The Times headline:

Some Dems uneasy with attack on Chamber

Reading a headline like that, you'd expect to read an article filled with quotes from some Democrats voicing their unease with the White House's ongoing battle with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, correct? Well, not at the LA Times. Its article includes a grand total of a one quote, from an unnamed “Democratic staffer.” One.

No joke [emphasis added]:

Democrats expressing reservations have worked on behalf of moderate candidates with business backing. They recalled past attacks on former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore for receiving foreign money and warned that White House charges now could lead to GOP reprisals, particularly if Republicans gain control of the House.

“The White House may reap the whirlwind,” said one top Democratic staffer. “What are we going to do next year if a Republican Congress is making baseless claims about President Obama? We'll want the media to hold them accountable to the facts and the evidence.”

That's it. That's the only person quoted in the piece who even remotely supports the headline and the thrust of the story. (i.e. “Some Dems uneasy”.)

The Times makes mention of other, unnamed Democrats who are supposedly nervous about the Chamber battle. But if you're going to build a news article around the claim that “Dems” are “uneasy” about it, shouldn't you be able to quote more than one anonymous “Democratic staffer” to make your point?