Breaking NEWS: New website to fight Sam Adams. Rumors of resignation spread.

Oregon Catalyst is the first to break the story that a new website called, NotWithSam.com has been launched to fight the newly elected Portland Mayor who confessed this week to lying to the public about having sex with his teen intern. Visit the site at NotWithSam.com.

Also the ever vigilant Victoria Taft reports that City Hall insiders are forecasting Sam Admas will resign any day now. See her story here.

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

Posted by at 10:55 | Posted in Measure 37 | 29 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    Sam Adams lied, that’s bad. No problem bringing that one up.

    Sam Adams was being a letch in hanging around waiting for some kids 18th birthday to get it on. That’s creepy. That should be brought up as well.

    But going on about teen this and teen that when, unless you have proof to the contrary, Breedlove was in fact 18 is something of a smear tactic. We all know what having an affair with a “teen” means these days. Trying to blur that line between Breedlove being an adult or a child, even if that line is as flimsy as being 18 and one minute old, doesn’t make Adams accusers stand any taller.

    • bud

      We need to believe in the mayors decision making and honesty. He lied about having a relaionship about the boy, how do we believe that he was 18 at the time of the relationship. Honesty is the best policy and Mr. Adams has not been an exapmle of that.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >He lied about having a relationship about the boy, how do we believe that he was 18 at the time of the relationship.

        You don’t. But that doesn’t mean its ok to go around and imply or use wording that Breedlove was under 18. Underage sex is a very serious accusation. If you are going to make an accusation that serious, then you better have proof as substantial as the accusation warrants. If you don’t you will simply come off as partisan as the those who ran around saying Bush lied about WMD’s and then looked like fools when pressed for evidence.

        Sam Adams willfully lied and acted in an incredibly creepy and predatory manner. One would hope that he would do the honorable thing and resign.

  • Anonymous

    This is not nit-picking or “going on about teen this and teen that” when considering the *fact* that we are dealing with a multiple times, bald faced liar.

    I say rake this scumbag over the coals and at the very least make such an example out of him that the next arrogant politician who thinks he can lie and get away with it just might think twice. I know that’s a lot to expect out of a politician, however.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      We are dealing with a liar, true. However statements like this:

      “to the public about having sex with his teen intern”

      Are clearly intended to titillate and conjure up the age difference as a form of smear as raise questions of him being a child molester.

      Sam Adams is a liar and apparently smeared his opponent rather than admit to it. Fine. Oust him on that basis.

  • dean

    Read your Machiavelli folks. A Prince/political leader is praised for keeping his word, but is also praised for the illusion of being reliable in keeping his word. He/she therefore, should only keep his/her word when it suits his/her purposes, but should maintain the illusion that he/she keeps his/her word and is reliable to do so. The most important point is that a leader should not break his/her word *unnecessarily *

    And the point of all this is that the condition of the state (or city) is what matters. If Sam Adams is the best person at this time to lead the city, then who he had sex with and what he chose to reveal about it is irrelevant.

    Sam Adams was running to become Portland’s “Prince,” or leader. He had a brief affair with a young man, some rumors about this got out, and he denied the affair and attacked his accuser. The affair itself may or may not have anything at all to do with his talent for leading the city, but knowledge of it could have denied him the election. All was well until new information got out, forcing him to “confess” both the affair and the lie.

    Politicians lie. They pretty much all do it. The small lie is kissing someone’s baby or shaking someone’s hand and pretending that moment is somehow important and that baby oh so special. The big lie gets us to back a war on shaky assumptions, and for political even-handedness here I’ll use the Gulf of Tonkin as the example.

    In between the small and big lies are lies about personal issues, like who one had sex with when. I personally do not care about those types of lies as long as the sex was within the bounds of what is legal (2 consenting adults) or should be legal (one of them paid).

    I don’t live in Portland and cast no judgement on Sam Adams staying or going, but beyond that, I just don’t see the point of all this sturm and drang. Politicians lie, pretty much all of them, we are adults and can deal with that, we should select leaders who do a good job of leading, and we should not care who they have sex with or what small lies they might tell to keep themselves in power.

