Rep. Linda Sanchez (no, not Loretta) knocked up!

November 20th, 2008 · 71 Comments

Pat Morrison of the LA Times has a short piece about Congresswoman Linda Sanchez’s pregnancy announcement. First off, congrats Linda. You wanted a baby, and now I hope you have a happy and healthy one and an uneventful pregnancy.

Here’s my take on it. Linda Sanchez is not married but is engaged and planned this pregnancy. Not the ideal way to go about things, especially in a community with a teen pregnancy rate that is twice the national average and a rising out of wedlock birthrate. Sure, at 39, Rep. Sanchez’s biological clock is ticking, and her window of opportunity shrinking. But come on, in a community lacking role models on the national scene, I wouldn’t have suggested that she announce this pregnancy prior to at least having a civil wedding ceremony. There are wedding chapels all over Southern California, and we are in close proximity to Las Vegas…. why not get married now if you plan to do it anyway?

Other options would have been to have some of her eggs frozen for insemination and implantation at a later time. Not as exciting as conventional baby making, but it could have bought her some time to plan a wedding and pursue her legislative agenda once Obama takes office in January and the next session of congress kicks off.

As Pat Morrison points out, this situation is very different from Bristol Palin’s pregnancy in that Linda Sanchez has completed her education, has a career, and the means to afford being a single mom. Additionally, Rep. Sanchez is in a committed relationship with her fiance Jim Sullivan, a PR and government relations consultant.

For me, the point is that the Latino community, as a whole, is struggling with single motherhood and out of wedlock births, and we like to point to our sense of family values as being solid. Sanchez’s move does not send a positive message to our younger Latinas and Latinos, and frankly, doesn’t show very good family planning on her part. Her biological clock has been ticking loudly for some time now. So aspiring Latin@ politicians, please think about family planning more carefully in planning your career. What might be fine in the private sector or in private life becomes very public once you start living off the yield of the taxpayer’s labor. And again, think of the larger picture, the example you set for your community and constituents, who might not have the means to enter single motherhood as easily.

Updated: The Sleuth at the WaPo has a post about Linda Sanchez’s announcement, along with a nice picture of her boyfriend “Sully.” They are saying that they are “unofficially engaged.” WTF? Note how she’s the only Congresswoman to have become pregnant while being unmarried. Leave it to the Latina, right? We sure are paving the way.

Tags: Rep. Linda Sanchez · Rep. Loretta Sanchez · teen pregnancy

71 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Anna // Nov 20, 2008 at 3:25 pm

    I agree. She should have gotten married before making the announcement.


    As other have said, we need better leaders!!

  • 2 Mexitli // Nov 20, 2008 at 4:27 pm

    She can get married when she and her fiance are ready.

  • 3 Michaelr // Nov 20, 2008 at 4:38 pm

    Just when you began to think there were distinct differences between Loretta Sanchez and her younger sister Linda regarding professional behavior, leadership qualities, and public service etiquette, out comes this. Did someone just have a giant brain-fart? What kind of message does this send to Latina teenagers over the age of fourteen? “Ooo yea, let’s have babies, so we can pass along all our dysfunctional arrogant behavior to another generation.” As if our community needs more of this? Well…Hilda Solis…it looks you’re the only Latina Congressional representative with your head on straight!

  • 4 theKaiser // Nov 20, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Oh, I guess since Mexitli, mister Yes on Prop 8, has given his blessing it’s perfectly fine with the Latino Community. Maybe he should call Paul Rodriguez and ask him how much the networks will charge to make this announcement. Or maybe he should have Paul Rodriguez call the NAACP and get them to make the announcement since they get free airtime, and the Latino community has to pay for it. Or maybe he was just joking again.

  • 5 DoctorH // Nov 20, 2008 at 5:11 pm

    And the Sanchez sisters wonder why no one takes them seriously in Washington DC? Well…here’s one reason.

  • 6 Publius // Nov 20, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    First off, I seriously doubt that Linda Sanchez is the first unmarried woman to get pregnant while serving in Congress. She is, though, the only one to announce the fact and continue the pregnancy.
    Second, how many sitting CongressMEN have likely fathered children without the benefit of wedlock? I’m guessing dozens, at least. And maybe a Latino or two.
    So thanks for showing your double standard here.

  • 7 webmaster // Nov 20, 2008 at 9:25 pm


    We know many Congressmen have fathered children out of wedlock. That’s a given, but shouldn’t Latinos and Latinas expect a little more from their leaders? Why should we appeal to the lowest common denominators of behavior just because the “white guys” do it?

    Latinos always have a double standard, don’t you get it? Look no further than Bill Richardson vs. Hillary Clinton for Sec of State.

    39 is old enough to have known about the birds and bees and birth control. What’s wrong with getting married first and then getting pregnant?

  • 8 Seneca // Nov 20, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    Linda and Loretta show the dysfunctional aspects of our raza…they appear to be products of this dysfunctionality.

