President Won’t Intervene to Stop Discharges of Gay Soldiers

Amid mounting calls from think tanks, former military leaders, and current servicemembers to end the military's failed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy by executive order, White House Press Secretary said today that President Obama will not intervene.

Dadt Said Gibbs: "To get fundamental reform in this instance requires a legislative
vehicle. The president made a promise to change this
policy; he will work with the Joints Chiefs of Staff, the
administration and with Congress to ensure that we have a policy that
works for our national interests…There have been discussions about the best way to move forward, and the
only sustainable way to do that is through — sustainable and durable
way — is through legislation, which the president has promised and has
continued to work for."

Yesterday, the Palm Center released the results of a study along with a blueprint that would allow the President to end the failed military gay ban via executive order. Lt. Dan Choi, a skilled Arabic linguist and the first gay soldier fired under Obama, published an open letter to the President and Congress pleading that the military not discharge him.


  1. brian says

    a.k.a. – “be good, be quiet, and be-have. don’t bother us and we’ll get back to you.”

  2. Bob says

    Of course that lying piece of shit won’t take steps to protect LGBT people! He never had any intention of doing so. Thanks, Barack, for selling us down the river.

  3. mcquaidLA says

    More than the continuing tolerance of discrimination by the president and “our” government and fellow “citizens” I’m just so sick of my country being the world capital of Stupid…

  4. Terry says

    For all of the foot dragging, the reticence about talking about this in the first place, etc….why I do keep seeing the White House refer to doing something about this as “change”? When I see the word “change”, my first thought is “compromise”. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was supposed to be a compromise…and look how well that has turned out.

    My hopes for repealing this is fading by the day.

  5. says

    Gays and lesbains shouldn’t be in the military to begin with. why should we fight these greedy genocidal wars?


  6. says

    If the California Supreme Court upholds Prop 8 and there is no movement on DADT and/or DOMA in the Congress by that time, then I truly believe we should be celebrating Pride/Stonewall with a march on Washington 1,000,0000+ strong to show we mean business. Equal protection under the Constitution is no laughing matter and as tax paying citizens I think it’s high time we demand our civil liberties be afforded to us…not just some of them, but ALL OF THEM!

  7. Jerey says

    That cowardly ass motherfucker ain’t gonna do shit for us, DADT or DOMA. Time to schedule that huge ass march!

  8. says

    We have to write to our congress critters to get HR 1283 co-sponsored. Lets get it from 140 to 175 co-sponsors. Even try to get Mary Bono Mack and Mark Kirk to co-sponsor it.

    I wrote my letter to Joe Baca of California, if your congress person is not on the list write a letter today.

    President Obama wants it done legislatively so his ass would not be beaten up like President Clinton if he did this by executive order. So do what the President asks, write and call your congress critter, the bill should have broad support so it could pass before the session ends.

  9. Javier says

    The White House is right. Like it or not, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is mandated by law. Congress took it out of the president’s sole discretion to allow openly gay men and women to serve when it passed DADT and Bill Clinton signed it. Obama, who swore to uphold the laws of the land, cannot now refuse to adhere to the law. The only way gays can legally serve in the military openly is by getting Congress to allow it. Obama has no authority to unilaterally disregard a law.

  10. Michael @ says

    Matt and Javier, if you could put down the Kool Aid a minute, what part of the following November 2007 explict promise from Obama don’t you get?

    “As President, I will work with Congress and place the weight of my administration behind enactment of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which will make nondiscrimination the official policy of the U.S. military. I will task the Defense Department and the senior command structure in every branch of the armed forces with developing an action plan for the implementation of a full repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell. And I will direct my Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to develop procedures for taking re-accession requests from those qualified service members who were separated from the armed forces under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and still want to serve their country. The eradication of this policy will require more than just eliminating one statute. It will require the implementation of anti-harassment policies and protocols for dealing with abusive or discriminatory behavior as we transition our armed forces away from a policy of discrimination. The military must be our active partners in developing those policies and protocols. THAT WORK SHOULD HAVE STARTED LONG AGO. IT WILL START WHEN I TAKE OFFICE. America is ready to get rid of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. All that is required is leadership.”














  11. says

    Michael I agree with you, but unfortunately we have to play with the president’s rules of the game even though he is waffling with the LGBT community, the President wants to keep his 70% approval ratings and he just is unfortunately scared to share his political capital on us.

