics board.

Ginsberg was 83 years old in Obama's last year as President - not in her 70s.
If you think colon cancer and pancreatic cancer are "two minor health issues" you are incredibly uninformed.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Biden doesn't have a speech impediment. Look at old videos of him. He was a quick and confident speaker, he could think on his feet. What he said was frequently complete ********, but he came up with it fast, and could keep on point.

He isn't nearly what he used to be.

If we were to ask him to say "Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV", do you think he'd be able to manage it? Because if so, then his mental acuity is amazing - better than any doctors have ever seen.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You should try and get at least the basic facts straight.
After all - we do try and pretend that this is a sceptics board.

Ginsberg was 83 years old in Obama's last year as President - not in her 70s.

Her pancreatic cancer scare was in 2009, Obama's first year, she was 76. There is no way she would have resigned in Obama's last year when he already had an empty seat and no way to get Merrick Garland into it because of the obstruction of the Republican-held Senate.

If you think colon cancer and pancreatic cancer are "two minor health issues" you are incredibly uninformed.

Both were considered early detections, and with her colon cancer, she continued to work through the chemo without any breaks. The pancreatic cancer was dealt with by minor surgery.