  • 9 Bearguez // Nov 20, 2008 at 11:36 pm

    Well, it looks like Linda Sanchez has fallen off her pedestal and jumped in the mud with her sister, Loretta. All this telenovella mentality generated by these two women displays how ignorant we are as a community to support these clowns with our hopes and money. It certainly looks like the Mexican social caste mentality has migrated across the border and is now firmly engrained in these women’s behavior. More of our precious tax dollars flushed down the toilet.

  • 10 Anna // Nov 21, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    What has Loretta done that’s so bad?

  • 11 Red Baron // Nov 21, 2008 at 5:15 pm

    Anna, just google: loretta sanchez scandal. Read some of the torrid tales. The most notorious is her on-going affair with a married Army officer, which shows the same contempt for marriage as Linda’s decision to have a child out of wedlock.

  • 12 BettyM // Nov 21, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    It is so sad to see beautiful and accomplished women make mistakes….

  • 13 Michaelr // Nov 21, 2008 at 7:08 pm

    Anna: You can follow Loretta Sanchez’s political career online.

    If you’re apt to follow, absorb and understand the data you’ll realize that Loretta Sanchez is a very inept performing Congressional representative. She doesn’t generate very much successful legislation, and some of her House Resolutions are moronic. In the eleven years she’s been feeding off the public trough in Washington DC, Loretta has never been taken seriously in Congress by her fellow members. And of course there are reasons for that, and this has everything to do with Loretta.

    Her Congressional Office staff has a higher than average turnover. For most of last year, she worked without a Chief of Staff. People who have worked for Loretta are not very complimentary of her work habits, her obvious character flaws, or her duplicitous nature. If you’re a political idealist you should maintain a safe distance from her. Without getting into too much detail, Loretta embraces Latino political stereotypes, along with being extremely self-serving. These are not endearing traits to constituents seeking help and change through the political process.

    All you really have to do is witness Loretta Sanchez at a small public gathering and listen to how greets people. She spends so much time at the Playboy mansion that she often forgets where she’s at, and who she’s speaking too. If she worked in the private sector, Loretta would’ve been sued numerous times for sexual harassment. I have seen her publicly drunk at public gatherings and several restaurant/bars with different older WASP men. As a public figure and public servant, you would think she’d be more conscientious of this type of public behavior. However, she isn’t which leads all of us to believe that Loretta Sanchez doesn’t see herself as a public servant, but rather as a celebrity about town with all the entitlements attached.

    Loretta Sanchez earns $169, 300 per year, with the finest medical/hospitalization and retirement perks of any benefit plan on the planet. I am sure Loretta could never earn this executive type salary in the private sector and this is why she has forced herself on the public. Your taxes pay her salary and her expenses back and forth to Washington D.C. and her other international travels. For the last eleven years, Loretta’s tenure in Congress resembles more a welfare dependent than that of a public servant. The Latino community deserves more.

  • 14 Anna // Nov 22, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    You know what…

    This site does nothing bust bash people. Loretta Sanchez is responsible to her constituents and they re-elect her. Her district isn’t just Latino either.

    She might run for Governor of CA. That’s why she’s being attacked.

  • 15 Mahler // Nov 22, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    Good for you, Anna! Exactly right. Loretta is a good person, a dedicated public servant, and a great Latina leader. She is universally respected in Congress and took a huge pay cut to serve in Congress. She was born to poor hard-working parents, earned an MBA, built her own financial consulting business and has earned everything she has. The congressional pension plan sucks and it is difficult to maintain two residences–OC & DC–on a congressional salary. Unlike many members of Congress, Loretta faithfully makes the long journey back to her district every weekend. We owe her a big debt of gratitude for all she has done for OC, California, the Latino community and the Nation. She is the leading expert on Homeland Security issues in the House and the senior woman on the Armed Services Committee. She almost single-handedly reformed military sexual assault laws, even before the Dems were in the majority! Every commander in the entire US military has Loretta’s law on their desk. She is an enormously effective Chairwoman of the Border, Maritime and Global Counter-terrorism Subcommittee and she is respected throughout Washington power circles. As for Michaelr’s other lies, she doesn’t even drink and conducts herself with appropriate dignity at all times. We are lucky to have her.

  • 16 DoctorH // Nov 22, 2008 at 3:53 pm

    Michaelr, you shouldn’t waste your time trying to educate these Latinos who refuse to hold Latino politicians accountable for their public and legislative performances. They are way too ignorant to see how it affects them, or their community. They still adhere to that Third World mentality that wants to treat any politician with a Spanish last name as some sort of godsend. The Latino communities in the 47th, 39th, 38th, and 43rd Congressional districts have no one to blame but themselves for continually supporting this corrupt, incompetent, and lackadaisical leadership. Their communities are a reflection of that dysfunctional mentality. I myself am very content to say that the Congressional Representative representing the 32nd Congressional District, Hilda Solis is a responsible, productive, and active legislator. And those traits make her a rarity within the Hispanic Congressional Caucus.

  • 17 Anna // Nov 22, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    You can save your patronizing speech. As I said, Sanchez is accountable to the people who live in her district.