    • Dan Levitan

      It is not about the sex. It is about the degree by which Sam Adams went out and personally destroyed a fellow city employee’s career and reputation, the degree in which he hired a reporter who was about to out this story in order to make certain she stayed quiet, and it’s about the degree that he went to in order to keep something that if he just said it early on, would not have hurt him in the least.

      It’s not the sex, dean. It’s the amount of covering up he had to do, the fact that he slandered and ADMITTED that he slandered a fellow city employee (which opens him up to civil lawsuits), AND potentially hired a reporter to keep her quiet (bribery, an ethical issue.)

      Dean, Sam Adams is not who we need leading us in Portland at this day in age. Sam Adams is the person who would make Portland, Oregon the laughing stock of the nation, worse than it is already.

      80% of the people want him gone. He was called out BY THE GAY NEWSPAPER, and told to resign. He does not have much support. And when the police are going to refuse to work underneath him because of his ethics, then you know he has to go.

      Dean, you’re being a partisan idiot with your statement, because you are ignoring the larger context. We cannot take Sam Adams at his word because he has lied already. He has no credibility whatsoever.

      Dean, stop being a partisan idiot, and get into line with the rest of us who are asking for Sam to step down for the good of the City of Portland.

      • dean

        Politicians lie. They break promises. They say things they don’t really mean and do things they said they wouldn’t. It’s not partisan to recognize this because virtually ALL politicians do this. A 100% honest person could not get anywhere in politics. Nor could they get far in most businesses for that matter. If “lying” is the litmus test then we should opt for dictatorship or anarchy.

        If it turns out there is more to the story…i.e. he hired someone to a city position to help hide the deed. Then I agree that rises to the level where he should go. If he broke the law by having sex with a minor…same conclusion. He should go.

        But if the facts are as reported, then the public lie he told, in my view, was about a private matter that was no one’s business. I would feel the same way if Sam were a conservative Republican. Draw your own conclusions, but please refrain from calling me names because you disagree with my opinion.

        • cc

          Dean the wilfully dense strikes again. Parsing lying in a Clintonesque fugue of amoral verbal vomit, he shows once again his firm grasp on the absurd. You’ve got to hand it to him, though; even when he doesn’t know a thing about a subject, he’s got an “opinion”. He’s never let ignorance get the better of his “muse”. He’s a partisan idiot trying to pretend to be above partisanship with his pointless epistles of ignorance.

          Thanks, deaner, for illustrating your “everybody does it” statement with your very own lie:

          “I would feel the same way if Sam were a conservative Republican.”

          PS, “Sam”, is it? Love that first-name familiarity – are you and Sam buddies?

        • No Lie

          I’m not a liar and my business is successful. Is yours?

          • dean

            Well…it depends on the meaning of success. In my case I am well fed, well housed, warm, and not deeply in debt.

            I did not say one had to be “a liar” to be successful in business. But mos businesses involve selling something…a service or a product. And most selling exagerates the benefits of that service or product and minimizes the defects. So you do the math.

  • Bob Clark

    If it were up to me, Adams would have never risen to power. He’s always operated on the sly concerning the operation of city hall. For example, spending all the franchise monies designated for road maintenance on other pet projects besides basic services. He continually promotes overspending on “making the the pearly gates of downtown shinier.” I could care less about his sexual escapades but I guess sex and political ruinment is as old as Thomas Jefferson in America.

  • Marvin McConoughey

    Do all politicians lie, as several have claimed? I doubt that all do. Politicians serve in every town, every legislative level, and in a host of government jobs. I expect that most try to keep their word, try to be honest, and attempt to remain credible. The exceptions often attain notoriety but those who remain honest get little attention. Partly, I suspect, because they do not attain as high office as those who compromise their integrity.

    Honesty is a good policy because one does not need to remember the lies, contrive damage control plans, and be afraid of disclosure.

    • dean

      Marvin…no doubt most politicians try to kep their word, try to be honest, and certainly try to remain credible. Most politicians are operating on small stages and that is as far as they ever get. Bigger stages require craftier individuals who learn how to parse, appear to mean one thing when they actually say another, obfuscate, exagerate, and ocasionally flat out lie. Its in very the nature of the business.

