LatinoPoliticsBlog.com

With or without her (Loretta Sanchez)

January 27th, 2009 · 51 Comments

Today there was a pretty informative piece in Roll Call about Loretta Sanchez’s role in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. It looks like some members of the CHC are weighing whether to invite Loretta Sanchez back into the caucus after the much publicized fight with former caucus Chair Joe Baca. If you remember, Sanchez accused Congressman Baca of calling her a “whore” during a meeting, which Baca has repeatedly denied.

After Loretta Sanchez left the Caucus, her sister, Rep. Linda Sanchez left with the explanation that there were problems with the leadership. Some acknowledged that there are sexism and leadership issues, but others in the group privately expressed dissatisfaction with how Loretta had made the squabble public, making the CHC look like a group of bickering amateurs.

“According to one source familiar with CHC politics, a lot of members still ‘blame Loretta’ for bringing embarrassment to the caucus and are angry at her for deciding to ‘really go out there and beat the [expletive] out of us’ by venting her frustrations to the press.

Namely, this source said, Sanchez made comments about how she couldn’t belong to the CHC because it was run by ‘a lot of sexist, macho men,’ a move that offended several members who felt Sanchez and Baca should have settled their score in private.

Those tensions were complicated last month when the CHC met with President Barack Obama. Off the invite list, according to sources, were the Sanchez sisters.”

Both sisters wanted to attend the meeting with Barack Obama, but some of the members did not like this idea because of the embarrassment Loretta Sanchez brought to the caucus (also remember that Loretta was a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter right up until the DNC). They felt that she should be invited back in and not simply get to pick and choose when she could participate. Some in the caucus would like for Loretta Sanchez to “tone things down” before being allowed to rejoin the group, and Linda has already rejoined citing the new chair (Rep. Nydia Velazquez) as allowing more members to participate more fully in the group.

My thought on the Loretta Sanchez-CHC squabble is that she probably doesn’t add much to the group, especially when she won’t play as a team. Whether Joe Baca called her a “whore” or not is an issue that someone in the caucus should have mediated between these two before it was even taken to the press. Actually, it shouldn’t have been taken to the press. We Latinos have to keep our eyes on the prize with our policy goals, instead of being sidetracked by “he said, she said” games reminiscent of high school spats.

Now would be a good time for Congresswoman Sanchez to work on her legislative agenda and to work on reshaping her image. The pricey holiday cards with the cat and the rumors of affairs with married men don’t exactly endear her to the public. And now that she’s in the majority party with a Democratic President, she will be expected to produce. As Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez told The Register last November, “I’m looking forward to having some of my stuff passed.” So are we!

Tags: Barack Obama · Congressional Hispanic Caucus · Congressman Joe Baca · Hillary Clinton · Rep. Linda Sanchez · Rep. Loretta Sanchez · Rep. Nydia Velazquez

51 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Red Baron // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:50 am

    Rep. Baca called Loretta a “whore” and has taken alot of flak for it. It was, of course, an impolite thing to say. If he had called her an adulterer and homewrecker, that at least would have been descriptive and accurate. The allegations about her current affair with a married man are based upon hard facts. Where there’s smoke there’s fire. To my knowledge, neither Loretta nor her staff have ever denied the affair with Jack Einwechter, who was her military escort when they began their affair in 2003. (He has since left the Army and his family as a result of the affair.) I’m sure they have read the numerous allegations that have been made about this. They remain silent, because they know it’s true and can’t be honestly denied. They will undoubtedly read this and make no reply. I have read other allegations here and elsewhere about other men in Orange County. I don’t know if those allegations are true, but the one about her married military escort is true. Maybe the CHC is waiting for her to clear up this issue before they invite her back into the fold. They don’t need or want another scandal invovling Loretta’s volatile personal life.

  • 2 losangelessoldadera // Jan 28, 2009 at 10:41 am

    I honestly have no strong feelings about Rep. Loretta Sanchez, so when I read/hear of rumors of her “inappropriate behavior” I tend to dismiss it. If I paid attention to the personal lives of Latino politicians, I am certain to find deplorable behavior from both the male and female representatives. What I found lacking in the comments above was that they failed to address the issue of sexism in politics. Last I checked, the U.S. still has a long way to go in remedying this particular “ism.” So, if Rep. Loretta Sanchez wants to highlight the issue of unequal treatment in the CHC, then I fully support her right to do so. We might not agree with her approach, but Latinos do consistently need reminding that sexism is still an issue not just in the Latino community but in the U.S. as well.