    I agree that we need better leadership, but what’s stopping somebody from running against her? Hmm? Nothing.

    The root of the problem is that few well educated Latinos run for office.

    Have you ever heard of Fidel Vargas? He’s Harvard grad, who many years ago, was the Mayor of Baldwin Park, CA.

    But after that he went back to Harvard, got his MBA, and founded an investment firm. Or look at Ruben Navarrette. (I’m sure you guys don’t like him either.) Why is a guy with a MA from Harvard writing op-ed pieces for the San Diego Tribune? I would rather see him running for office.

  • 18 webmaster // Nov 22, 2008 at 10:02 pm


    I will tell you why Ruben Navarette is writing for the SD Union Tribune — he’s syndicated in other markets. He’s on CNN, his columns appear in the WaPo, the San Jose Mercury News, etc. Why run for office when you can work from home in your pajamas writing op/eds? He can literally work wherever he wants, and he doesn’t have to deal with constituent demands, only editors and deadlines.

    Personally, I find Navarette a little too conservative for my tastes, but if you lean more to the right, he is an acceptable choice.

    As for Loretta Sanchez, I wish she were more productive, but maybe her district is one of lower expectations. I can agree w/ Dr. H that Hilda Solis is more respected and more productive than is Loretta Sanchez. She also doesn’t try to cultivate this sex pot, ditzy demeanor that Loretta does.

    Another Latina blogger who I like wrote about her experience with Loretta Sanchez here:

  • 19 Anna // Nov 22, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    I read the account. Hmm..big deal. I’m sure there are people with more horrifying encounters with members of Congress. I agree that she cultivates a ditzy, airhead image. That’s from being raised in a sexist culture.

  • 20 webmaster // Nov 22, 2008 at 10:31 pm


    Why do you think Loretta Sanchez feels the need to act like an airhead? I know many other Latinas who don’t act that they (and they are educated, have careers, etc.). I think that maybe Loretta Sanchez wasn’t given enough attention as a child, and so as an adult, she feels the need to up the antics with her “pet the kitty” kind of messages. The fact is… she’s pushing 50, and she shouldn’t have to do this. Loretta Sanchez should be known for her legislative work and advocacy. Could you imagine Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, or even Gloria Molina behaving that way?

  • 21 Reyfeo // Nov 23, 2008 at 8:54 am

    This blog is crazy…we went from Linda being preganant to Loretta the drunk.

    BTW, some of you are hiporcrats…some in this blog are mad because Prop 8 failed(a visual: sodomy between two grown men) but you can’t forgive a woman (of 39 years) who has decided to NOT ABORT a child and continue the Pregnancy (whether it was a choice to get pregnant out of wedlock or not)…hooray for Linda for wanting to keep this baby! I doubt any of you would come clean if this is something that happened to you along the way, huh?

    I’m Latino and I agree with DoctorH, Latinos do it to themselves…I mean give me a break! In this blog you are trying to persecute a woman who by all accounts seems to have made a choice to get pregnant…and then liken her to Loretta the adulterating fool? who BTW keeps gettng re-elected?!?
    Lastly, I’m not from California, looking in to California districts 47th, 39th, 38th, and 43rd is like watching a novella…no wonder you guys aren’t taken serious.

  • 22 pablo // Nov 23, 2008 at 11:04 am

    Hey web master, I got an Idea why don’t you run for congress and be a positive role model for Latina teenage girls?

  • 23 Anna // Nov 24, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    Is there a woman in politics who isn’t demonized by somebody? And I take back the comment I made at the top of this thread. Really, her pregnancy is nobody’s business.

    It doesn’t mater who the woman politician is–she will always be called divisive, an airhead, a b*tch, a whore, an embarassment, etc

    I’m sick of it.

  • 24 Red Baron // Nov 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    Well, Anna, maybe people call the Sanchez sisters unpleasant names because the shoe fits. No one calls Hilda Solis, Jane Harman or Susan Davis a whore, slut, bad example, adulterer, drunk, playgirl, etc. BECAUSE THEY AREN’T any of those things, whereas Loretta and Linda cover all bases! This isn’t about sexism or racism. It isn’t really that hard to act legally, morally and in a dignified manner. Maybe they should try it and see if the name calling stops. Just a suggestion.

  • 25 webmaster // Nov 24, 2008 at 3:18 pm


    In a way, I understand where you are coming from. Linda’s pregnancy shouldn’t be any one’s business, but she went ahead and announced it to the press. Nobody told her to announce to the world that she was pregnant and unmarried. I’m sure that she could have kept this hidden if she did not want us to know.

    Red Baron has a point… why can’t these women (and yes men) behave better? Your own initial reaction was that Linda’s move was tacky, and I can guarantee that you aren’t alone in having that thought.

    Have we regressed to the point where we don’t have any standards for our public officials and so called leaders?

  • 26 Anna // Nov 24, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Red Baron: I have heard Jane Harman called lots of names. Some talk radio show in LA used to call her Rich B*tch who is in office because of her husband’s money.