      Yes…compromising “integrity” is the norm, not the exception. That was my point.

      Some get caught. Some never do. When Reagan said he had not traded arms for hostages and used the money, illegally, to support the Contras…then later said he did, but did not actually believe he had done so…what was that? Was it lying or beffudlement? Either way, he was mostly forgiven. When Clinton lied right to our faces that he “did not have sex with that woman,” some wanted his head and others said forget about it. It was sex. He had Hillary to face. What man wouldn’t lie about that?

      What I ask myself is, who was harmed by that lie? In the case of Lyndon Johnson (Gulf of Tonkin) a whole lot of people lost their lives. Same with Bush on Iraq. THose are consequential lies. No one was harmed by Clinton or Adams or Larry Craig. No harm no foul.

      I’m saying the Adams case, from what we know today, does not rise to the level of a major breach of public trust. It was a small lie told on a middling stage for understandable reasons. If Portlanders prefer to remove him for this and take their chances on someone else, then they have that in their power. If it is purity we demand…well good luck with that.

      • Dot Davidson

        Dean, you can’t bleet your way out of the fact that Sam has promoted bike bridges, sky bridges, and everyother type of spending while Sellwood bridge is falling down. He is incompetent as well as a liar.

      • cc

        “I’m saying the Adams case, from what we know today, does not rise to the level of a major breach of public trust. It was a small lie told on a middling stage for understandable reasons.”

        Well I, for one, feel perfectly comfortable letting deaner judge such things. After all, he has such a feel for moral relativism and an uncanny ability to summon up straw men while ignoring logic and facts which don’t support his pronouncements.

        Just who, exactly, demanded “purity”, anyway.

        Oh yeah – NOBODY

        “No one was harmed by Clinton or Adams or Larry Craig. No harm no foul.”

        So, unless one’s actions, inaction or lies KILL someone, NO ONE was harmed?

        Gee, that’s comforting to know.

        When deaner speaks ex-cathedra we must all believe.

        • dean

          cc…you can believe whatever you want. But show me your logic and your facts behind why Adams should resign. The only “logic” I’m seeing is that he lied, therefore he should resign. That is what I take issue with.

          Dot…I think the point here is Adams is not being asked to resign because he is for bike bridges and so forth. He ran on being for those things and was elected BECAUSE he is for those things and was thought to be effective in getting them implemented. You may not like his priorities, but a majority apparently agreed with him.

          • cc

            “The only “logic” I’m seeing is that he lied, therefore he should resign.”

            Bob Ball

            Mark Wiener

            Amy Ruiz

            Tom Miller

            Randy (ugh) Leonard

            protracted serial lying

            CoP ethics violations

            loss of confidence of PPA/City employees

            Did your buddies at City Hall out there in the “City” (snort) of Damascus put a filter on your ISP, or is it just your profound case of tunnel vision that makes you so ignorant? Anyone without a 360 degree blind spot would be able to distinguish between your (as usual) sef-serving, simplistic reduction and the just slightly more complex reality. Rupert’s right (as usual) – bumper sticker “logic” from a bumper sticker mind.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Nice to see someone claiming to be non partisan and then being as ridiculously partisan as possible.

        >Same with Bush on Iraq. THose are consequential lies.

        What in the world does this mean?

        Please provide blueprints of the time reversal machine that enabled Bush to convince Clinton, while Clinton was president, that Saddam had WMDS

        Please also provide blueprints of the Bush mind meld machine that convinced the UN to find Iraq in material breech of their surrender over this very issue. No, I’m sorry, “he tricked Colin Powel, and that made everyone vote that way” wont do. That aint enough and you know it.

        Please also provide any evidence other than blather, as you are clearly more in the know than the Democrats in congress who would have given anything to impeach Bush, and certainly could have done so when they were in the majority the last two years. Please do not give your standard crap about them having too slim a majority, you have contradicted this repeatedly with your insistence that the country is on a large shift away from the Republicans for the next 15 years or so.

        Ok, since we both know you cant an answer any of this, Ill give you an easy way out.

