Now President Obama knows what it feels like to liberate a country

by Lars Larson

Is this the beginning of something much better in Libya?

You know, way back in 2003, I had real optimism for Iraq, and it turned out, well, it hasn’t looked pretty from a distance. But at least they’ve got a functioning government; they’re splitting the oil revenues, and all that.

Is Libya; a different situation. No American troops on the ground, and the Obama administration says there won’t be any troops on the ground. But there are billions of dollars in the bank and the administration is unfreezing that. The Libyan rebels have taken over the city, and they’re not going to be giving it back to Gadhafi.

And Gadhafi, are we going to find him? Who knows, but could a functioning government take the place instead of having Gadhafi replaced by a nuttier regime – like happened in Iran? We can only hope.

Now President Obama knows what it feels like to liberate a country, doesn’t he? I just wish that President Obama had told us why we were going into Libya, and why we haven’t gone into other trouble spots around the world.

visit the Lars Larson web site

 

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in President Obama | 72 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    Could we please look at what we have achieved here?

    Libya was a comparatively moderately repressive country with a leader that had once been an avowed enemy of the US. I recent years Libya had become more friendly to the US and had given up terrorism thanks chiefly to the efforts of complete idiot George Bush.

    What we are trying to replace this with is a rebel leadership about whom we know little other than they tend to yell Allahu Akbar a lot when going into battle and are big fans of Sharia law.

    Is this a good thing or bad? Who knows. Obama knows as much about the rebel opposition in Libya and Egypt as Bush2 did about WMD’s in Iraq.

    The one thing we do know is that Ghaddafi was trying to make nice nice with the US and we supported his ouster. Mubarak was nice to the US and we supported his ouster. Bashar al-Assad hates the US, is a sworn enemy of the U. supports terrorism against the US and is far more repressive than either Mubarak or Ghaddafi and for some reason we don’t really have a lot to say about matters in Syria.

    Libya at this point has run its course. If Korea is the forgotten war, Libya will be the mystery war. Know one really knows why we were there. Perhaps it was an effort by Obama to have European leaders like him again by halting an exodus of refugees. Perhaps it was an effort to look like he was capable of doing something presidential. TO have a success in a moribund economy. 

    One thing is clear and unique about Libya – If Ghaddafi falls, it will be the first war ever where came in a war before the purpose of that war was ever defined.

  • the real valley person

    Obama just liberated a nation from a dictator without a loss of a single US life. And that after getting Osama without a loss of a single US life. Not bad for a naive, Muslim socialist not even born in the US.  

    • Hobojoe

      Wow. I am so proud of this brave, brave man.
      He is the greatest.
      I will vote for him often.

    • Anonymous

      Obozo is deservedly known as the Jerk-in-Chief. Not that he didn’t work hard for the title. Do you think it was easy moving Jimmy Carter out of the worst president ever position?

      Of course no American lives were lost in Libya. It’s hard to lose lives when you do nothing…other,that is, than try to take credit for deposing a dictator. Credit goes, rightfully, to the rebels the English and the French…not to Obozo.

      And for the record, Obozo likewise doesn’t get credit for the killing of OBL. Tracing OBL to Pakistan was an operation that began during the presidency of GW Bush. It is just coincidence that Obozo was president when the SEALs got OBL. I mean, today only 38 percent of Americans even think Obozo should be president…even less trust his judgement on foreign policy. 

      • 3H

        Of course not.   If anything good happens, it can’t be credited to Obama.  Obama does nothing good, therefore, if something good happens….    I truly envy people who can have such a simple world view.    

        • Founding Fathers

          It’s difficult to breathe, though, when your head is stuck up there…

        • Anonymous

          Yes 3H, you’re right. Nothing good can be attributed to Obozo because he has done nothing good. I’ve thought and thought about it and can think of nothing worthwhile that this total loser has done. Certainly not his bailout…or his healthcare…or his NLRB union goons.

          But Obozo doesn’t have a simple world view. Well, actually he has no world view, unless you’re one of the 26 percent of people who credit him with having a foreign policy.

      • the real valley person

        Jimmy Carter worse president ever? I don’t think so. I think that list might start with Hoover, then Filmore, and then Bush the younger.