  • 3 Michaelr // Jan 28, 2009 at 10:51 am

    Having engaged with Loretta Sanchez in the past, it is very hard for me to take her seriously regarding anything. She is not the type that inspires anything remotely resembling responsible, committed or professional action. These are character issues that inhibit Loretta, and this is why her colleagues in Congress don’t take her seriously and don’t support her on any of her political positions. This is all further supported by her poor Congressional record, by her public party girl behavior, and her constant need for attention at the public’s expense. No one else in Congress spends $140K to send to her supposed constituents Christmas cards. No one in Congress publicly flaunts their attendance at the Playboy mansion. And no one else in Congress systematically embarrasses him or herself on NPR, or online. But Loretta does, and there are Latino voters who continually see her as a credit to the Latino political community because of her publicly financed celebrity telenovela persona, rather than her supposed role as a Congressional public servant. That attitude explains why we as a political community have such little political clout in DC.

  • 4 webmaster // Jan 28, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    losangelessoldadera,

    I agree that sexism is a big issue, but how can you reconcile that with all of the donations Loretta Sanchez has taken from Playboy and Hugh Hefner (I know that some will tell me how liberating it is posing for his magazine or how wonderful it is to be one of his girlfriends)? You can’t have it both ways. Loretta Sanchez has tried to cultivate this “sexy” image, which we see every year on display with her holiday cards (some of which border on the inappropriate), but yet she wants to pull out the “sexism” card when she sees fit.

    I wasn’t there when Baca allegedly called her “whore,” but that same caucus now has a woman, Rep. Nydia Velazquez, as its chair. So some of the men in the group do have faith in electing a woman as its leader, or at least it seems that they do on a symbolic level.

  • 5 theKaiser // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    This is why higher education is so important to the Latino community. Recognizing a public thief before they ascend to Capitol Hill requires tools only college and university can offer. The shamelessness this Congressperson brings to her office is not only repulsive, but vindictive.

  • 6 Anna // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    Re: ” but some of the members did not like this idea because of the embarrassment Loretta Sanchez brought to the caucus…”

    Again with the stupid “shame” issue. They would let that dumb argument with Baca keep her from a meeting with the Democratic nominee? Ridiculous.

  • 7 Anna // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    I’ve read theought the comments and the sexism is unbelievable. Sanchez’s sex life is nobody’s business. In 2000 she used Hefner’s house for a fundraiser…so what. And it doesn’t matter if she takes donations from him. So do many other elected officials sfrom California. Again, so what. That doesn’t give anybody the right to call her a vile, sexist name, especially a colleague.

    And you say that nobody else in Congress embarasses themselves on NPR or online? Are you kidding me? You have a guy in the Senate who went to a hooker and supposedly wore diapers during their visit. He’s still in office, and just he voted against Hilary’s nomination to SoS. I can give you a whole list of scandalous men in Congress.

    What has Loretta done? Sent out a dumb Chrsitmas card? (I’m assuming the card you posted here, really was from her.) Give me a break.

    Furthermore, she’s responsible to the voetrs in her district and that’s it. Not to the Latino Caucus, etc.

    I don’t get it. Women in politics, get treated like garbage. Hillary, Palin, Gillibrand, and on this website, Loretta.

  • 8 webmaster // Jan 28, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    Anna,

    Many people in the pro-migrant community do not like Gillibrand because she’s very conservative in her views. You can see that here (they were hoping to have a more progressive Senator):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/politics/28immigration.html?hp

    We can agree to disagree on Loretta Sanchez, but I think that if Loretta were a man, people would be outraged about extra-marital affairs, the time spent at the Playboy Mansion, and her political relationship with Hugh Hefner. Imagine a male congressman sending out a card with a snake and a caption, “Pet the Anaconda.” Would people be saying that it is “cute” or “sexy”?

  • 9 Michaelr // Jan 28, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    That’s the point…Loretta Sanchez doesn’t do anything of public value. Yet, if you review http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00008274&cycle=2008 and look through her personal financial disclosure, you’ll not only notice her Hollywood accounting methods for all her expenditures to the GAO, but you’ll notice no one spends public money like Loretta. Accountability…one of those words Loretta doesn’t know the meaning of.

  • 10 Tony // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:56 am

    In every conflict, you must talk to the person directly and communicate. A wise person is slow to anger.

    The worst thing you can do is go to the press and start backstabbing and all. That creates even more tension and solves nothing.