  12. John K. says

    Any gay person who is asked about whether they approve of the president needs to give a big, fat NO. When he starts to see his approval rating go down because of this issue, then maybe he’ll take us seriously. I sent an email to the White House the other day informing President Obama that if this policy is not completely repealed by Election Day 2010, I would not be voting for any of the democrats, and I would not be voting for him in 2012. And I told him I meant that day, and not a day later. If he gets the policy repealed on November 15, 2010, he doesn’t get my vote in 2012. I’m not going to be told “it’s an election year” anymore either. I think all of us should start sending him similar messages.

  13. elpolacko says

    this is the same run-around we got from bill clinton and we know how well that turned out. barack is both the commander-in-chief and the chief executive. he could end the policy tonight..IF he wanted to.
    but then, he doesn’t think we should have equal marriage rights either because he’s a ‘christian’. maybe if we are all nice little homos and just keep giving these guys our votes we can have some semblance of equality in another…oh.. fifty years or so. keep hope alive, suckers !

  14. 24play says

    You have to be incredibly naive to have believed there would be any movement on DADT or DOMA in Washington this year.

    This year’s federal successes are going to be hate crimes, ENDA (which is huge, far more important than a DADT repeal or passage of hate crimes legislation), the finalization of the repeal of the HIV immigration ban, and, possibly, some improvement in benefits for federal employees with same sex partners.

    Visible movement on DADT will begin next year, and a Congressional attempt to repeal Section 2 of DOMA (which would allow federal recognition of state-recognized same-sex marriages) MIGHT get action in committee in 2010, but 2011, after the midterm elections, is much more likely.

  15. One Issue Gay says

    As a One Issue Gay, I know that I’ll be putting my X in the box for Palin in ’12. Why be politically savvy when I could undermine myself and the rest of America in a big show of This One Issue Only Now Please.

  16. el polacko says

    … on second thought, make that one hundred and fifty years. we don’t want to seem to be too impatient or pushy. after all, a politician’s popularity rating is WAY more important than our silly little civil rights. just be sure to pay your taxes on time !

  17. says

    He should put a moratorium on discharging gays & lesbians until such time the legislature has decided. If the legislature keeps DADT, then they would be discharged; but right now he could nip it, nip it in the bud. Now, not to equalize the two, but at different levels, the death penalty has been halted or placed on a moritorium for various reasons, why can’t this happen in the armed forces regarding discharges of gays & lebians? I’m starting to feel that the gay community was taken by Barack Obama (however, he is/was 100 times better than the alternate choice and his predecessor).

  18. says

    Barack Obama — BIGOT. On gay issues, we might as well have had John McCain. Fuck him. Another goddamn politician sells us out.

    Fuck Barack Obigot. He’ll never get my vote again.

  19. Q says

    I expected to see the usual venom when I clicked on the comments, and of course I wasn’t disappointed. What I find interesting though, is the NYT opinion piece that Andy buried in the previous post that got not one response. Go back and read it. Here is a portion of it:

    “Among their many aspirations for his presidency, Barack Obama’s admirers nurse a persistent hope that he might be able to end the culture wars. And by end, they generally mean win. The real hope is a final victory for cultural liberalism, and social conservatism’s permanent eclipse.

    “These hopes are overstated, but not necessarily irrational. Four months in, the Obama administration does seem to have a plausible strategy for turning the “social issues” to liberalism’s advantage. The outline is simple: Engage on abortion, and punt on gay rights.

    “The punting has been obvious. On the campaign trail, Obama promised to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. He still intends to — but not yet, not yet. He said he supported federal recognition for civil unions. His administration has ignored the issue. He backed repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. Don’t expect that to come up for a vote any time soon.

    “Both strategies make political sense. Gay-rights activists are irritated with Obama, but time is on their side. Gay marriage is marching through liberal states (last week, Maine; soon, New York), and public opinion, steadily tilting in its direction, seems to be tilting faster in the last six months. On a national level, the issue still cuts against liberalism — but less so with every passing day.

    **”By pushing gay-rights debates off until later in his presidency, Obama is almost certainly making them easier to win.”**

    This strategy seems to make sense to me, even though it would take more time to accomplish the goal. How can any of you be sure that this is not his plan?