        The rebels were on the verge of anihilation when Obama decided to throw in with the French and British. And he got a lot of grief for that decision. You are correct Obama did not win this one by himself, but the rest likely would not have won without us. As for your comments on Osama, its typical of a small mind that can’t give credit where it is due. 

        • Anonymous

          Ummm, let’s see. Inflation rate 22 percent…that would be the worst (not worse, btw) ever. Hostages held by a third world dictatorship…can’t get much worse than that. Rabbit attacks boat…okay, okay that’s just strange, next thing you know he’ll be saying he believes in space aliens…oh he did say that. Worst ever.

          But it is nice that you admit you have a small mind and can’t give Bush the credit he deserves in the OBL saga. You can start to overcome this problem by admitting that Obozo is not a god and was never qualified to be president…president of anything, let alone President of the US of A.

          • the real valley person

            I don’t think inflation hit that level. But even if it did, the economy was growing, unemployment was far worse under Hoover, And Reagan also had hostages that he ended up trading weapons for. As for the rabbit saga, its was embarassing, but recall that Carter was a nuclear sub commander while Most Republican presidents had little military service. In other words, who cares about the rabbit?

            I would give Bush credit for capturing Osama had it happened during his 8 years, or even within a year of Obama taking office. The fact is he blew his chance when he shifted resources from a necessary war to an unnecessary one.    Obama put more resources into the effort and it paid off. he earned some props.

            OK, Obama is not God. But he was qualified to become president by virtue of getting far more votes than the other guy. Nos you can overcome your problem by giving him due respect as your president.  

          • Anonymous

            Okay, I exaggerated a little. Inflation under Carter hit a peak of 14,8 percent…still a record. It was only at 5.2 percent when he took office, so he almost tripled the inflation rate. 

            Carter was a lieutenant in the Navy and never a sub commander…he was a submarine officer. As far as military service and the presidency…both Bushes were fighter pilots, Ronald Reagan was a Captain in AFRTS during WWII, Gerald Ford was a Lt Cmdr and saw service in WWII, Richard Nixon was a Cmdr and also saw service during WWII. Barack Obozo has no military service and Bill Clinton’s draft dodging during Viet Nam is well documented. So, what was that you were saying about Republican presidents having little military service?

            Reagan may have traded arms for hostages…it wasn’t exactly proven…but he never had 52 Americans held hostage for 444 days. Hardly equivalent.

            BTW, the rabbit says a lot about Carter. He thought the rabbit was attacking him…I repeat, he said the rabbit was attacking him. Carter also claimed a UFO sighting. Attacking rabbits and space aliens, you have to wonder about Carter’s mental stability. At least he didn’t claim he was kidnapped an anally probed by space aliens.

            Getting more votes than John McCain only proves that Obozo rain a better campaign. Getting more votes certainly doesn’t qualify Obozo to be president.

            Would you like to set up anything else for me to knock down?

          • 3H

            LOL..  you and facts sure don’t get along do you.   The highest inflation rate was in June of 1920 at 23.7%  But I do get a kick at how your numbers are constantly changing.

          • Anonymous

            Study inflation numbers a bit more. Ask yourself this question as you study: Are 1920 and 1980 inflation numbers comparable? After you have read up on inflation get back to me.

          • 3H

            Probably close enough.  Inflation hit 19.7% in 1947 too.   Is that good enough? 

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, close enough for government work. Typical liberal response.

          • 3H

            Still gonna claim that the inflation during Carter’s administration set a record?

          • Anonymous

            For it’s time, yeah. Inflation was figured differently then than today or in times before. Look it up and weep.

          • 3H

            Ohhh.. for “it’s time”.  LOL   I can define every President as having set a record for inflation if I narrow down the time frame enough.

          • Anonymous

            Read again and very s l o w l y again, “Inflation was figured differently.” It’s an apples and pickles comparison. The government keeps changing the way it figures the CPI to keep the inflation rate down.

          • 3H

            So really there is not such thing as a record since the standards keep shifting.  Just a record for those particular years when the standards were the same.  Which is a pretty meaningless statement.

          • Anonymous

            Well, if you want to look at it that way. But the fact is the government keeps shifting the way it figures the Cost of Living. The current figures are allegedly based on 1982-84 but the Obozo Administration has changed them up so Obozo doesn’t get another bad number. But, if you want to believe what BLS is telling you, the basis is 30 years old.

