Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: What Rep. Sanchez (D - CA) Said. Outrageous!

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 13, 2011, 6:28 p.m. EST by pfadrian (16)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

To show the severity of how broken Washington is . . . yesterday, on MSNBC's "Jansing and Company", California Representative Loretta Sanchez (D) said the following: "I've heard my own colleagues on the Republican side say, 'We want Obama to look bad. We don't care how bad the economy gets; we just want to win the election." BUT - AND HERE'S THE RUB - When asked who specifically says this, Sanchez responded "I don't . . . well, these are actual friends, who've said this happens in our conferences, and our groupings in our meetings."

THE POINT IS THIS . . . Either Ms. Sanchez is stating a falsehood (which is serious in itself), or she is stating direct knowledge of behavior bordering on treason - a political party conspiring to thwart the country's economic solvency for the purpose of personal gain - Yet she, and possibly other Democrats, are putting their colleagues before ethical and civic duties. There's a difference between people believing this is what the GOP is doing and having actual firsthand evidence of this. Just throwing it out there as a political shot is unacceptable; this demands investigation, and I have no problem throwing Sanchez and others out of the Congress for their inaction.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by IdFightGandhi (38) 12 years ago

Blue or Red, they'll all crooked and that's why the country is a mess.

I don't put faith into either party, they're both the same.

[-] 3 points by roberttho (5) 12 years ago

Colorblind to the parties because they all take corporate funding to progress themselves in our society and theyll say anything to their constituents to win. When can DC be free of all these Blue and Red lobbyists

[-] 1 points by Gylliwynn (56) 12 years ago

YOu're all right! The politicians are all bought by the corporations! But here is an article that came out recently describing how we got into this mess and how we can get out. Please read it to the end because he is trying to educate the masses in layman's term.


[-] 1 points by pfadrian (16) 12 years ago

The lobbyists aren't "blue" or "red". A lobbyist is their to advance the best interests of his or her cause, or his or her employer's cause. Let's keep in mind, though, "lobbyists" include representations of a lot of organizations that you likely support, including those who do a lot of good for communities and society as a whole. BUT that's off-topic. The point is lobbyists don't think in terms of "blue versus red", nor do the corporate lobbyists. This "blue versus red" is a game they play to keep us distracted from the real corruption going on.

[-] 1 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 12 years ago

They can do it without the money. If their arguments are strong and their interests really stand with the public, let the truth tell. The rule would apply to them just as much as to any other interest. I don't care if they are lobbying to send me a car filled with women. They can make the argument without money and without favor-trading.

[-] 3 points by ribis (240) 12 years ago

And we're to believe that Obama really, really wants to enact genuine financial reform if only the big, mean Republicans weren't in the way? Pfft.

This is evidence of the failure of the two-party system to deliver -- they're playing their own game, the people be damned. Shame on both parties -- it's now our job to find a way to rise above.

[-] 2 points by ray (2) 12 years ago

We need to take the money out of politics. People will only get power back with the vote, if we have public financing of our elected offices. And out law special interest groups.

[-] 2 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 12 years ago

Just more lies from partisan hacks. Reminds me of Pelosi, Lewis, and others who made the outrageous claims that tea party people screamed racial invectives and spat at them during the protests at the Capitol. Unfortunately for those liars, cameras were rolling, microphones were on, and no such ugly things happened. Completely fabricated tripe, as usual (which I have come to expect from Pelosi - it's her M.O.).

[-] 2 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 12 years ago

More evidence of how broken the system is and how both parties play us against each other. There is no desire to keep this country great - only a desire to lace each other's pockets while fleecing the American public.

[-] 2 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 12 years ago

Yeah, it sounds to me like a straight up lie. Don't water it down as a "falsehood", you keep the PC nonsense out of it. That was a LIE and attempt at fear-mongering.

Like when Biden claims you're more likely to be murdered or raped if we don't pass a stimulus ...

[-] 1 points by cheeseus (109) 12 years ago

Those evil greedy republicans....wait, if they are only about money and greed than why would they want the economy to suck? Wouldn't they rather have an additional ten million unemployed get jobs so they can buy their trinkets? Sometimes there is no conspiracy.

[-] 1 points by pfadrian (16) 12 years ago

Now, answer my question: If the Republicans aren't trying to block success for Obama, THEN WHY have they blocked bills that EVEN THEY like, such as the one in 2010 that would give tax incentives for smaller banks to loan to small businesses? They blocked it, even though the Chamber of Commerce pushed for it! And that's just one example where they voted down their own types of bills. MAYBE there's no conspiracy; but praytell, answer my question.

[-] 1 points by cheeseus (109) 12 years ago

I assume it's because it wasn't a clean bill. We would get a lot more bills passed if it dealt with one objective that both sides can agree too. The president has an agenda to make republicans appear to be obstructionists so he and his operatives add all kinds of silly fluff to bills they know republicans will reject on principle.