  • 11 Red Baron // Jan 29, 2009 at 6:09 am

    Anna, if Loretta’s sex life is nobody’s business, then why should you mock the senator in diapers? You obviously think he and a host of others are scandalous embarrassments–you said so. We’re only asking that you apply the same standard to Loretta.

    There is, in fact, a double standard: women politicians get a total pass when it comes to their sex scandals. Name one woman who has ever been forced from office or subjected to public ridicule for a sex scandal…I’m waiting. There are no women pols in the gallery of famous American political sex scandals. Why? Because women get treated with kid gloves in politics, and you are flat wrong.

    I agree that male politicians have embarrassed the Congress and undermined their own moral authority by personal misconduct. Why is it impossible for you to admit that Loretta has made the same mistakes and undermined her credibility in the same way? In fact, she is worse because she pursued her affair on official travel and it affects her credibility on official issues relating to oversight of Pentagon policy on sexual harassment, family advocacy, and related matters.

    Loretta’s conduct is more troubling than paying for sex. She has shacked up with a married military man and inflicted great suffering on a military family. She claims to be a champion of the rights of abused military spouses, yet she showed no respect for Einwechter’s spouse.

    We should expect more from both men and women who aspire to lead us and make our laws. Based on your note above, I think you basically agree, but want a special exception for Loretta.

  • 12 Reyfeo // Jan 29, 2009 at 7:34 am

    My question to Anna is if you she believes Palin was treated unfairly as well?

  • 13 losangelessoldadera // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    There was a question posed, and it asked for a name of a female politican who has been forced from office due to a public scandal. The question is unfair. The historical (and current) proportion of women to men in politics is blantantly unequal. And the comment about women being “treated with kid gloves” is uninformed. Unless I am reading it incorrectly, is someone claiming reverse sexism? If so, manybe we should have a discussion about patriarchy and its multiple manifestations. Also, in response to the the inflicting of great suffering on a military family, is that the same sort of “great suffering” that the Bush administration has inflicted on military families? Where I can understand the pain caused by extramartial affairs, let us not put that on the same scale as sending military men and women to their graves (not to mention the hundreds of thousands innocent civilians) and the families they leave behind.

  • 14 losangelessoldadera // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    And if I may be so bold as to offer an answer to the question that was directed to Anna. Palin’s lack of knowledge about international affairs, inability to satisfactorily answer basic questions, and her overall pandering to the Joe- the-Plummers left her in a vulnerable political position. In short, the more informed voters were able to see through the right-wing, pseudo-populist jargon, and write her off as what she is – an idiot. However, if she had been a man, she probably would have been elected. Afterall, Bush was in office for eight years.

    Having said all of that, I come back to my original point which is that sexism is alive and thriving in politics. This issue goes beyond Rep. Sanchez’s “inappropriate behavior.”

  • 15 Red Baron // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    Lossangelessoldadera,

    I didn’t write that American politics is fair to women in general. I limited my observation to the fact that on the issue of sexual morality, the media has always been reluctant to expose female politicians. I agree totally with your point that women are underrepresented and suffer sexist discrimination in American politics. Even Iraq has more women in its legislatuire than America. But you have failed to refute my point. There have been thousands of women in political office in America in the past 50 years. Neither you nor anyone else can point to a single political sex scandal involving women. I guess it is considered impolite to attack a woman for having sex. Process that through your feminist ideology and you’ll realize that it is based on the chauvanist, patriarchal view that sex is the woman’s only proper function and that women are too fragile and vulnerable for such attacks. Therefore, as a feminist, you should be demanding that Loretta be held to the same standards of judgment as the men. Equality brings responsibility as well as benefits.

    You called Palin an “idiot” even though she is an accomplished woman and Governor. Is she really that much dumber than the men who aspire to lead (which isn’t that smart)? I am a Democrat and disagree with her on almost everything, but Palin was cruelly demeaned and dismissed in ways that a man would never have been. I think your mean name-calling is a shameful and disgraceful way to treat a woman in politics. Shame on you, sister.

    Finally, I certainly agree that Bush’s blunders caused far more suffering than Loretta’s. Why did you assume I was making a partisan point, or comparing the death of a loved one to a broken home? You seem so blinded by partisan rage that you can’t read or think clearly. My point was that Loretta claims to be a champion for military families and spouses, but she personally participated in the betrayal of and emotional harm to a military family. It was selfish and unbecoming a public servant who holds herself out as a protector of military spouses. Your point was just simply irrelevant.