          • 3H

            What I am asking myself is: will you try and wiggle out of anything that makes you look wrong.  I have my suspicions.

          • Anonymous

            Well, that pretty well figures, doesn’t it? What a freaking weasel. 

          • 3H

            “What a freaking weasel.”

            Yes.. but I’m willing to acknowledge that it’s a first impression and that you might have some redeeming qualities. 

          • the real valley person

            People who judge presidents by incidents like that aren’t worth discussing politics with.  The guy had an embarrassing incident once. Its like juging Gerald Ford’s presidency by the times he stumbled, or Bush’s by the way he said nucular, Or Reagan by not remembering whether he traded arms for hostages (he did).  The policy accomplishments or lack thereof are what matter, not these incidents.

            And by the way, there is no “may” about it. Reagan authorized the trading of weapons to terrorists for release of hostages. This is well documented by those in the room with him when he did it. And he himself did not deny it in the end. He simply denied remembering, which is a lawyerly cop out. 

            As for the military record bit, Bush 2’s was a sad joke, as was Reagan’s. Bush 1 had an accomplished record.  

          • 3H

            There are quite a few conservatives who give lip service to military service.  As long as it’s the military service of conservatives.   Look what they did to Kerry.

          • Anonymous

            Kerry accepted multiple Purple Hearts that he didn’t deserve. Why do I believe they were awarded erroneously? It’s because when I was in the Army I had a friend who was awarded a Purple Heart for shell fragment in eye…it was an egg shell fragment he got on KP but since it occurred in a war zone he was awarded a Purple Heart. So, it’s fairly easy to understand how Kerry was given Purple Hearts while not deserving them. There’s also his performance on the Swift Boats where he ran like a little girl rather than face the enemy. I think Kerry did it to himself.

          • 3H

            Your argument is that you know Kerry didn’t deserve his Purple Hearts because your friend hadn’t deserved one?  That’s it?  LOL.. oooooKay

          • Anonymous

            I don’t know why but it put my reply up there ^.

          • Anonymous

            Okay, I’ll try this again…only this time more s l o w l y.

            My friend’s experience getting a Purple Heart makes it easier for me to UNDERSTAND why Kerry didn’t deserve his three Purple Hearts. They were for injuries in a war zone…one was for, I think, a scraped thumb or finger.They weren’t for getting shot or attacked or anything equally violent.

          • 3H

            Not just injuries in a war zone Joel…  injuries received while in combat.  But please don’t let facts deter you from your mission of hyper-partisanship.  

            As picked on as you are by the big bad liberals (and your constant whiny refrain of “see what I mean” maybe you deserve a Purple Heart.

          • Anonymous

            Injuries in a war zone…NOT NECESSARILY in combat. Can’t you read? They weren’t even for combat related injuries. That’s why he didn’t deserve them. At least two of the “wounds” were for “shrapnel injuries” that didn’t even take him out of service. These were for very dubious injuries but the fact that Kerry got three Purple Hearts allowed him to request that he be removed from combat…which he did. Kerry served in Viet Nam for only six months when the standard tour of duty was a year.

            Kerry also threw his Purple Hearts away…maybe that’s because he realized he didn’t earn them.

          • the real valley person

            Um…and how did Kerry manage to catch shrapnel while not in combat? I’m sure you have an explanation. 

          • Anonymous

            You see those ” ” surrounding “shrapnel injuries”? Does that give you a clue?

          • the real valley person

            No. We know Kerry was in combat. We know he saved one guy’s life and got a bronze star for that. He got a silver star for chasing down and killing an enemy soldier.  He apparently got shrapnel in other combat events. The military rule is everyone gets a purple heart for n injury sustained in combat, regardless of wound severity. He was more decorated than Bush and Reagan combined. Why insist on questioning his service? What exactly is your point?  You weren’t there. I wasn’t there. The record says Kerry was there.

          • Anonymous

            Total BS made up by Kerry toadys.

          • the real valley person

            He made up being in combat, and  made up all the events of his service? The marine he saved was a “toady?” He gave the medals to himself? His military record is a forgery?

            As usual…whatever dude. 