        Please explain why if Bush lied, he did not plant a couple of semi trailers full of WMD materials in Iraq following the invasion. Surely he had opportunity.

        In short, if Bush was lying, why did he chose to look like a fool and severely damage the rest of his presidency rather than plant evidence?

        Answer just that one last thing with something coherent and plausible and I will be convinced.

        Or is this just all bumper sticker bloviating you have?

        >No one was harmed by Clinton or Adams or Larry Craig. No harm no foul.

        Excuse me?

        You obviously followed the Clinton case about as closely as the Bush lied thing. In other words your sphere of knowledge is limited to what you read on a bumper sticker.

        Clinton pled guilty to lying to a grand jury and a federal judge rather than face an obstruction of justice charge, the same thing Nixon resigned over btw.

        That’s a pretty big deal, you might not like that fact, but you should probably be more aware of it than you obviously are.

        • dean

          Rupert…you are quick to accuse but short on your facts. Clinton did not “plead guilty,” which would have been hard to do since he was never charged with a crime. He admitted he was evasive in his testimony and Ray agreed to not indict. As part of the agreement Clinton agreed to give up his license to practice law, which the Arkansas Supreme court was threatening to revoke in any case.

          See http://www.slate.com/id/1006913/ for the legal conclusion to the entire Whitewater case. Yes…Whitewater. Those were the days.

          On Bush…there are the facts and then there is our interpretation of the facts. My interpretation, and I am far from alone, is that Bush’s extreme exageration of the threat Sadam posed, WMDs or no WMDs, combined with his deliberate witholding of mitigating facts amounted to lying because he knew that threat of Saddam attacking us was next to non-existent…WMDs or no WMDs. In short, he left a lot of stuff out and he expressed certainty over very uncertain data. He parsed in the extreme. He was a classic Machiavelli, as described in my initial post, in that he concluded that our nation would be better off if we could topple Sadam, so he trumped up the case. As for why he did not “plant a few,” I don’t know and I don’t care. It’s not like he got an A in planning, so maybe we should assume he just did not think of it.

          As to why the slim majority in Congress declined to impeach, in my view it was a prudent decision made for political and security reasons. Impeaching a President, even an incompetent liar/exagerator/take-your-pick like Bush, during a time of 2 wars and pending economic collapse would have been wreckless. And pragmaticaly, a one vote Senate majority, that vote being Lieberman, would not have translated into the necessary 67 votes. You can accept that argument or not. Keep asking the same question and you’ll get the same response until new evidence arrives.

          As for your time machine. When Clinton was president, at least early in his term, Saddam in all likelihood still did have some functional bio- and chemical weapons. I don’t know anyone who argues that he never had them since he clearly used them against Iran and the Kurds. The question is when he no longer had them. The best evidence suggests that was sometime in the early 90s.

          I claimed “non-partisan” and backed that up by equating Johnson, a Democrat, and Bush, a Republican. Both exagerated threats to bully or trick Congress into a vote to authorize wars of choice. Lots of people died and lots more were maimed for life as a result. Maybe you think lies about war are of equal consequence to lies about sex, but I don’t. There are 58,148 names on that granite wall in DC. Most of those died after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The Iraq memorial is yet to be built, but there are at least 4230 American soldiers dead as of today who would be alive has Bush made a different choice. Also 2 American journalists, but who cares about them right?

          • cc

            “Clinton did not “plead guilty,” which would have been hard to do since he was never charged with a crime. He admitted he was evasive in his testimony and Ray agreed to not indict. As part of the agreement Clinton agreed to give up his license to practice law, which the Arkansas Supreme court was threatening to revoke in any case.”

            This is what – you being you? Have you ever heard the phrase “a distinction without a difference”?

            Then it’s on to your opinions, interpretations and conclusions – all of which are “embellished” with your usual 500 word essays replete with off-topic facts, figures and snide insinuations – “…who cares about them, right?”. Finally you actually expect to be absolved from being labeled “partisan” based on one, safe citation of a fairly universally reviled action by a long-dead democrat?

            I think not!

            Your penance will be much, much harsher, O wishful one.