  • 16 losangelessoldadera // Jan 29, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    What was your point? What is your point? And apparently you understand very little about “feminist ideology.” As a feminist, I demand equity. I can recommend a few books if you like. And I will explain my point since you very obviously missed it. I said that sexism exists in politics. In short, male privilege limits opportunities for women. And as for calling Palin a demeaning name… please. Find another point to argue. Moreover, you know nothing about me, so to write my comments off as partisan rage is simple. Respond if you like, respond if you must. (May I suggest a couple of books? Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism edited by Chandra Mohanty, and This Bridge Called My Back edited by Cherrie Moraga). Have a pleasant evening.

  • 17 Anna // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    Webmaster: I don’t like Gillibrand’s politics, but much of the criticism of her is gender based. That’s what I oppose.

  • 18 Anna // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    Red Baron: If you can’t see the difference between somebody who went to a prostitute, which is against the law, and got caught, and somebody’s private sex life, then I don’t know what to tell you. Again, Sanchez’s sex life is nobody’s buisiness.

  • 19 Anna // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    Reyfeo: I don’t agree with Palin’s politics, and I don’t think she was even remotely qualified to be Vice President, but I do think that she was lampooned much worse than other unqualified stupid Republicans like Dubya and Dan Quayle. I don’t know if I would call it sexism, though. We have a much more vicious media climate now than we did back then.

  • 20 Red Baron // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:29 am

    Anna, If you can’t understand why it violates House ethics rules to have sex with a married officer during official travel, then you are willfully ignorant. It is a crime for a married officer to commit adultery. Loretta aided and abetted that crime. It undermines her role as a supposed watchdog over the Pentagon to use her official position to poach on married military men. She is a laughing stock in the Pentagon. Therefore she has compromised herself professionally.

    Moreover, Loretta’s adultery was far less “private” than the senator’s use of a prostitute. Here lover’s kids now have a broken home, he lost his military career, his family and military comrades can’t understand how a public official can act so improperly without any consequences. There is nothing “private” about adultery. Too many people are affected.

    Feminist ideaologue: OK, teach me. Why are women not held to the same standard when then engage in sexual shenanigans? Newsome, Villariagosa, and Edwards committed no crime. Their adulteries were “private” matters, but the media dwelt at length on their misconduct and all made national headlines. Explain why Loretta’s adultery is or should be treated differently? I clearly suggested that it is because of a sexist double standard that benefits women in this instance. I told you I agree that women are generally treated unfairly in our politics.

  • 21 losangelessoldadera // Jan 30, 2009 at 10:10 am

    To redbarron: I suggested some books for you already. Start there. (Your use of the term “feminist idealogue” gives me the impression that it would take more time than I am willing to spend on teaching you about feminism.)

  • 22 Red Baron // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    losangelessoldadera: Why don’t you just answer my question. Guess you can’t or don’t want to admit I’m right.

  • 23 losangelessoldadera // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    Think whatever you must to help you cope.

  • 24 Anna // Jan 30, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    Re: “There is nothing “private” about adultery.”

    But it’s not a “crime,” so get over it. ASSuming what you’re saying about Loretta is even true, and obviously we have no way of knowing that, she didn’t commit a crime. Sometimes marriages break up. That’s life and that guy, whoever he is, made a decision fully knowing that he was risking his career. Maybe he wanted to get out of the military. Maybe he was miserable and wanted a divorce. You don’t know.

    This whole notion that Loretta aided and abetted a crime is ridiculous. Why don’t you call the cops on her, opr maybe you can make a citizens arrest. Red Baron: Sex Police. LOLOL

  • 25 Reyfeo // Jan 30, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    Red Baron, You need to understand that there is no way to get Anna to understand that it’s not always about the crime…Like Blago in Ill, Loretta was entrusted by the people she represents to get good work done…its shameful when the trust is broken with novela type issues (ie her love affiar with this mil’ man for instance). Anna, can’t and doesn’t (or won’t) understand this trust issue…There are many Liberal who live in Anna’s world and can overlook this behavior. You and I, not so much. Even if it was a man

    …i’m sure Anna and LASOLDADERA have a sweet place for Bill Clinton…his actions in there views are forgivable so long as the economy is good, prosperity for all is good, the world loves us, I can get an abortion any time I want, etc etc… What a sad case.

  • 26 Anna // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:48 pm

    Reyfeo: You’re comparing Loretta to Blago? A man who tried to sell a Senate seat? Can you tell the difference between public and private behavior? I would not feel betrayed if my Congressman had an affair. I wouldn’t care! My objection would be if it interfered with his job. For instance if he had an affair with an employee, etc.