             

          • Anonymous

            Really, you think dismissing Carter by questioning his mental stability makes it not worth discussing politics with me? Maybe that’s why you think Barry Obozo is qualified to be president by virtue of getting the most votes. This is all so typical of your liberal problem.

            Gerald Ford was clumsy, not of questionable mental stability.  Bush 2 mispronounced a word, a mispronunciation shared with countless others, btw. Reagan’s involvement with arms for hostages is a matter of bias. Yours is that he was guilty, which I happen to think is wrong. So what policy accomplishments exactly are creditable to Carter. Facts please, no opinions.

            Reagan authorizing the trading of weapons for hostages is well documented by those you choose to believe. Others in the room discount it. That’s why it is, and probably always will be, unproven. Again your willingness to believe it happened is the result of your liberal, anti-Reagan bias.

            Talk to Dan rather about Bush 2’s military service in the Texas National Guard. I’m sure he’ll tell you how sad it was. You can commiserate about how unfair it was that he got fired from CBS News.

             How was Reagan’s service a sad joke? He was put to use where the Army determined his services were best suited. The only thing sad is your liberal, anti-Reagan bias and refusing to give credit where credit is more than due. The Army determined that Reagan’s best use was making training films and producing anti-Nazi propaganda and that’s where he was placed. All you prove by calling that sad is how mentally unstable you are. So, now we understand why you call Carter’s rabbit attack not worth discussing.

            Damn, liberals are tiring.

          • the real valley person

            Mental instability? Oh okay. I missed the part about your ability to psycho ansalyze an individual from an incident distorted in the media. 

            Reagan served stateside when nearly everyone else went into combat. He made movies. I mean….come on. Credit where credit is due ok? Putting on a uniform at that time was pretty much required of everyone. Regan’s service was akin to Rosie the Riveter, helpful of course, but not life threatening.

            You aren’t worth discussing politics with because you feel the need to degrade your opposition. Obozo? Please. You don’t se me calling Bush or Reagan names. Its like a 10 year old kid.

            Obama is qualified to be your president, was elected to be your president, and is YOUR president, not THE president. Understand that and grow up a little.  

          • Anonymous

            I don’t need to be a Freudian Analyst to recognize when someone is mentality off base. John Hinckley…Crazy. Mark David Chapman…Crazy. Jared Loughner…Crazy. See, you don’t need to a degree to determine someone’s mental health. Okay, shot you down there.

            Ronald Reagan served where the Army put him. For you to denigrate that service is mean spirited and petty. He served regardless of what his service entailed. Rosie the Riveter also gave needed service, yet you also denigrate Rosie the Riveter. Have you no pride.  I don’t only shoot you down on this one I kick your ass and hope you can try thinking once in a while.

            Actually, I’m being nice to refer to Obama as Obozo…although it is unfair to the clown. Would you rather I refer to him as the Jerk in Chief. That is also an apt title. Small minded objection on your part. Bush and Reagan were called much worse names during their terms…and you were probably calling them those names.

            Obozo is not my president…he will never be my president. He got elected but as the American people are now starting to admit…that was a big, big mistake.

          • the real valley person

            You are being disrespectful. He is YOUR president. Says so in the constitution. 

          • Anonymous

            Now, where in the constitution does it say I must respect a man who deserves precisely zero respect…regardless of his position?

          • the real valley person

            You claimed he wasn’t your president. According to the constitution you are wrong. We get one president at a time. As far as showing some respect to a president you dislike, that takes some maturity, which apparently leaves you out. 

          • Anonymous

            Get your nose out of the air. You are a legend in your own mind. 

            You said I was being disrespectful, I said show me where the constitution says I must respect Obozo, you couldn’t do it so you changed the subject and called me names for good measure. Is it any wonder you are such a back of Obozo. 

            You are part of the ignorant 38 percent of Americans who give him good marks. 62 percent of Americans are smart enough to realize electing Obozo was a big mistake. I am proud to be a 62 percenter.

          • the real valley person

            Here is what I said verbatim:

            “Obama is qualified to be your president, was elected to be your
            president, and is YOUR president, not THE president. Understand that and
            grow up a little.”

            What are you objecting to? That I said “grow up a little?”Show some maturity? That is a name? If you think that is name calling, I suggest you grow a thicker skin or buy a violin.