  20. J. J. says

    I’m willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but at first glance this is very disappointing.

  21. galore says

    This “strategy” makes sense for a coward, not a leader.

    Why can’t we have a leader like the Spanish have with Zapatero? He lead the nation to full equality, no ifs or buts.

    He also got re-elected.

    And no, the hyper-catholic Spaniards aren’t less homophobic than the people of the USA.

    Obama won’t even stop firings due to sexual orientation. What a loser.

  22. kj says

    Obama has shown himself to be very politically saavy…not just in getting elected, but in rope-a-doping opponents and critics and in aiming for legislative change on a rational time table. I’m not bothered by the delay on don’t ask don’t tell. Pushing through a presidential moratorium tables the issue…not doing so keeps it on the agenda and in the forefront of ongoing policy debate. If the issue is seen as “solved” but remains subject to the whim of the executive, the DADT will be more likely to remain on the books instead of being outright repealed and protections will only last as long as he’s in the White House. I’m for solving the problem, not just slapping a band-aid on it. If there’s no movement over the next year then I think much of the above criticism will more valid.

  23. James Poppinga says

    I unfortunately understand the need for legislation to undo Clinton’s fuckup but I think the President can step in to stop discharges just as Bush did to keep people in past their regular enlistment date. You can bend the rules in time of war and emergencies. I think he’s afraid. We need to appeal to his wife and Biden.

  24. Jersey says

    It’s not just his apparant disregard for equal right for LGBT, he hasn’t held any of the bankers accountable, he’s not going to prosecute anyone from the previous administration for torture essentially condoning it, he didn’t put any effort behind cramdown. I voted for him but now I think the only real change he’s going to bring about is to allow us to say we voted in the first black president and little else. I’m begining to think he’s really not up to the job.

  25. paul c says

    Pushing gay rights back until later WON’T make it easier to pass at all. Now is when Obama has what will likely be his highest approval ratings. Now is when men and women are desperately needed in Iraq and Afghanistan — with troops so worn out and stressed that they are killing each other. Now is when Obama has control of the Senate and the House.

    History indicates that Republicans are going to gain a lot of ground in Congress in two years. How is not having his own party as the majority possibly going to make gay rights legislation easier for Obama?

    Also if Obama has any intention of serving a second term, and is honestly eager to establish gay rights, wouldn’t he get this controversial legislation out of the way now and let the conservatives have time to simmer down over it for the next several years, rather than springing it immediately before his next election campaign?

  26. soulbrotha says

    Paul C., your comment is nothing but a bunch of statements and assumptions. What history is there that PROVES that Republicans are going to gain this powerful ground that you speak of? And what about the fact that more Americans support gay marriage than oppose it? And that the GOP’s own members are calling for a change of their thinking. Everything that I have been reading lately indicates to me that whatever ground they gain in the future will not be gained as the backwards Party that currently exists.

    Therefore, it would seem to me that the NYT piece is absolutely correct. The more America changes, the foolish and ancient the conservatives arguments will sound and the easier it is for Obama to make permanent legislative changes.

  27. soulbrotha says

    sorry, that should have read:

    Therefore, it would seem to me that the NYT piece is absolutely correct. The more American thinking progresses, the more foolish and ancient the conservatives’ arguments will sound and the easier it will be for Obama to make permanent legislative changes.

  28. Mike says

    I wholeheartedly agree with one of the previous comments but:

    We should all go to Washington and march REGARDLESS of the California Supreme’s decision. It is time we show the country and the world we mean business and we aren’t going to allow our rights to be abridged any longer.

    We should put the call out far and wide and surpass 1 million, hell, let’s go for 2.

    Can you imagine the coverage and impact it would make? How can you continue to deny equality under the law to such a massive demonstration. The answer is you can’t.

  29. paul c says

    @Soulbrotha – I didn’t say that history “PROVES” Republicans are going to gain “powerful ground”. I said that history “indicates” the opposition party will “gain a lot of ground” in two years. (ie not be the powerless minority)

    The trend is always for people to want balance and they get that by voting for the other party next time around. Do you not remember 1994? 2006?

    And if more Americans support gay marriage (though I think you’re mistaken on that), why doesn’t Obama? Does that mean he is more backwards and bigotted than the average American?

