Comments on: House Ethics Committee looks into Sanchez sisters’ staffing arrangement

By: Anna

Anna — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:26:24 +0000

Edwards, who is still married, whose wife has cancer, and who ran for President, is being investigated for using campaign funds to pay off his mistress, who bore his child.

Yeah, he and Loretta are the same. LOL

You’re NUTS.

By: Red Baron

Red Baron — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:09:44 +0000

It’s all true, Anna. That’s why Sanchez has not and will not ever deny it. Both Sanchez and Einwechter were married when they hooked up on official travel. I suppose if John Edwards got divorced and moved in with Hunter and the “love child,” Anna would say, “Just two single people dating! lol.” Shows how totally clueless Anna is. Hey, Anna, Edwards’s political career is over because of adultery and left a lot of good people hurting. Loretta did the same thing. Let me ask you, Anna: Do you see anything wrong with John Edwards’ behavior? I guess not. That puts you in a tiny minority of Americans who lack any moral sense at all.

By: Anna

Anna — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:22:46 +0000

re: “So, here is Anna’s position: It is not ok for Sanford to fly to Argentina for sex at taxpayer’s expense, but it is OK for Loretta to travel all over the world with her lover-escort at taxpayer’s expense.”

First of all, there is no proof that anything you’re saying about Sanchez is true. Secondly, if it is true, there is still no equivalence. Sanford left the county without telling anybody where he was. He abandoned his post.

Sanchez hasn’t done anything like that. I know you hate her and you’re desperate to depict her as some kind of immoral lawbreaker, but nobody with any sense is buying it. She has never been in any trouble, or even been accused of any wrong doing. She might have a boyfriend. Big deal. Two single people dating. OH NO! lol

By: Red Baron

Red Baron — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:36:09 +0000

So, here is Anna’s position: It is not ok for Sanford to fly to Argentina for sex at taxpayer’s expense, but it is OK for Loretta to travel all over the world with her lover-escort at taxpayer’s expense. By the way, it’s Cavewoman, stupid. You see, Anna continues to make totally unfounded assumptions. She also has very poor reading comprehension, because I never said Loretta or anyone should be criminally charged in connection with her unethical, immoral and embarrassing conduct. I have advocated that we should demand integrity and character in our elected leaders and enforce congressional ethics standards. I guess Anna doesn’t care about either. Even if adultery should not be criminalized, it is not OK, especially on the job with subordinates (which is Loretta’s case). Anna refuses to grasp this. It was not a crime for Bubba to have sex with an intern. It was not a crime for Edwards to have a child with his videographer. It was not a crime for Mayor V to sleep with a reporter, and it was not a crime for Newsome to betray his chief of staff by sleeping with his wife. Yet, in each case, the public’s judgment was that the politician involved had failed as a leader, an example to the young, and as a trustworthy person. All of their careers and reputatinos have been damaged, in some cases destroyed. But, according to Anna, the public is just wrong and we have no right to expect moral and honest behavior from our elected officials. You are wrong, Anna. Hopefully, you will eventually learn the value of fidelity and honor in leaders.

By: Anna

Anna — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:20:19 +0000

re: “Sorry, it wasn’t criminal to fly to Argentina or even to lie about it–stupid, but not criminal.”

He used taxpayer money to take a vacation to see his mistress in a foreign country. That’s illegal.

As for Sanchez, ASSuming any of what you say is even true, it is not a crime for two consenting adults to have a relationship. If
she committed a crime she would be charged with one. You’re a caveman if you think
that a woman should be charged with a crime for having a consensual sexual relationship.

I notice you never say that the man she’s supposedly dating, you know, the one, who according to you, was actually in the military, shoud be charged with a crime. Just her. I don’t see you calling him a “whore.” This man obviopusly didn’t want to be married anymore, so he met somebody new and got a divorce. That’s LIFE. It’s not a crime. It’s scary that there
are people who think it is.

You’re a sexist caveman.

By: Red Baron

Red Baron — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:03:10 +0000

Anna, once again you have totally failed to distinguish Loretta’s adultery from any of the others you mention. And I didn’t call her a whore and have told no lies about her. You, on the other hand, know nothing about her affair with her married official Pentagon escort. None of your cases involved crimes. Sorry, it wasn’t criminal to fly to Argentina or even to lie about it–stupid, but not criminal. As the senior woman on Armed Service Committee, Loretta knew it was criminal for the officer to have sex with her and she was risking both his and her careers. Her position on that committee also made it a conflict of interest for her, as much as any conflict Mayor V created. Loretta’s conduct was just as unethical as Newsome’s. She held a position of great power over her escort and members of the Congress are required to conduct themselves “above reproach” at all times. Poaching on married officers assigned to be your official escort, and engaging in what was for him a crime, falls short of that standard by a long shot. Any fool can see that. You are willfully blind on this. Obviously, there is a little reverse sexism at work in your defense of Loretta, about whom you obviously know nothing.

By: Anna

Anna — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:23:01 +0000

RE: “And while some of the recent male scandals were later shown to have possibly illegal aspects, they were front page news before those issue were raised (e.g. Gov. Sanford, SEN Edwards, Mayor Villariagosa, Mayor Newsom, Pres. Clinton, etc. etc.)”

WRONG as usual. Sanford’s case became news because he abandoned his job abd flew to Argentina several times. Then he lied and said he was hiking. If you leave your job without telling anybody where you are, expect scrutiny. Villaraigosa’s affair became an issue because he was seeing a reporter, which created a conflict of interest. Newsom slept with the wife of a man on his payroll, and Clinton fooled around with an intern. All of these raise ethical and/or legal issues.

Sanchez has done nothing like this, yet you insist on spreading lies and calling her a “whore.” It’s SEXISM, plain and simple. You guys are backwards. Time to get off the rancho and enter the 21st century.

By: FormerStaffer

FormerStaffer — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:08:33 +0000

To Anna, aka as “Clueless in California,” and “Reyfeo’s feminist megaphone”, or rather “Cro-Magnon Anna,” either join Loretta Sanchez’s staff, or go get a personality, because you can’t have it both ways trashing politicians based exclusively on skin tones, and public theft.

By: theKaiser

theKaiser — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:59:13 +0000

Anna emulates the same condescending attitude that emits from the Sanchez sisters. So obviously she is one of those coconuts who are clueless to the definition of public service. This is the same woman, who trashes Gloria Molina because she doesn’t have a college degree, and yet comes to the defense of two Congressional representatives who just take up space on Capitol Hill, only because they have managed to successfully loot the taxpayer for over a decade. These are Anna’s standards and values in less than a hundred words.

By: Red Baron

Red Baron — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:20:25 +0000

If Jack didn’t anticipate that Playgirl Loretta would eventually cheat on him, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell to him (I should ask Loretta to broker the deal). I mean, seriously, how gullible can one be? Even a casual observer could see that she has no respect for marriage or fidelity. She is also pretty reckless with her public image and risk taking.

As usual, Anna misses the boat in her absurd attempt to distinguish Loretta’s case from the legion of male pols who have been destroyed by adultery. Loretta IS in a sex scandal (duh). She committed adultery. And while some of the recent male scandals were later shown to have possibly illegal aspects, they were front page news before those issue were raised (e.g. Gov. Sanford, SEN Edwards, Mayor Villariagosa, Mayor Newsom, Pres. Clinton, etc. etc.) You’re right, we don’t care about who they date, but we do care if they display a consistent contempt for marriage, fidelity and honesty. That’s why America lost all faith in Edwards before anyone raised any criminal aspects of his adultery.

If it’s true that Loretta dumped Jack and took up with Saylor, then maybe Jack will finally join our dialogue…