    As for Linda Sanchez, she hasn’t done anything immoral. Give me a break. It’s not that bad. Stealing money is immoral. Killing people is immoral. Let’s have some perspective.

    Not too long ago, I saw Linda Sanchez on MSNBC discussing Karl Rove’s refusal to testify before Congress. She was articulate and informed.

    As for Solis and the other woman you mentioned, they really aren’t high profile.

  • 27 Anna // Nov 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Webmaster: She probably announced the pregnancy herself to prevent somebody else from doing so, and putting his own spin on it.

    And yes, we do have standards for our public officials, but you seem to be more up in arms over a middle aged, financially secure woman having a baby before she’s married than over the real problems going on in our country: the economic meltdown, the war, etc.

    Aren’t there enough real corrupt criminals in Washington right now? We don’t need to invent any.

  • 28 webmaster // Nov 24, 2008 at 4:35 pm


    We have addressed the war, the economic meltdown, etc. on this blog. It isn’t as if we only concern ourselves with middle aged women having babies out of wedlock. The title of the blog is Latino politics — Congresswoman Sanchez, being Latina, fits into this category.

    Where in this post was I implying that Linda Sanchez was a corrupt criminal? Maybe you are reading into something that the rest of us aren’t seeing…

    As a matter of fact, I have congratulated Linda Sanchez for some of her achievements before on this blog.

    I really do try to find things, both good and bad (remember the subjectivity in those terms). You can see that here:

  • 29 Red Baron // Nov 25, 2008 at 4:47 am

    Anna, you yourself entered this discussion by calling Linda “tacky,” criticizing her for having a bastard, and implying she’s a bad leader. Now you whine about criticism of female pols! You can’t have it both ways. Politicians, male and female, are routinely called bad names–it’s an occupational hazard. Bush, McCain, Obama (all men, I think) have been bashed daily with the most pejorative terms possible. So was Hillary, but I suppose you would focus on Hillary and say that women get a bad rap. You say Harman is called a b*tch, but Baca is called “corrupt.” Where is the sexism? Loretta is maligned because she is openly immoral, shacking up with a married man who was assigned as her military escort. Linda decides to have a baby out of wedlock and pokes us all in the eye with it, as though she deserves a medal for it. These are both behaviors which demonstrate a very low regard for marriage, a rejection of moral standards held by a majority of Latino-Americans, and, in Loretta’s case, a violation of House ethics standards and military law. You, Anna, stated in your first post that you agree Linda has violated acceptable moral standards. Have your standards changed since November 20? If so, you are very unstable in your thinking. If not, then my “shoe fits” comment is entirely correct. Or maybe you are just saying that women pols should be excused for all of their bad conduct, whereas men should be destroyed–like Edwards, Spitzer, Maloney, etc.? If there is a double standard, it seems to work in women’s favor. No one calls Loretta to account for her adultery, but the media lynched Villariagosa and Newsome for lesser sins.

  • 30 DoctorH // Nov 25, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Red Baron: How come we don’t refer to Loretta Sanchez’s boyfriend by name? I’ve been told by a staffer in her DC office his name is (Jack) John P. Einwechter. He’s a former JAG for the U.S. Army, and now he’s an attorney for a Washington DC law firm. Which is all kind of odd anyway, since a staffer in her Garden Grove office says she entertains a WASP senior citizen from Anaheim Hills, and spends a lot of time at the Playboy Mansion. You’re wasting your time discussing responsible public behavior with Anna. She doesn’t understand that if you feed at the public trough (make a living from the theft of taxpayers) you are wide open to every criticism on the planet. She wants to rationalize all their incompetent legislative abilities and abuses of position. Loretta’s public behavior does remove the phase “honorable,” from her esteemed public title. Not even members of her staff see her in that light. And that says a lot.

  • 31 Anna // Nov 25, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    Part 1

    Red Baron:

    First of all, I never used the word “bastard” to describe anybody. I initially thought that her decision was tacky, but after reading all of the comments here, I could see that the venom had little to do with decisions about childbearing.

    And no, Obama was not criticized even 1/10 as badly as Hillary was. The attacks on Hillary were personal and gender based. It’s the difference between calling somebody corrupt, which is based on lawbreaking, and calling someone a “bitch” which is based on a woman acting tough and assertive. As if women have no right to behave that way.

    Watch this video:

  • 32 Anna // Nov 25, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Part 2

    Red Baron: You say that Loretta is “openly shaking up with a married man.” Really? She lives with this guy? I find it difficult to believe that this would remain a secret in Washington. For all you know, it’s just an internet rumor.

    And you say that Villaraigosa and Newsom were lynched over their affiars. Really? Last time I checked both men were still in office and possible contenders for Governor.

    The reason Edwards lost his career over his affair is that his mistress has a baby that he refuses to claim as his own. If he ran for office, he’d have to come clean.

    And you say that Linda “poked us all in the eye” with her decision to have a baby before marriage. It has nothing to do with you! She’s a grown woman!! And this does not reflect badly on her her morality whatsoever. This isn’t 1950. My original criticism of her had nothing to do with morality. I just thought it was tacky because it makes it seem like she doesn’t have her act together.