            And this after telling Rupert he’s “…short on (his) facts.”? As if you’re about to factually refute anything? You’re joking, right?

            Dude, if that’s your best shot, I’m going back to correcting your spelling. I’d correct that of others if it generated as warm and fuzzy a feeling, but why would I want to annoy my friends?

            Your post is perfectly in keeping with your persistent penchant for being obtuse to larger points when it suits and dismissive of details when they’re inconvenient – then turning around and doing the opposite in your next post. You can’t have it both ways – well YOU can – as it seems to satisfy some onanistic yearning to be noticed.

            Just don’t expect us to watch.

          • dean

            That’s the 2nd time you have used “onanistic” in the past 2 months. Are you trying to tell us something about yourself? Is this some sort of inexpensive therapy for you?

            As for being snide….well it takes one to know one cc.

          • cc

            “That’s the 2nd time you have used “onanistic” in the past 2 months.”

            Well, since you’re obviously counting the times I use words you have to look up…

            “As for being snide….well it takes one to know one cc.”

            Here’s another one for your list, deaner: puerile.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Rupert…you are quick to accuse but short on your facts. Clinton did not “plead guilty,”

            Wow, you really didnt know Clinton left office under a plea bargin? Sorry, thats the same as pleading guilty.

            >On Bush…there are the facts and then there is our interpretation of the facts.

            Ok, so in other words you are saying the president lied to get us into a war. That would be treason. But, you have nothing other than your interpretation.

            Sorry, if the charge is that serious and you have nothing other than an interpretation you are really just engaging in smears.

            Please don’t start whining the next time someone starts smearing you and justifies it with it being “interpretations” and not anything of substance.

            >I claimed “non-partisan” and backed that up by equating Johnson, a Democrat, and Bush, a Republican. Both exagerated threats to bully or trick Congress into a vote to authorize wars of choice.

            Sorry, the two are hardly comparable as Bush didn’t trick anyone. Most intelligence agencys in the world agreed with Bush as did the UN. Saddam himself wanted people to believe he had WMD’s and did everything in his power to give that impression. Thats why the UN found him in material breach of his surrender.

            In addition Saddam was an avid sponsor of terrorism. Hard to deny that one when you have him on video tape.

            Bush hardly had to bully anyone.

            I realize that doesn’t fit into your “interpretation” of the facts, but that’s the history. You can try and rewrite it, but its a pretty tough road to hoe there.

            >Maybe you think lies about war are of equal consequence to lies about sex, but I don’t.

            Who ever said they were the same?

            What I said is that just because Bill Clinton lied does not give you the right to make up facts and say that Bush lied.

            Did Clinton lie?

            Sure, he admitted and plead guilty to lying twice.

            Did people get killed because Clinton lied?

            Sure, that’s not in question.

            We fought a war to distract from it in Kosovo. The timing was so ludicrous even MSM didn’t believe we were there for anything other than a diversion. Thus we got a new phrase “wag the dog”. We also had half our cruise missile inventory depleted in bombing in the mid east which had to be done just right then because we thought it better to bomb people before Ramadan started. Somehow that just happened to line up with the impeachment vote, but who’s counting right?

            Those are the facts, you might want to run from them, but they will always be there, catching you with your pants down when you come up with this “Bush lied” garbage.

          • dean

            Rupert…you have strayed off the reservation. I’m expecting little springs to pop out of your head.

            There was no Clinton guilty plea. There was no “plea bargain.” You can only have a plea bargain if you have been charged with something. Clinton admitted his testimony was deliberately misleading. He paid a small amount of money only to cover the costs of legal proceedings in Arkansas related to pending disbarment proceedings. He gave up his law license. Those are the facts. And the final fact is that his lie…and I do consider it a lie, was to us the American people over an issue we had no business knowing about one way or the other. He was basically lying to his wife through us. It was wrong, stupid, and childish. And nobody died.

            Linking Kosovo and/or cruise missles to Lewinsky is baseless. You yourself have said before that two events linked in time do not mean cause and effect. There is no evidence anywhere that says these events were linked. Lots of stuff happens during a presidency. there are lots of balls in the air at any given time. Show me your evidence.