    And don’t hide your sexism behind morality. You guys have an issue with Loretta because she’s somewhat high profile. You want her to be shy and humble and all of that…

    As for Bill Clitnon he was a good President. My objection to his behavior is that he brought it into the public sphere. That made it a political issue and it distracted the country for a year. What he does in his private life doesn’t concern me.

    Patrolling the sex lives of public officials is relatively new. The rest of the world laughs at us for this nonsense.

  • 27 Anna // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    Re: “I can get an abortion any time I want…”

    What do you care what women do with their bodies? It’s really none of your business!!!!! Roe v Wade is the law.

    I can understand that people can agree to disagree on this issue, but the the ones who seem the most vehemently opposed to the right to choose are often sexist. I think they care more about keeping women controlled than they do about life. In fact, many anti-choice people strongly favor the death penalty.

  • 28 Red Baron // Jan 31, 2009 at 5:45 am

    Ladies, you both seem unable to understand why Loretta’s poaching on her married military escorts discredits her in the Pentagon on issues of sexual harrassment, spouse abuse, and other ethical and legal issues. Maybe you never served and just don’t get it. I have explained why Loretta’s conduct undermines her ability to do her official duties. You apparently don’t care about her military oversight role. You don’t even seem to understand it. I have also explained that her conduct violates House ethics rules. I have explained that she acted recklessly, risking a public court-martial of her boy toy at which she would be called to testify. How can she credibly demand that the military enforce its sexual harassment and related policies when the brass know that she willfully particiapted in a clear violation of military law with her married escort? They laugh at her. She vastly out-ranked Einwechter and had sex with him on official time. That is a classic sexual harassment scenario. I have explained that she participated in breaking up a family with children. It is sad that your moral horizons are defined by the criminal code. You inisted on raising the criminal aspect. I have previously explained that she violated criminal laws by taking gifts from Einwechter and lied under oath by failing to report them on her public financial disclosure–same felony that Senator Stevens was guilty of. Fact is, you simply do not care, because you like her politics. You didn’t care about Bubba’s lying either. I’m pro-choice and anti-death penalty, but I can see what everyone else sees–Loretta’s conduct is a serious violation of her oath and public trust. You say Palin is an “idiot.” Why won’t you agree that Sanchez is a slut, liar, ethics disaster and homewrecker? Your epithets are obviously reserved for those you disagree with politically. Now, please tell our readers that you are fine with the conduct of Edwards (having a kid secretly while lying to his sick wife), Newsome (lying and bedding his chief of staff’s wife), and Villariagosa (lying and risking public humiliation and the disrespect of his contituents). Hey, it’s all just “private sex.” Totally cool, right? You people are pathetic.

  • 29 Red Baron // Jan 31, 2009 at 6:04 am

    And, finally, if Loretta went to bed with your husbands or lovers, and then lied to your face about it, would you still defend her and respect her as a trustworthy and honorable public servant, right? Would you still flock to the blogs to declare her innocent? Do you really think it is ok to behave that way? Do you really want someone who does that making your laws? Do you believe in the Golden Rule and respect for feelings of your sisters? Do you have any objections to adultery and lying? Would you trust Loretta with your husband?

  • 30 losangelessoldadera // Jan 31, 2009 at 10:36 am

    I really am ready to move onto the next issue. Reading redbarron and reyfeo’s comments is exhausting, and I am getting nothing out of it. Let us agree to let this one rest, and see what other issues we can address without either redbarron or reyfeo resorting to petty phrases like “you people are pathetic.” When I started reading the blog a few days ago, I was impressed with the insights and the writing. I also learned from the comments that michealr had to share. I expected (expect) more of the same. I am more than ready to engage in productive dialogue because I do not tolerate anyone making ill-comments about me, especially when they know nothing about me or my politics.

  • 31 dfdeportation // Jan 31, 2009 at 10:42 am

    Admit Red Baron is right and we all can move forward….

  • 32 dfdeportation // Jan 31, 2009 at 10:46 am

    I think rayfeo and redbaron bring substantive dialogue to every issue they comment on. They definitely move the conversation to a much more intellectual level. However, that may be difficult or impossible for some to deal with.

  • 33 Red Baron // Jan 31, 2009 at 11:42 am

    Amazing, losangeles. You whine like a little girl about being insulted, after calling Palin an “idiot” and condescending to us about needing to read up on feminism. If you decide to enter a dialogue, then make your comments responsive. Obviously, you are unable to answer my questions or arguments. That much is clear.