  • 33 BettyM // Nov 25, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    Wow, reading this blog is very very interesting, and Anna’s last line says it all “…it makes it seem like she doesn’t have her act together.”

  • 34 Anna // Nov 25, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    Doctor H:

    I’m not trying to rationalize “all their incompetent legislative abilities and abuses of position.”

    Regarding their legislative abilities: Their constituents make that decision, not you. And they have never been accused of abusing their positions or power.

    Esquire Magazine published a list of the ten worst members of Congress and neither Linda nor Loretta is on it.

    But Joe Baca is. LOLOL

    “Rep. Joe Baca (D), California
    As chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Baca steered CHC funds to the campaigns of his two sons. When Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez called him on it, he did the mature thing and called her a “whore.” Nice. So Baca’s corrupt and venal. ”

  • 35 Red Baron // Nov 25, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    Anna, apparently you haven’t read much about Obama, because he’s been called a Muslim, a terrorist, a black militant, the N word and every other perjorative in the book. Hillary was criticized too. They all get it, not just the women.

    As for the double standard on adultery, Spitzer lost the NY governorship, Clinton was impeached, Edwards is toast, Rep. Maloney lost his office, Rep. Vito Fossella lost his office, Newsome was humiliated, Villariagosa was damaged by relentless media reports, but there has not been a single media report about Loretta’s adultery with Jack Einwechter–only blog reports by numerous sources–despite the detailed information available about the affair. As DoctorH observes, it is common knowledge in D.C., the Pentagon and elsewhere that Loretta and Jack are lovers. This is not speculation, and Loretta has never denied it nor sued anyone for libel because it is true. Being reelected does not absolve Newsome, Villariagosa or Loretta of their faults and bad behavior. Our moral horizon is not defined by the ballot box in a mass media age. We are free to criticize our public officials, even if they win.

    I say Linda “poked us in the eye,” because she has flaunted it, choosing to announce her knocked-up status in the editorial page of the LA Times. She could have just maintained her privacy and it would have been more dignified–probably ignored. But, no, she had to come out and dare the world to criticize her. What part of this don’t you understand?

    Finally, you started by saying that Linda’s decision is “tacky.” OK, I agree. It is “tacky” because it is a terrible example to young people everywhere. The Sanchez sisters hold herself out as role models (just read their book). Indeed, they are role models by virtue of their office. The reason her unwed pregnancy is tacky is because it violates deeply held moral views of millions of Americans, who will feel compelled to tell their sons and daughters to make better decisions than the Sanchez sisters. It is NOT okay to get pregnant without establishing a lving home in which the child can be welcomed. It is NOT okay to have affairs with married men. If you disagree, just say so. Don’t beat around the bush, say you reject moral standards and marriage boundaries. Than you will begin to make sense.

  • 36 Anna // Nov 25, 2008 at 1:47 pm

    Red Baron: You are so wrong about this double standard on adultery.

    Spitzer didn’t lose his job over an affair. That girl was a prostitute, and he was paying thousands of dollars for prostitution services. That’s illegal.

    Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath about Lewinsky in the Paula Jones deposition.

    Tim Mahoney hired his mistress to work in his office and paid her with public money. That was in exchange for her not suing him. That’s illegal.

    Vito Fossella chose not to run for re-election after he was arrested for drunk driving.


    As for Linda Sanchez, you don’t know that she chose to announce it in the LA Times just because Patt Morrison wrote about it there. I think she should have just had a quick wedding ceremony and THEN announced it, but she made a different choice. It doesn’t make her immoral or a criminal.

    And Linda isn’t single. She’s in a long term relationship and she’s engaged. She just got pregnant first. She’s not some wayward teen mother without a home. lol

    And of course I think it’s wrong to have an affair with a married man. The difference is that you have elevated it to the status of a crime, and likened it to a case of high crime and misdemeanors.

    And let me say again, nobody even knows if this is true about Loretta. It could just be an ugly rumor.

  • 37 theKaiser // Nov 25, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    Since Loretta Sanchez doesn’t produce much legislation, and what she does produce doesn’t conflict with the numerous agendas of various lobbyists and PACs affecting real change. Loretta more or less just occupies space, spends taxpayer money on frivolous and idiotic things, and collects that big fat salary. She is no threat to anyone in Washington, especially since she has no agenda and the shakers and movers only see the Latino Community as a voting bloc, easily swayed and nothing else. She is only there to announce herself and attract attention. I am sure this is why the powers that be ignore her relationship with Jack Einwechter. Another Congressional Representative from the 47th District could have an agenda, and who wants that? Certainly not the voters from Garden Grove and Santa Ana.

    I assumed Linda Sanchez was more responsible and a little more committed to her elected position as a Congressional Representative from the 39th district. Her legislation is somewhat more serious, and she conducts herself publicly a whole lot different than Loretta. However, this is a real bonehead decision on her part. Obviously, that Watergate apartment they share in Washington hasn’t been a hotbed of stimulating ideas.

