Comments on: With or without her (Loretta Sanchez) http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez Where La Raza comes to discuss its leaders, where you can learn about issues in Latino politics. Sat, 05 May 2012 23:43:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: La Lisa http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/comment-page-2/#comment-28750 La Lisa Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:28:16 +0000 http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/#comment-28750 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. 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.

]]> By: Reyfeo http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/comment-page-1/#comment-28742 Reyfeo Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:26:56 +0000 http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/#comment-28742 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! 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!

]]> By: Anna http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/comment-page-1/#comment-28714 Anna Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:22:46 +0000 http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/#comment-28714 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. 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.

]]> By: dfdeportation http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/comment-page-1/#comment-28706 dfdeportation Sun, 01 Feb 2009 16:44:18 +0000 http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/#comment-28706 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.... 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….

]]> By: Red Baron http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/comment-page-1/#comment-28694 Red Baron Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:12:27 +0000 http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/#comment-28694 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. 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.

]]> By: Red Baron http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/comment-page-1/#comment-28693 Red Baron Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:52:16 +0000 http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/#comment-28693 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. 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.

]]> By: Anna http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/comment-page-1/#comment-28678 Anna Sun, 01 Feb 2009 05:43:46 +0000 http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/#comment-28678 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. 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.

]]> By: Red Baron http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/comment-page-1/#comment-28675 Red Baron Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:36:53 +0000 http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/#comment-28675 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. 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.

]]> By: Anna http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/comment-page-1/#comment-28673 Anna Sun, 01 Feb 2009 03:54:15 +0000 http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/#comment-28673 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. 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.

]]> By: Anna http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/comment-page-1/#comment-28672 Anna Sun, 01 Feb 2009 03:51:52 +0000 http://latinopoliticsblog.com/2009/01/27/with-or-without-her-loretta-sanchez/#comment-28672 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. 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.

]]>