  • 34 losangelessoldadera // Jan 31, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    “Like a little girl.” That is sexist. And I suggested that you know little about feminism, so you should educate yourself about it more before using terms like “feminist ideologue.” Furthermore, I don’t feel your questions merit a response because you not willing to engage in any type of constructive dialogue. You simply want to prove your point. That, my friend, is sad because you limit your opportunity to learn. Buena Suerte.

  • 35 Michaelr // Jan 31, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    It’s amazing how much ugliness the mere mention of Loretta Sanchez (Brixey) can bring out in the BlogShere. Losangelessoldadera seems to contradict herself in all the back and forth with the Red Baron, but that’s nothing new when your emotions dictate your logic. Referring to Loretta Sanchez as a feminist is as absurd as calling Bill Clinton an ascetic. I have written commentary before to the Red Baron that the laws of the United States only apply to those of us who pay federal, state, and local taxes, and that’s about 89% of the working population of this country. There is an entire social class of people that are above the laws of the United States. And that social class includes most of the long term serving members of Congress. Loretta Sanchez (Brixey) will never be held accountable for her public thefts, her Congressional legislative incompetence, her shameless public behavior, her various infidelities (business, personal and marital), or for all the incredibly inane things she blabbers to NPR, and other media. Unless Loretta Sanchez reaches a level of political clout that endears her to a certain political ideology or social path, she will never pay for her public crimes. Bill Richardson is the latest to be put on trial for political behavior that is practiced by the vast majority of federal and state political leaders. And Hilda Solis, whose political ideology is tied to the Labor Movement, is being lambasted in her confirmation hearings by several GOP Senators who must fear the changes she will make in overall federal policy related to the unions. Loretta Sanchez (Brixey) will never go through this because she has no political convictions, no commitment to her constituents, and no conscience. She is a Congressional Representative purely for profit, and you can observe her game on http://www.opensecrets.org

  • 36 losangelessoldadera // Jan 31, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Michealr, please go back and read my post. Not once did I refer to Sanchez as a feminist. The first person to invoke the term was redbarron. He even called me a feminist, and I do not ascribe to that particular characterization of myself. I do extensively read on the topic, but do not use the term to describe myself or my politics. I simply wanted to point out the broader issue of sexism in politics. I never once condoned/approved/commented on Sanchez’s behavior. I said the issue of sexism goes beyond Sanchez. I agree that any politician should be held accountable for their legislative incompetence and squandering of public money (and trust). And as for my “emotions,” do we not all have them? Do my emotions dictate my logic? We comment on this blog because we are moved to do so. We feel strongly about these issues, so we share our perspectives. These perspectives are informed by our experiences. In turn, the “logic” we use is shaped by those experiences. There is nothing wrong with emotion. We should be upset and the fact that Latinos are not properly represented. We should be upset at the fact that sexism, racism, and classism limits our opportunities. Moreover, I ask where was the logic when terms like “pathetic”, “feminist ideologue,” and phrases “whining like a little girl” were used? Where was the logic, when inane questions like “would you trust Loretta with your husband” are posed?

  • 37 Anna // Jan 31, 2009 at 3:11 pm

    Re: “discredits her in the Pentagon”

    And you know what everybody in the Pentagon thinks? lol

    From now on, I am going to discuss this issue hypothetically because I don’t know if any of this is true.

    Members of Congress are responsible to the voters in their district. That’s something you don’t seem to understand. Members of Congress are not members of the military and are not restricted by the same codes. Adultery is not against the law and not something that a layman can be fired for committing. So get over it.

    And why do you call this man a boy toy? As if he was lured away by a manipulative woman. Give me a break with the sexist stereotypes. As I said before, this man is a grown up and responsible for his own actions and his own choices. If he lost is career over this incident, it is his OWN fault.

    As for Edwards, he’s not an elected official, and his career is effectively over. As for Newsome, the voters of San Francisco don’t seem to think his affair affects his ability to govern, and I feel the same way about Villaraigosa. I am not going to throw him out of office for an affair. Get real. It took 100+ years to get a Latino mayor back in office again.

    You need to grow up.

  • 38 Anna // Jan 31, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    Michaelr: The ugliness is only brought out by you and Red Baron.

  • 39 Anna // Jan 31, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    Re: “And as for my “emotions,” do we not all have them?”

    I agree with this. Everybody here has made some emotional arguments, including Red Baron and Michaelr. Nobody on this blog is more emotional about Sanchez than they are.