    He’s supposed to be leading, not waiting for the wind to blow him wherever it will after the rest of the country has already been there waiting.

  30. John K. says

    One Issue Gay: Point taken, but as we speak, more and more gay men and women are losing their livelihoods in the military. Economic times aren’t easy for these people either. And this is not a huge complex issue like the economy or the war on terror. This is SIMPLE. I’ll say it again: this is SIMPLE. It is enraging that this is still law and that Obama is not willing to address this now. That is why I have made my ultimatum, and I am sticking to it. If this policy is repealed by Election Day 2010, I will vote in that election, and I will vote for Obama for president in 2012. If this policy is in place for a single day past Election Day 2010, I will not cast a single vote in either the election of 2010 or the election of 2012.

    Q: By pushing his agenda on gay rights to later in his administration, he continues to allow gays to suffer for NO REASON. Not just no GOOD reason, but NO REASON WHATSOEVER. This is not being stuck between a rock and hard place; this is simple decency, and if he can’t get this done immediately, he doesn’t deserve my vote. Not to mention, NOW is when he has 59 or 60 votes in the Senate. He may not have that in 2010. There’s always another election, there’s always someone else’s policital aspirations I’m supposed to worry about. Well, I’m done with it. It’s now or never.

  31. John K. says

    KJ: Point taken, but if you need stitches, you don’t leave the wound open on the way to the hospital, you cover it with a cloth and apply pressure. I’m not buying that Obama needs to do nothing and wait for the legislature. We elected him to be a LEADER. That means, put on the band-aid, and then get your ass in the car and drive to the hospital. He can declare a moratorium and then get on Congress to repeal DADT legislatively.

    Thank God the mainstream media seems to be sticking it to him on this. I hope they keep it up every damn day until this disgrace of a law is repealed.

  32. soulbrotha says

    Paul C, you did not use the word “prove” but you DID say: “How is not having his own party as the majority possibly going to make gay rights legislation easier for Obama?” That would indicate to me that you are concluding that Republicans would gain enough ground to be a “powerful” majority that Obama would not be able to overcome. Same thing, isn’t it?

    This is the national poll taken about gay marriage:

    Finally, I don’t see what Obama is doing as “waiting for the wind to blow him wherever it will.” I believe he is much more savvy than that.

    The NYT Op-Ed seems pretty plausible to me. But it’s popular to bash Obama on here, so I really didn’t expect many people to consider other possibilities.

  33. says

    I’m still willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but the doubt is creeping…OTOH, it looks like he’s done right by the economy, which is good for everyone.

    Remember too, we’ve got DADT because Clinton acted a little too quickly and hadn’t laid the groundwork. Obama does not want the same thing to happen to him, esp. during a war (in Afghanistan) that’s going so poorly.

  34. Daniel says

    I see this as a public safety issue, not a gay issue. Ok, it’s a gay issue…but…Lt. Choi, for example, is an arab linguist in the military. Every day he’s on the job, he’s listening to chatter & helping sniff out possible attacks, right? So how is him getting fired helping the security of our nation??

    I think DA/DT needs to go b/c it’s unfair to gays. But even those who disagree should be able to see it’s degrading the integrity of our commitment to security by tossing soldiers out for Da/Dt.

    Aren’t Dems historically the party weak on security? Man up, make us more secure, keep the gay soldiers.

  35. Jeffrey says

    People are criticizng Obama on here because he deserves it. He is not above criticism. I think he is a good man and has great potential and he is WAAAAY better than Bush, but if he promises things to us during the election and then changes his tune after he gets elected then he needs to be rebuked. If we don’t stand up for ourselves nobody else is going to do it. We have to demand our rights NOW. We can’t sit back and wait. What if we wait 4 years and nothing happens? Then we wait another 3 years and nothing happens? Won’t we feel stupid for being so ‘patient’?? Government moves too slowly as it is. If we demand action NOW, then maybe we will see some results in 2 or 3 years. If we wait 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 years to apply pressure, then we will see results 2 or 3 years AFTER THAT. Why wait?????? What does that really get us??
    If we start mouthing the talking points of those who don’t really want to help us — now is not a good time; Too much on his plate; wait until the country is ready;
    there could be a backlash; blah blah blah–
    then THEY win. Don’t let Obama or ANYONE tell you to wait. Believe that you deserve equality NOW. Fight for it NOW. Then it will happen sooner rather than later.