  • 38 Anna // Nov 25, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    Funny how nobody comments about Joe Baca.

  • 39 webmaster // Nov 25, 2008 at 2:21 pm


    We have covered Joe Baca extensively on this blog, including Joe Baca’s children.

    Click on the “Congressman Joe Baca” category on the left.

    Or you can see for yourself here:

  • 40 Red Baron // Nov 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    First, DocH–Since we are doing the media’s work for them and outing Einwechter, what is the name of the senior citizen from Anaheim Hills that Loretta is also having an affair with and is he married also? One of the reasons why the Einwechter allegations ring true is that they are specific and name the man involved. Loretta’s staff confirms it and many of us know people directly affected. It is completely true, and that’s why Loretta has never denied it.

    Anna–your points about the criminal aspects of the other adultery cases is well taken, but it fails to explain Edwards, Newsome and Villariagosa and it fails to consider the military code and House ethics aspects. It also fails to explain Fossella, because other members have gotten DWIs and survived–Patrick Kennedy, to name one of many. You also fail to recognize that it was the infidelity that all the media wrote about. The DWI simply exposed the sin. Your theory also doesn’t explain Maloney. Maybe you haven’t heard–there was no illegal conduct found in the initial FBI inquiry. Finally, Loretta is the senior woman on the armed services committee, responsible for oversight of the Pentagon. She made a name for herself reforming military sex crimes laws. Her adultery with Einwechter is a crime under the military code. For her to lead an officer into committing crimes on official travel is a serious violation of House ethics rules, could warrant his court-martial and could warrant her censure or expulsion. It certainly undermines her credibility with the brass. Finally (really), Loretta’s financial disclosures reflect no gifts from Einwechter, who is a lobbyist. Either he is a seriously cheap bastard (there I go again), or she has submitted false reports, like Senator Stevens. That is a crime and it is a greater crime that the media doesn’t give a damn about Loretta’s misconduct.

  • 41 Anna // Nov 25, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    Re: “Her adultery with … is a crime under the military code. For her to lead an officer into committing crimes on official travel..”

    For her to lead him? Excuse me, but it takes TWO. He’s a grown man and responsible for his own behavior.

    Now you’re saying that she lured him into an affair, which under military code is criminal behavior. You’re trying to criminalize her sexuality. He’s subject to the code–not her. And how do you know the affair wasn’t his idea!?

    Again, I don’t know if these allegations are true. I’m speaking hypothetically.

    As for Fossella–He chose not to run for re-election. His mistress has a baby, and I doubt he wants his wife to have to deal with that publicly.

    Edwards–the media hid the affair until after he dropped out of the presidential race. Plus I don’t think he wants to shove that baby in his cancer stricken wife’s face.

    Villaraigosa–the affair was with a repoter. Of course he was going to get caught. But it hasn’t affected his career. Same with Newsom.

    Most of these men who have affairs survive in office unless there is financial impropriety or a baby that requires financial support.

  • 42 Red Baron // Nov 25, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    You completely mischaracterized my comment and you are obviously ignorant of military law and culture. As a congresswoman, she vastly outranked Einwechter and set the tone for their relationship. I agree 100% that he is also responsible. My point is that she, the senior woman on armed services and supposed champion of military families, KNOWINGLY participated in and facilitated the commission of his military crimes. It was an egregious violation of her duty as a congresswoman to destroy a military family and jeopardize the career of an officer assigned to be her escort on official travel. You can’t put lipstick on that pig, Anna. For Loretta to commit criminal adultery with him is also a violation of the House ethics rules for her, which require that she conduct herself in a manner that is above reproach. It is totally true. Call Einwechter. Call his aggreived family. Call his former military comrades. There are literally hundreds of people with direct knowledge of these events. Any reporter who cared could write a detailed story.

  • 43 Red Baron // Nov 25, 2008 at 3:37 pm

    This is my final comment. It is bizarre to say that the notorious adultery of Newsome and Villariagosa did no damage to their careers. Their reputations are severely damaged. The families involved are deeply wounded. Maybe this is just an academic debate for some. No one who has been the victim of infidelity could possibly assert that these men are unscathed by these events. They have lost respect and trust. Those are serious losses.

  • 44 hungrymomma // Nov 25, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    You can take the girl out of the hood, but you can’t take the hood out of the girl, apparently!

  • 45 Anna // Nov 25, 2008 at 4:40 pm

    She isn’t from the “hood.”

    The whole Linda Sanchez thing is much ado about nothing.

    As for Loretta, I don’t buy it. But you need to get over it. There are worse people in Congress.

  • 46 XicanoPwr // Nov 25, 2008 at 7:57 pm

    whether Loretta is a whore or an adulteress is not my primary concern, secondary yes, because you have to admit, we as Latinos are always placed under the microscope when it comes to moral and family values. If these people are suppose to be role models, then I am sorry, they should have known, what they signed up for and how our youth will be looking up to them.