  • 40 Red Baron // Jan 31, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    You call people “idiots” and then complain about name calling. Nice. I have only stated the truth about Loretta.

    If our commentary on Loretta’s illicit sex life is beneath your consideration, why have you so vigorously and emotionally argued about it here? The reason is because you know full well that voters DO care about it and you do too. That’s why Edwards’ career is over, as you pointed out.

    Anna, adultery was a crime in the District of Columbia when Loretta and Jack first hooked up there in 2003 (when she was still married also) and it is still a crime in Virginia where they hook up now. As recent as last year there was an adultery prosecution in Virginia. You really shouldn’t write about things you know nothing about. You obviously also are unfamiliar with the heartache, suffering and violence that adultery routinely causes.

    I never argued that Loretta violated the military code. I know that she is not subject to that jurisdiction. However, it is deeply troubling that the senior woman on the Armed Services committee would aid and abett the violation of the military code by a married officer, especially when she has made a practice of brow-beating military leaders about enforcing sexual conduct standards among the men in uniform. Her oath commits her to “uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the United States.” By encouraging the violation of the military statutes, she has betrayed her oath. That was and is my point.

    I notice that you continue to ignore the allegations of her false statements on the financial disclosure, which is a felony. Would you explain why you ignore that?

    Finally, it is just sad that you have to defend Loretta on the grounds that her offensive behavior is “only personal.” Wouldn’t it be nice if our Latina leaders were people of noble character whom we could encourage our daughters to emulate and look up to? Wouldn’t be nice if they were honest people, who respect the law, marriage and the feelings of others?

  • 41 Michaelr // Jan 31, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    Anna: You need to take your medication before you post your comments.

    Losangelessoldadera: That was an excellent retort; calm, cool, and not reactionary. You should realize by the commentary of the Red Baron that she is a female, and obviously very close to the day to day interaction at the Pentagon. I have engaged with career civil servants there and they describe similar behavior mentioned by Red Baron, but since they are men, the commentary is even more guttural and profane. And she is right about the opinions stated there about Loretta Sanchez (Brixey).

    You are absolutely correct in saying we should be angry that Latinos are not properly represented politically. That is what this blog is all about, informing the Latino community of who is exploiting us and how they are doing it? Of course there are some people, need I mention any names…Anna, who believe every politician with a Spanish last name should be given a pass no matter what. Quality before quantity should be our first consideration, after all, these are public servants paid handsomely by our tax dollars. We have been watching the political careers of Hilda Solis and Raul Grijalva and we are content with their political performances, but no one wants to acknowledge that here online. We’ve often analyzed some studies as far back as 1981, why the Third World mentality is so prevalent amongst Latino politicians here in the United States. Seneca touches on that subject, but really we’ve just begun to explore the tip of that iceberg. Thank you for your retort.

  • 42 Anna // Jan 31, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    Red Baron: I have argued about it so vigorously because I think some of the characterizations here have been sexist. would not be as outraged as you are. This man is responsible for his own career and his own family. I guess it’s easier to blame the “other woman” but if his marriage were stable this would not have happened to begin with. That’s what bothers me. You’re acting like this grown man was manipulated and lured away by the evil “other woman.” To me that’s a sexist chacterization. And the whole idea that she violated the law is just ridiculous.

    As for the financial statements, I’m not the IRS.

    As for Edwards, his career is over because that woman was on his campaign payroll, and because he doesn’t want to come clean about the baby. Plus his wife has cancer. But in the future, who knows?

    Ad you say “our Latina Leaders” lumping all Latinas into one group when each person is an individual.

  • 43 Anna // Jan 31, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    Re: “Anna, who believe every politician with a Spanish last name should be given a pass no matter what.”

    What nonsense. I support holding people accountable, but I will not remove somebody from office over chisme.

  • 44 Red Baron // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:36 pm

    Anna, I never wrote that Jack is not responsible. You made that up. It is absurd for you to call me sexist. Both Loretta and Jack are responsible. Both knew it was a crime for Jack to have sex with her. Both knew that he was betraying his commission oath, marriage vows and his children. Both knew Loretta was violating her oath, her marriage vows and her husband. Both are responsible. Both participated in Jack’s crime–conduct unbecoming an officer, adultery, and several other offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Both violated the laws of D.C. and Virginia. It doesn’t matter who took the first step, although everyone knows that Loretta is an over-the-top flirt and exhibitionist. She cultivates the image of a playgirl, and it is not hard to imagine her aggressive pursuit of Jack. We do know that she ordered him to take her on long overseas, taxpayer-funded junkets to exotic places, like Paris and Rome. She made sure it was just him and her, and our tax money paying for the ritzy hotels, so they could play on official time and money. She had the power and authority to order him to do it, and he did–willingly, no doubt. It is utterly bizarre that you would excuse this conduct and misuse of OUR money. I’m not asking you to excuse Jack, but why do you excuse Loretta? Jack has taken reponsibility for his actions–he resigned from the Army, he left his family, he confessed to his wife, he is getting a divorce. Loretta, on the other hand, lies and denies everything, according to my sources. It is really quite sad to see.