  36. mike says

    Barack Obama is a fraud who is propped up by the gay media elite. It’s time that we ordinary gay people rebelled against the gay media elite who claim to act in our interests but who simply prop up Democratic Party politicians.

    Barack has done a million things in his first 100 days. Everything but the most important promise he made to us….

  37. NR says

    It’s true that the president made many promises, and he also said that he would have to prioritize. Right now, it’s all about the economy and the war strategies. He’s making moves on the healthcare front, and he will move on our issues as well. As a homeowner who also has a job and needs credit and reasonable healthcare costs, I think he has prioritized correctly. He’ll get us there. But, as he has done with other major issues, such as the stimulus package, he’ll do it when he has the best chance to really solve the problem and win. He will not grandstand and he will not necessarily do this when we want him to. So, the rest of you go ahead and mouth off because you’ll likely be voting for him again in 3.5 years after he keeps his promises and actually solves the problem.

  38. James says

    I think what he’s saying is that the law needs to be changed, because we live in a government of laws. If he just changes things willy-nilly to suit himself, then he’d be no better than W.

    BUT…I do think that, in the interest of maintaining our troop numbers in a time of war, he should have the gall to issue an “executive order” that “forbids the discharge of DADT discharges until a decision can be reached by the Congress”

    Yeah, I’m pissed too.

  39. Anthony in Nashville says

    I agree with David Ehrenstein.

    Going back to Bill Clinton, I have not understood why military service is supposed to be one of the main concerns for gays and lesbians.

    Is it about proving our patriotism? Showing people that gay men can be “real” men?

    I believe a gay person enlisting in the military is like a kid from the suburbs trying to join an inner city gang. You can try, but you know they don’t want you and will make it harder for you to be accepted.

  40. Brian says

    What are you people talking about? He let the gay families go to the Easter Egg hunt at the White House and . . . Oh wait I guess that is it.

  41. Rann says

    Anthony I find your comment offensive. A gay person should have every right to do what ever he or she wants to do. It is not about proving anything. It is about equality. And Obama should be keeping his word and know equality matters. The bottom line is we will all get the chance to judge him in 2012. He will either have lied or kept his word. I am very disappointed in him at this point but it could turn around.
    I hope so but do not think so. He seems like every other politician who promises the world and only delivers New Jersey. Nice state but not the world! Yesterday, I called the White House and told the comment line operator how I felt. They are to pass those comments on. When I said that one of the main reasons I voted for the president was due to his promise to repeal DADT, the lady said “oh” in a worried sounding voice. He is not exactly inspiring hope in me…

  42. sean says

    obama can suck it!!! this is the first time i’ve ever been ashamed that i voted, but whatever fool me once…

  43. nic says

    those who are calling for patience on DADT should read “Palm Center: President Can Halt Discharges of Gay Military Personnel; a Blueprint” (link posted here the day before yesterday) and take stock. for the president to halt the dismissal of qualified, gay, military troops, is a no brain-er. he could couch his decision in the language of ‘reasonableness’. that is: it is a given that we are short on personnel. the pentagon has relaxed its standards in order to meet recruitment quotas to the point where people who had heretofore not qualified for enlistment (for various reasons: criminal records, low intelligence scores, and so on) are now welcomed. in the face of this, how does giving educated, skilled, gay people the bum’s rush make sense? it is a waste of government resources, it adds a further drain on the armed services at a time of “war”, and weakens our national defenses and thus our national security.

    obama needs no coaching on how to finesse an issue. but, it seems clear to me that he has little to lose and everything to gain by doing an honest and overt act of “stop-loss”. he can ease gays into the military while giving deference and cover to the congress and the joint chiefs and their machinations, until they come up with a plan. plus, he won’t have to expend much political capital on us fags. we would be a cheap date.

  44. RB says

    I have repeatedly posted that the president has the power to stop this by executive order and I have been blasted! Obama can stop the discharges if he wants to. The bottom line, he refuses to pick up the political hot potato and live up to his campaign promises.

    I am moving towards accepting Obama and many here are beginning to move against him. He is doing what he said he would do in many ways. “Marriage is between one man and one woman.” However, he gave a good speech, and that does not make him the media darling that many here thought that he would be! Too many expected him to ride in on white horse and be our saviour and apparently you weren’t listening to him during the race. I still think we are better off than we were, but he is NOT the saviour of the LGBT community. Give him time though and he may come around.