            In what poll is Obama only getting 38% positive?  His current poll average is 44% positive and he isn’t below 41 in any recent major poll. 

            Or are you just exaggerating once again? Like you seem to do on every topic.

          • Anonymous

            Just a little poll called Gallup. Check it out, it’s much more illuminating than the Blue Oregon polls.

          • Anonymous

            Just a little poll called Gallup. Check it out, it’s much more illuminating than the Blue Oregon polls.

          • the real valley person

            Today you are correct on Gallup. Yesterday you were not. Since Gallup is a daily tracking poll, you can claim almost any number between 38 and 45 and be correct depending on what day you refer to. But the average of all polls has Obama at plus or minus 44%. 

            I don’t know of any blue oregon polls. If you want the highest accuracy you take the average of all the polls over a period of a week or two. If you want to spout propaganda or engage in wishful thinking you seize on the outlier to make a point. 

            By the way, according to gallup Obama is almost exactly where Reagan was at the same point in his presidency.

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

          • 3H

            He makes up numbers.  Changes them.  Facts don’t matter – if there isn’t one that he can use, he’ll just create one.  😉   

          • Anonymous

            Wrongo a-hole…take a look at Gallup. You’ll cry your eyes out.

          • 3H

            Not at all.  A broken clock is right twice a day.  Frequently, though, you have to backtrack on your numbers and facts.  You seem to just spout stuff and hope, later, that it was right.

            So… why did it bother you when VP supposedly called you names?  And then you go an do it?  Are you really that hypocritical?  Never mind, I know the answer to that one.

          • Anonymous

            I came up here to have a little room to write.

            You are truly pathetic. Gallup is no good because it shows your boy Obozo hurting bigtime. So, you try to rationalized his 3P Piss Poor Performance. And Reagan was at the same point too. Ooooh, what devastating arguments.

            And Blue Oregon frequently publishes polls…although they are usually wrong. Obozo has been tracking below 40 percent for the past couple of weeks in the Gallup daily tracking poll. BTW, you really don’t want to follow the averages because Obozo is not doing in the mid 40s there either and even if he wasm the mid-40s is nothing to crow about.

            If Obozo can’t improve on his numbers, he will be history in November of 2012…excellent for the country…his billion dollar warchest will go for naught.

          • Anonymous

            Who said Gallup is no good? Their daily tracking poll is useful in showing a trendline, but isn’t particularly useful as a snapshot because of the way they average over 3 days.  Its also the only poll one can use to compare presidents at the same stage because they are the only organization with consistent polling that goes decades back. Pointing out his comparable with Reagan isn’t an “argument,” its  a fact that can be used to make an argument. In my case, the argument is don’t count your chickens. Democrats thought Reagan was toast at this stage. They turned out way wrong.

            Obama has not been “tracking” below 40%. He has occasionally dipped below 40%. He has been “tracking” above 40%, and around 45% in most other polls. On average, he IS in the mid 40s, its not a matter of “even if.” And correct, its not a high number. But its double the approval of Congress, and far above where the Republican or Tea party sits. Times are not good, people are unhappy with leadership across the board. Obama is the leader they are least unhappy with at the moment.

            If he can’t improve, but you nominate Bachmann, he probably wins anyway. If its Perry, and he continues to try and prove he can be the biggest yahoo on the block, then Obama can beat him even if only polling mid 40s.  Perry seems like he is greasing the football while he is on offense. Not a great strategy.

            Your “oooh” comment is a 10 year olds playground taunt. Like I said dude, try growing up. There must be a program.
             

          • Anonymous

            Well Dean, if that is your real name, you obviously know little about polling if you dismiss Gallup because it is a track. Anyone who knows…or, like me, has used polling…knows that tracking polls are much preferred over snapshot one time polls. Tracks give a much better picture of candidate performance.

            You also need to take a better look at Gallup’s numbers (again) because Obozo has been tracking below 40 percent. There’s also a big difference between Reagan and Obozo. Reagan’s unemployment numbers were going in the right direction and he hadn’t run the country into the ground financially with a huge spending plan.

            Yes, generically Congress’ numbers are worse than Obozo. But on the question, “Should your congressperson be re-elected” the number is 54 percent positive…way better than Obozo. As for Bachmann and Perry (I actually support neither) the recent Gallup numbers put Perry in a tie with Obozo and Bachmann just outside of a statistical dead heat. So, again you are wrong. Maybe it’s because you’re more interested in criticizing Gallup.