    I did not mean to imply that all Latina leaders are untrustworthy like Loretta. I did not express that well. I was only suggesting that we should expect our leaders to be people of strong character that we can hold up as examples to our daughters. You are right that Loretta is accountable to her voters, but her voters do not yet know about her true character or conduct in office.

  • 45 Anna // Jan 31, 2009 at 9:43 pm

    Sorry, but she didn’t have the power to “order” him to do anything. Come on…

    And I’m not excusing this alleged behavior. I just think it’s a private issue, not a public issue. They were two consenting adults. Case closed.

    You obviously have some connection to it that makes it a personal issue for you.

  • 46 Red Baron // Feb 1, 2009 at 3:52 am

    No, she did have the authority and power to order him. You really are clueless. A member of Congress simply has to pick up the phone and say she wants to go to [anywhere], and the Army liaison has a duty to execute the mission. They do it all the time. That’s what Loretta did over and over. They were not just “two consenting adults.” One was a congresswoman and one was an officer and both were on official time and business. Both had oaths and duties to uphold legal standards of conduct that included no sex. Both were married. Both compromised their professional standing. I have no personal connection, though I have seen the suffering of Jack’s 8 kids. Sorry, it is not “private.” More than just 2 were affected. A whole family has been fractured and they did not consent. Case is not closed. You are willfully ignorant.

  • 47 Red Baron // Feb 1, 2009 at 4:12 am

    More fundamentally, Anna, Loretta’s husband (Stephen Brixey) and Jack’s wife (Rebecca) did not consent to the adultery. Does marriage mean so little to you, that it is irrelevant? This is about the commitments people make to others and about respecting the commitments and promises and oaths that others have taken. I fully support the right and freedom of consenting adults, straight or gay, to do anything they like in private, but nobody has a right to break the law or hurt other people. Society has a right to expect people to keep their oaths and promises that are entered into with public solemnity, like oaths of office and marriage vows. If someone disregards one, they are likely to disregard the other. It is a question of character and integrity. I hope you didn’t support Prop 8–why would anyone want the hassle of marriage, if it is so meaningless. Your views are simply irresponsible. I hope you are not transmitting them to the next generation.

  • 48 dfdeportation // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:44 am

    Politicians, republican and democrat, cannot be expected to confess and repent of their unethical and ILLEGAL behavior unless they are PUBLICLY EMBARRASSED, and even then they will attempt to lie and weasal their way out of ANY situation as long as racists and PARTY HACKS are out there to defend them. Is it any wonder that Decline-to-State D/S voters now account for 26% of the electorate in California? I made the move after being a democrat for 31 years to a D/S voter and have not been disappointed for the past year….

  • 49 Anna // Feb 1, 2009 at 11:22 am

    Again, I do not believe they broke the law. Military code is not the same thing, and he was in the military, not her. She might have the power to call him up and ask him to escort her, but she doesn’t have the power to make him sleep with her. IF that happened, he did it willingly. Secondly, I know that adultery is wrong and that it destroys families, but it is not a crime.

    You are naive if you think this kind of thing doesn’t happen in all professions, all the time. If we eliminated every government official for this, we’d have an unstable government.

  • 50 Reyfeo // Feb 2, 2009 at 3:26 am

    Let me see if I can to break this nut.

    Anna: In the food chain (or chain of command) politicians are superiors to all military personnel. The fact this military man decided to have sex with a politician breaks the UCMJ laws. The fact that the politician decided to have sex with the mil’ man violates public trust and (as Red Baron has noted) some laws.

    Like it or not most people DO CARE that politicans are shacking up with people not thier spouses because it’s a tell. One that says I can’t be trusted at home, much less with your tax dollars!

    The only person who can’t see that is you!

  • 51 La Lisa // Feb 2, 2009 at 8:28 am

    Loretta’s committed no transgression worse than the Washington boys club has for hundreds of years. . .gimme a break. There’s that nasty double standard rearin its head again.

Leave a Comment