    I do find this somewhat humorous though. Same with Clinton, he did what he said he would do and look where we are.

  45. Sean says

    Oh my! All this misplaced anger. True we should march on Washington, but we won’t. True, we should take our votes away from these people who repeatedly break their promises, but we won’t. True, oh so true, we should render irrelevant the gay media elite who do not serve our purpose in any effective way, but we won’t. Where else is there to go?
    That’s the question.
    We need to create a new order that will meet our needs and the needs of those who come after us. True we need civil rights legislation, but there will be a cost. We need effective leaders who will not rest until they’ve achieved civil rights for all. Not these house pets we keep sending to Washington who tell us everything is proceeding apace when we know what little they’re getting accomplished is not sufficient.
    We have to be willing to pay the price, and I’m not sure there are enough of us willing to do that.

  46. Anthony in Nashville says

    @ Rann,

    Did not mean to offend. Rather than the gang analogy I used earlier, perhaps a more accurate one would be black gays in the church. You know you will be welcomed and even thrive there as long as you don’t “put it in their face.” I think that is a deal with the devil that each person in that situation has to deal with in their own way.

    I understand that the core issue is equality. Considering the many disparities gays and lesbians face in comparison with straights, it’s strange that the first area people want equality in is the right to wage war.

  47. mike says

    Gibbs is full of sh*t. DADT was an executive mandate and Obama could put a stop to it now if he wanted to. Only, he doesn’t want to because his beloved General Petreus is a born-again christian, just as most of the top brass in the U.S. military are born-again christians. Obama rescinds DADT, the military will revolt. So, get used to that knife in our collective backs. With Obama it is just beginning. See, he’s got so many other, more important problems right now that LGBT issues will just have to wait… until right around 2012 when he’ll need our votes again. Or, maybe not. With Obama, it’s hard to tell. I’d say he’ll continue ever so slowly to continue to tack to the right.

  48. mcquaidLA says

    David? Gays and lesbians enter the military for the same reason as everyone else – yes, some of them want to serve, but most young people who go into the military do so because that’s the best option we provide for young people who aren’t rich or exceptional in some other way to improve their lot in life.

    And that’s the way we like it. Corporate America requires a large pool of young people who are willing to gamble with their lives to fight wars on behalf of the privileged, whose children are busy attending college and staking out the positions from which they will direct their less-privileged peers their entire lives.

    In other words: Don’t hate the players, hate the game!

  49. LincolnLounger says

    I can’t believe any of you people are surprised. You mock and humiliate Log Cabin Republicans saying that it’s like Jews working for Hitler. By doing so, you ensure the gay community is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party. Obama and the Democrats have no reason to work for us. We have nowhere else to go, thanks to the voices of “tolerance”. Idiots.

  50. nic says


    better than being a holy owned automaton, i guess. would the repugs be doing better? idiot.

  51. Brix says

    Dear 24Play … “This year’s federal successes are going to be hate crimes, ENDA (which is huge, far more important than a DADT repeal”

    Far more important?! Why?

    I disagree and so would my husband on his third tour in Middle East. This is the only law specifically takes AWAY rights from people that happen to be gay. While future historians will judge us barbarians, currently it is written into Federal law that it is permissible to discriminate against us.

    “Visible movement on DADT will begin next year, … but 2011, after the midterm elections, is much more likely.”

    Either we get this in the next 12 months or we won’t get it for many years to come. You do realize the Democrats are going to lose seats in both houses during the mid-terms? As we get closer to the mid-terms all politicians are going to have to head to the center. No one will touch gay issues with a 10 foot pole in the year before mid-terms, otherwise they’re handing their distirct opponent an easy champaign ads.

    We either get this NOW, or our next chance will be a long, long time away.

  52. Brad says

    Paul C is right. History does *tend to show* that the party out of power in the White House makes gains in Congress in off-year (non-presidential years) elections.

    2002 was a huge exception (largely due to post 9/11 stuff) and it was talked about so much because it was the first time that the party *in* power gained seats in an off-year election since the New Deal.

  53. Husky says

    Bend over once again, we’re getting fucked. Dumb ass people voted for this guy….