            Bush made a series of unequivical statements about the Iraq threat prior to asking Congress to authorize force. Here is a partial list of what he said:

            To the UN in 2002: “Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”

            *Only they were not. And the information he got from his own CIA was inconclusive. So he made a firm statement of knowledge based on inconclusive data. He did this time and again*

            In a radio address to us:
            “Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.”

            *Only he did not know that as a fact. It was only a suspicion*

            “We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons

            *Yes…the source being “Curveball,” whom the CIA deemed completely unrealiable. A lie by omission*

            In a speech in Cincinnati:

            “The Iraqi regime… possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

            *Only it didn’t and they weren’t. He did not say “we think they possess or “we believe” they possess. No…they had them for sure*

            “We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.”

            *Yes…they produced them decades ago and were no longer in existence*

            “We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.

            *Please, this one is a laugher that he could not have actually believed based on his own intelligence*

            In his state of the union address:
            “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves *no doubt* that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

            Note those 2 words Rupert…NO DOUBT. Is it even possible that Bush had NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER?

            He did not say…”the evidence points to” or “we believe.” He said NO DOUBT. Only we know now that there were doubts about most or all of the evidence. Only a wilfully ignorant person could have concluded there were no doubts whatsoever.

            The necessity of that war was a sales job. It was mostly exaggerations. But the NO DOUBT statement, also made by Cheney numerous times and Rumsfeld…was an outright lie.

            The facts of the case are not in duspute. Interpretation of the facts is.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Linking Kosovo and/or cruise missles to Lewinsky is baseless.

            Don’t be an idiot, every single news organization wondered if it was a “wag the dog” scenario.

            Sorry, you are being just totally stupid and trying to rewrite history. To say it is baseless is simply ridiculous, every, and I mean every, single news outlet in the United States commented on the odd timing.

            If you can’t admit that, you truely are a ninny.

            Get over it, Clinton lied, people died.

            OOOpppsssss sorry

            Dean is right again.

            There was one small print run ( ten copies a month ) left wing newspaper run out of a basement in Cambridge that did not comment on the linkage.

            As for what Bush said – The second you can prove Bush knew these statements to be untrue, explain how Bush got Tenet to lie to him about it being a slam dunk, and explain how Bush enginerred the time machine that made Clinton seek and get a use of fource authorization for WMD’s, get back to me.

            Good God, I seriously cannot beleive anyone in this day and age is going to try and maintain Kosovo and the cruise missile bombing of the mideast was not linked to Lewinsky.

          • dean

            So you equate news organization speculation or commentary as evidence? That’s it? Then I guess that proves Bush lied. Bye from me.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Nope.

            There is no speculation that Clinton lied, he pled guilty to it.

            Did people die because of it? Obviously.

            Can you defend it with the ease with which you accuse Bush?

            Obviously not.

            As I have said in the past, a liberal will always fold on the Bush lied thing when presented with the facts ( sorry, its a fact if you cop a plea deal ) surrounding Clinton.

            This was definitly one you made the right decision to bow out of. I think it marks a first for you. Perhaps there is hope!

  • Jerry

    Dean is right. Lying is good. Everyone does it. Why not mayors, too?
    Thanks, Dean, for the clear insight. You are the one lone voice of reason in this whole mess. Sam is a good man and should be left alone to kiss anyone he wants, even a young man, right on the lips in the bathroom.
    What is wrong with that, people??
    Why is everyone so uptight?
    Can’t we all just get along? Just like Sam and his boys?
    Portland needs men like Sam to help us all out of the misery, the crime, the despair, the high taxes, the higher unemployment, the lack of hotel space, the pollution, the congestion, the bigotry. We need Sam now more than ever!
    Let him do his job!
    Please, peoples of Oregon, do not judge others lest you be judged, too.
    Where there is smoke there is fire, and Sam is yelling “fire in the hole” and no one is there to help him.
    I am ashamed of all of you.
    Deeply ashamed…except for Dean, who is Sam’s friend to the end.
    Thanks, Dean, for your strong courage in showing support to this broken man.

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)