          • valley person

            For the entire month of August, Gallup had Obama below 40 5 days, above 40 19 days, and at 40 8 days. Since you claim polling expertise, I’ll let you do the math on that.

            Mondale was running way ahead of Reagan at this point, and tied with him in Gallup polling early the year of the election. Lesson: polls this far in front don’t mean much of anything.

            Who criticized Gallup? I’m criticizing YOUR interpretation of Gallup. Get it straight.     

          • Anonymous

            Gee whiz, today (according to Gallup) Obozo approval 38 percent, disapproval 55 percent. The numbers show Obozo’s approval rating is falling like a rock. As I said his approval rating has dropped to 38 percent…55 percent marks a new high in disapproval, btw. Admit is Dean, Obozo is dying quickly. Almost 20 percent more people think he’s doing a lousy job than people who are willing to fall on their swords for him.

            Come November 2012, Obozo is finished after one term…just like Jimmy Carter, previous holder of the title of worst president ever.

          • the real valley person

            Yes, today at 38, a few months ago at 56 (after bin ladens death). So time will tell. Popularity waxes and wanes. Bush 1 had something like 90% popularity at this point in his presidency and was easily defeated by an unknown named Clinton. Clinton & Reagan both looked like toast at this point and cruised to 2nd terms. Same for Reagan.

            Obama’s re-election, or lack thereof, depends on 3 things:
            1) How well the economy recovers or not over the next year
            2) His response to big events yet unknown
            3) Who the Republicans nominate & how well he or she campaigns

            You may think today’s polls matter much. History suggests they nothing more than a snapshot. The polls that matter are those within 3 months of the election. But your are free to engage in your version of wishful thinking.  Carter by the way, was running ahead of Reagan until a month or so before the election.

          • Anonymous

            BTW, feel free to question my maturity. I’m a big boy, I can take it. Actually I’ve been criticized by people who make you look like a piker.

          • valley person

            Yes, you are clearly a big boy. We finally agree on something.

          • Anonymous

            Hmmmm, now I see you’re back to being Valley Person, maybe that’s your problem…you can’t decide who you are.

            Awhile back you said I wasn’t worth talking to. Take your advice because I am. You clearly aren’t worth talking to.

          • Anonymous

            Who said Gallup is no good? Their daily tracking poll is useful in showing a trendline, but isn’t particularly useful as a snapshot because of the way they average over 3 days.  Its also the only poll one can use to compare presidents at the same stage because they are the only organization with consistent polling that goes decades back. Pointing out his comparable with Reagan isn’t an “argument,” its  a fact that can be used to make an argument. In my case, the argument is don’t count your chickens. Democrats thought Reagan was toast at this stage. They turned out way wrong.

            Obama has not been “tracking” below 40%. He has occasionally dipped below 40%. He has been “tracking” above 40%, and around 45% in most other polls. On average, he IS in the mid 40s, its not a matter of “even if.” And correct, its not a high number. But its double the approval of Congress, and far above where the Republican or Tea party sits. Times are not good, people are unhappy with leadership across the board. Obama is the leader they are least unhappy with at the moment.

            If he can’t improve, but you nominate Bachmann, he probably wins anyway. If its Perry, and he continues to try and prove he can be the biggest yahoo on the block, then Obama can beat him even if only polling mid 40s.  Perry seems like he is greasing the football while he is on offense. Not a great strategy.

            Your “oooh” comment is a 10 year olds playground taunt. Like I said dude, try growing up. There must be a program.
             

  • Moe

    These people will base their “new country” on Sharia law. So what has anyone gained?

  • Pingback: Yahoo is a nice Search Engine()

  • Pingback: Bing is a gread Search Engine()

  • Pingback: Bing is a gread Search Engine()

  • Pingback: google.com is a great Search Engine()

  • Pingback: google.com is a great Search Engine()

  • Pingback: google.co.uk is a great Search Engine()

  • Pingback: google.de is a nice Search Engine()

  • Pingback: Yahoo is a great Search Engine()

  • Pingback: Bing is a gread Search Engine()

  • Pingback: Bing is a gread Search Engine()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)