    But my concern is the transparency between her and Jack Einwechter, a known defense lobbyist. How interesting he a defense lobbyist and she happens to serve on the Armed Services Committee and Homeland Security Committee. His clients this year – L-1 IDENTITY SOLUTIONS, INC. (Homeland Security) and THE PROTECTIVE GROUP (Homeland Security). Funny thing he works for the same company Jack Abramoff worked for, Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

    Can we say conflict of interest?

  • 47 Michaelr // Nov 25, 2008 at 8:34 pm

    Loretta Sanchez’s entire political career has been a conflict of interest, so none of this is very surprising. What is surprising is how the Washington Post and the New York Times have ignored all this.–so much for the protection of the public interest. I wonder if Linda Sanchez’s relationship with Jim Sullivan, a PR/government relations consultant is also a conflict of interest. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

  • 48 XicanoPwr // Nov 25, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    Yeah, I was trying to find info on that too when I saw, “consultant” after his name. It never said who his employer was.

  • 49 Anna // Nov 25, 2008 at 8:55 pm

    Re: “What is surprising is how the Washington Post and the New York Times have ignored all this.–”

    Because it’s a bunch of BS.

  • 50 webmaster // Nov 25, 2008 at 9:03 pm


    The media ignores a lot of things that are worthy of investigation. Look no further than how the media treats the immigration issue or even how the media let GWB go along with the Weapons of Mass destruction argument for so long.

    Are you implying that something isn’t newsworthy unless a big conglomerate paper is writing about it? The whole point about blogging is go push the envelope where the media doesn’t go. Welcome to the new media world.

    Just because the mainstream papers won’t print it doesn’t mean that there isn’t truth or even a story there to investigate.

    But go ahead… keep reading and watching your traditional media without questioning it. It is within your right to let corporate America shape your ideas and perceptions of reality.

  • 51 Anna // Nov 25, 2008 at 9:17 pm

    I’m saying that something isn’t newsworthy when it’s just BS on the internet and nothing more.

    Loretta and Linda Sanchez are starting to gain influence and senority, and some people don’t like that.

  • 52 XicanoPwr // Nov 25, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    How is it BS? Do you not see any conflict of interest between Loretta Sanchez and her bf/lover lobbyist Jack Einwechter?

    Fact One: The Protective Group received 29 defenses contract in 2007 for the total of $56,875,372.

    It must be nice knowing your lobbyist’s girlfriend happens to be the senior member of the Armed Services Committee.

  • 53 wendy carrillo // Nov 25, 2008 at 9:41 pm

    and now ladies and gentlemen, latino politics, in an act of desperation…

    this was a tough thread to follow, jeez, 1) congratulations are in order to congresswoman linda sanchez, as an empowered latina feminist, i say Hooray! for mid life babies out of wedlock! please, who cares? it’s none of our business, the woman leads a good life, if she wants to have a kid, married, unmarried, invitro or otherwise, who are we to judge? we are not in her personal circle to know what’s going on. 2) loretta and linda are two very different people and we should not judge them the same because they share blood 3)hilda solis is a bad ass and i really hope she returns my emails/phone calls for inagruation tickets! 4) this blog is kick ass, there is enough novella stuff in here to make me want to miss Telemundo! 5) i call $20 on the Congressional Hispanic Caucus having lots of drama up ahead! 6) I hope Stephen Colbert and John Stewert pick up on this blog and make a segment out of it.

  • 54 XicanoPwr // Nov 25, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    Anna, so are you saying just because Loretta Sanchez is raza or a Democrat, we can apply a double standard when it comes to conflict of interest.

    Why should former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham spend time in jail for awarding two defense contractors, when he was a senior member of the Armed Services Committee.

    Lets not forget she is the 59th richest member of Congress with a net worth of $5.68 million dollar.

  • 55 Anna // Nov 25, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    I’m saying there is NO PROOF that Loretta has done anything wrong! Now you’re comparing her to Randy “Duke” Cunningham?! First you accuse her of having an affair and now you’re accusing her of taking money. Give me a break!!

  • 56 Red Baron // Nov 26, 2008 at 2:51 am

    Anna is in denial. What kind of proof do you want? These things are normally proven by asking people or catching them in the act. Nobody had pictures of Newsome or Clinton or Edwards. Loretta is and has been having an illicit affair with Einwechter for more than five years. Why have they kept it secret? He is married (although now pending divorce) with children. He is a retired Army officer and defense lobbyist and/or lawyer. He was apparently a prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay. He met Loretta when assigned to escort her on official congressional trips. They have been seen together in Washington. The affair is an open secret among Army people in the Pentagon and staffers on Capitol Hill. All this is easily verified. Just call him. Call her. She can’t and won’t deny it, because she knows that lying about him would be impossible and get her in more trouble, just like Clinton. Any normal person would be outraged and indignant and categorically deny it. But he and she will probably say “no comment” which is Washington code for “OK, you got me.” Let’s call upon Loretta or her spokesman right here, right now, to deny it. We’re waiting…

  • 57 XicanoPwr // Nov 26, 2008 at 9:35 am

    I never accused her of having an affair. As for taking money, come on, it’s called contributions. And maybe she did not receive it the same way Cunningham did, but lets not be fooled by the loopholes in our campaign contributions laws.