[-] 1 points by pfadrian (16) 12 years ago

Perhaps there's no conspiracy. Though I must: (1) point out that every member of Congress (both parties) is already a millionaire (give or take a couple, to ensure accuracy); why do they need to worry? (2) I must question how you perceive how profits are being made on Wall Street, particularly by the banks. The problem is that Wall Street ISN'T being used the way it's supposed to: which was traditionally for businesses to find capital through investors. Today, the banks have been engaging in high-risk practices like stock flipping, whereby a computer buys and sells the same stock millions of times over, and the banksters skim the small profits from each transaction into one huge pile of dough. The sad reality is that - yes, it isn't just human greed - there simply are less jobs today, because many businesses have learned more efficient ways of operating, and technology like The Internet has been a huge job killer too. I don't think the Republicans have any plan whatsoever for getting those people jobs, particularly if they don't believe in government stimulus; why would any corporation need to manufacture in America, so long as they have a cheaper, and more skilled workforce overseas? You can lower taxes all you want, but that's not going to cut it. The Republicans never had a jobs-plan; they just want to be the ones in control.

[-] 1 points by cheeseus (109) 12 years ago

Congress does have too many millionaires, but they are not all Republicans. Both parties deserve equal condenmation.

Many people are upset with Wall Street because government deformed the true free market. The high frequency trading gets their money from the fed which loans it at 0%. The less risky banks take that 0% and put it in bonds making a couple hundred percent profit for doing nothing. The more risky ones speculate or lend it out as credit cards with an average new rate of 15%. Banksters shouldn't be getting bailouts, handouts, or a full time lobbying seat in congress. There should be equal taxation among all citizens. That doesn't mean those of us jealous of the rich punish them by stealing that wealth. We make them pay an equal percentage that we are paying.

It's not the governments job to create jobs. The jobs government does come up with are always inefficient and overpaid. That tends to happen when you are playing around with free money. When a business creates a job they do it because there is demand and they make certain their employee is doing their job proper so the customer will keep coming back.

[-] 1 points by mantaseed (36) 12 years ago

This sounds like partisan politics disguised as "we support no party" crowd. (End the Fed= vote for Ron Paul)

[-] 1 points by JeffCallahan (216) 12 years ago

OWS will not succeed unless the people who represent the movement start conducting themselves like professionals. Stop using fowl language, dress and talk like professionals.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 12 years ago

Just another broken politician in a broken system. Nothing to get bent out of shape over. This is just one of many reasons why we are going to fix the system and eventually remove our broken politicians.

[-] 1 points by pfadrian (16) 12 years ago

Ribis - I'm not disagreeing with you. The two party system is a rigged game. However, I'm a pragmatic. I do believe we need to break up this two party control (I think we should stop allowing candidates to put (d) or (r) by their names on ballots, but that's for another post); however, I believe we're stuck with them for now, so I'm putting my energy into rolling back Citizens United and getting all the money and corruption out of our campaign system (and advertising).

[-] 1 points by pfadrian (16) 12 years ago

CLARIFY - "in THEIR conferences, and THEIR groupings and THEIR meetings."

[-] -1 points by pfadrian (16) 12 years ago

Danimal - You don't know if it was a lie or not. You can't just say things without supporting evidence. If you were one of my high school English students, I would have failed you.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 12 years ago

It was Loretta Sanchez who could not support her assertion.

Do keep up.

A big "F" for you, lol.

[-] 1 points by pfadrian (16) 12 years ago

Who said she "could not" support her assertion? Did you see the interview, or are you just another failure of our education system, blathering whatever unsubstantiated thoughts pop into your head? YOU don't know whether she "could not" or "would not" support her assertion - just admit you don't know; though I watched it twice, and it sounded strongly like she "would not" support it.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 12 years ago

She made an accusation and would not, or could not, or decided not to back it up, mm'kay? My BS detector says she's a liar. You, apparently, are willing to give her a pass for making a statement of fact that she, for whatever reason, did not substantiate. That's your problem.

[-] 1 points by pfadrian (16) 12 years ago

Again, show me where I gave her a pass?!? First off, I posted this to condemn her! However, that I refrain from determining whether she was making the same kind of unsubstantiated claims that you are doing yourself, or whether she's protecting people who should be investigated, is because I don't make claims without the evidence to do so. And if I spent so much time teaching your ass how to be a critical thinking persuasive writer, and you present me with muddle-headed tripe like this, I would fail you, because I believe in educational standards.

[-] 1 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 12 years ago

She said "I heard them say it" then it was "someone heard it". If you would have failed me for pointing out a lie that was a lie, you fail as a teacher.

[-] 1 points by pfadrian (16) 12 years ago

Danimal - I do get your angle, but it seemed more clear, particular to someone watching the footage, that she didn't want to out anyone - hence, her emphasis on them "being her friends", as we're supposed to understand why someone wouldn't rat on their colleagues. I'm NOT sure your knowledge of Capitol Hill, but I can tell you, as a longtime resident, with family who worked there - behind closed doors, friendships and bitter divides don't adhere to the political circus shown on TV. I'm not surprised by what those of one party say off-camera to those of the other.