  • 58 Anna // Nov 26, 2008 at 10:26 am

    Re: “Nobody had pictures of Newsome or Clinton or Edwards.”

    They all admitted to having an affair. Sorry, but you’ve been spreading this about Loretta all over the internet. You have some issues. And no proof.
    Really, their private life is nobody’s business.

  • 59 Anna // Nov 26, 2008 at 10:38 am

    Re: “As for taking money, come on, it’s called contributions.”

    You’ve accused her of improperly taking money. Again, baseless allegations.

    Loretta might run for either Governor or the Senate, and that’s why you’re spreading rumors about her. Nobody Latino has held those jobs in CA for over a century, and a Latina, not ever. If she even dares to run, I’m sure people like you will smear her.

    It won’t work!!!

  • 60 Michaelr // Nov 26, 2008 at 11:59 am

    Gloria Molina, or even Gloria Romero would be excellent choices for Governor of California, but that could be beyond your comprehension. Loretta Sanchez is too comfortable wallowing in the mud, and the content of her character makes her such a duplicitous and ugly human being. However, those traits don’t seem to matter to you. You’re all about Latinas in power at any cost. I’d say more, but I’m not motivated to engage with you any further.

  • 61 Red Baron // Nov 26, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    Well, Anna, I pity you for your blind faith in Loretta. She is guilty of everything I have asserted here. I have personal knowledge of the situation. You say I have issues? Here’s my issue–I know how Einwechter’s kids have suffered from the loss of their father to Loretta’s selfishness. I guarantee you that if she runs for governor, this will be blown wide open, and dupes like you will eat your words. She won’t run, because the criminal and unethical aspects of her affair with Einwechter would then come to light. Do I seem to be worried about libel? Nope, not in the least, because I have stated only the truth. Has Loretta denied the allegations? Nope, because she can’t without being caught in a web of lies. Go ahead and support her. You are what they call a “useful idiot.”

  • 62 XicanoPwr // Nov 26, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Michael – re: getting any Latino/a into position of power at any cost. All I have to say is “Alberto Gonzales.” I guess some people never learn.

    Anna – I never “accused her of improperly taking money.” All I am saying, companies have poured money into lobbying and campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties and committees as a general tactic, but they’ve also directed those contributions strategically. As they say “He who pays the piper calls the tune” and Loretta is no different.

    One more thing, as I Texan I think I know a thing or two about not have Latinos serve as Gov or Senator. I will not stand in your way, stop it, if the people of CA choose her run for either Gov or Senator.

    I may not like her ethics, just like I didn’t like Rick Noriega’s, but that didn’t stop from voting for him. However, the people have the right to know who they are electing into office, flaws and all.

  • 63 XicanoPwr // Nov 26, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    Anna – you said Solis wasn’t high profile. If she wasn’t, then why is she being considered to head the EPA.

    She may not be high profile in your book, but she is high enough for our president-elect.

  • 64 Michaelr // Nov 26, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Quality individuals, people with a sense of right and wrong and a commitment to the constituents they represent. Quantity only gets us the type of politicians that routinely surface in the Third World. We’ve had plenty of those types get elected over the last twenty-eight years. And Loretta Sanchez, Joe Baca, Grace Napolitano, Xavier Becerra, and Linda Sanchez all fit into that category that emulates the persona and mentality of Alberto Gonzales.

    Hilda Solis is a role model, whether she wants to accept that or not. Since so many of her Latino colleagues are only in Congress to enrich themselves, it is imperative that she step up into the light and assume that role.

  • 65 Anna // Nov 26, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Re: “If she wasn’t, then why is she being considered to head the EPA.”

    That’s great! I hope she gets it. She was my Congresswoman until the last redistricting.

  • 66 DfD // Dec 13, 2008 at 11:06 am

    Loretta is one “hot” latina partygirl. I’d love to party with her…

  • 67 DfD // Dec 13, 2008 at 11:08 am

    As for Linda? What a hussy…

  • 68 Rep. Linda Sanchez’s pregnancy kicks up some dust! // Feb 4, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    […] when we blogged about Congresswoman Linda Sanchez’s announcement of her out of wedlock pregnancy, I was thinking that from the political angle, it probably […]

  • 69 Congrats to Rep. Linda Sanchez on her marriage! // Apr 28, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    […] in the fall, we blogged about Rep. Linda Sanchez possibly becoming the first female Congressional representative to have […]

  • 70 The Daily Grand and Sundry » Blog Archive » David Letterman Calls Governor a Slut // Jun 11, 2009 at 8:25 pm

    […] Rep. Linda Sanchez (no, not Loretta) knocked up!( […]

  • 71 The other women // Aug 4, 2009 at 11:51 pm

    Wow, I can’t believe how quick everyone is to judge other people. These are women in politics not “God”. They are not perfect but as long as they do their job. There is a reason Ya’ll are not in congress…thank God!!!

Leave a Comment