Whu To Run Against Wu?!
A little bird is whispering in my ear as to who will be the Republican running against David Wu for C0ngress.
Rep. Derrick Kitts (R) Hillsboro
Sources close to me say that Oregon House Majority Whip, Derrick Kitts, (R) Hillsboro, will announce his candidicy in early January for House District 1, currently held by 3 term Democrat incumbent, David Wu.-------------------------------------------------
This is not a huge surprise to folks that have known Rep. Kitts for very long. I remember the conversations since before he was elected. A former staffer for Joe Scarbourough Kitts had it in his blood.
I have known Rep. Kitts since before he was elected. He said all the right things then and from what I am told, has only grown better in office. He is going to be a target by the left, yet I think he can pull it off with some work. He is young, energetic and is a good fit for his district.
So there you go Washington County! There's your man. Now go out there and make this thing happen. Wouldn't it be great to shove this victory right down the Democrat's throats?
Congressman Kitts...I likey...
Yip Yip
Posts
40 comments:
Right On!
Let's do it
If I thought Wu was vulnerable, I'd be more interested. But when a rapist gets re-elected without even running a credible campaign, it only goes to prove just how powerful incumbency really is with the U.S. House.
Don't get me wrong. I hope Kitts does well and wins. I just have little faith at this time.
Help prove me wrong, because I pray that I am.
Just point me in the right direction with a list of houses and literature.
He just better work his ass off, we need this seat.
He is a republican and therefore a weasel!
No More Republicans
Gully,
Wu has not had a hard challenger. This could be a classic match up.
I mean here you have an energetic young entrepreneur up against a rapist. However, the above commenter would rather have a rapist as a congressman than a Republican eh?
Just like the Democrats to set their sights high.
An energetic young entrepreneur with many ethical questions, like using campaign money to pay for limos and golf during the session. He's an easy out for Wu.
The right challenger is hard to find, but once you find them...you know they are "the man".
I'm unsure of Kitts as of current. There are things that need to be looked at.
He's not a sure thing like I think Atkinson is.
Atkinson a sure thing?
Hardly.
Anon,
Limo's & golf ARE NOT illegal. Unsightly? Perhaps.
Forcing yourself on a woman, however, IS illegal.
One thing FOR SURE, you won't Kitts on this blog---Rino Watch
Actually, my concern with Kitts is that I'm really not sure what his philosophy is. In my conservations with him and looking at his voting record, he seems to be a bit all over the map. He'll have to sell me a bit on what his vision and principles are, but I'm getting there.
If he does that, he can count on a strong amount of help from myself.
Come on now, is a rapist re-election really any worse the re-electing a murderous president who didn't even win the first time?
Now my question for Kitts is, would you like a head to go with that neck?
Anon - Glad you agree that Wu is a rapist. When the Associated Press did the recount of the 2000 Florida returns Bush had over 150 vote win for the state.
They did a physical hand count and included every ballot in which you could determine the intent of the voter. They assumed that all Butterfly ballot showed their intent if a hole was punched. If your not smart enough to operate the voting machine you really shouldn't be voting anyways.
Bush won the electoral college farily unlike the way Al Gore attempted to steal the election by hand counting only a few heavily democratic precints and turning Jesse Jackson loose to stir up racial tension.
Bush is responsible for fewer US casualties in Iraq, a full on conflict, than Clinton was of combined UN casualties in the Balkans. Clinton is partially responsible for Setember 11th because of his weakness in Somolia causing Bin Ladin to refer to the US as a "paper tiger" and target us because we wouldn't defend ourselves. Bush turned this view around.
Murderous?
Golly, I knew that this was quite a popular blog. Yet I did not know that Michael Moore read us.
"Now my question for Kitts is, would you like a head to go with that neck?"
C'mon ya pencil-necked-geek, you can do better than that!
I would have scoffed at the idea of Kitts running for Congress this early...if he wasn't running against Wu.
No way. I think he has as much of a chance at winning as Feldkamp has in the Fourth. He's got issues. Just wait until the dirt comes out on this guy. Trust me.
Save your money and your energy for something better.
Freshman Lawmaker off to a Wobbly Start
Rep. Derrick Kitts nabbed for drunk driving.
BY JOHN SCHRAG | jschrag at wweek.com
IMAGE: stephen voss
Almost from Day 1 of the 2003 legislative session, 29-year-old state Rep. Derrick Kitts has battled the perception that he's more interested in making pals than making policy.
First sessions are often tough on lawmakers, and Kitts has struggled. Although he's well-liked and earnest, his penchant for practical jokes and hallway schmoozing has led some to dismiss the former Portland State wrestling-team captain as a lightweight. The baggage of that frat-boy image will undoubtedly get a bit heavier with the revelation that Kitts, a rookie Republican from Hillsboro, was arrested in February for drunk driving in Longview, Wash.
According to police records obtained by WW, Kitts drew the attention of Longview patrol officer Chris Trevino shortly after 2 am on Sunday, Feb. 16, when the lawmaker drove his white Ford pickup over a parking-lot curb before "bouncing and jolting" to a stop.
Trevino reported that when he approached Kitts, he noticed that his eyes were "bloodshot and sleepy" and he had "noticeable difficulty maintaining his balance." Trevino says Kitts told him he was parking his truck so he could visit a friend nearby. Kitts reportedly told the officer he'd "consumed six drinks" and, when prompted, recalled that he'd been at the Cadillac Ranch, a nearby casino. According to the report, Kitts also told Trevino, "I'm an Oregon state representative."
Kitts says he only mentioned his status as a lawmaker when Trevino asked his occupation. After Kitts told him, he says, the officer seemed more hostile. "From that point on, there was this whole chain of events," says Kitts. "That's when I decided I had to call my attorney and tell him I've got a problem with the way I'm being treated."
The legislator says he was in town visiting a friend and had a couple drinks, not six, at the casino. "I told him and I told my lawyer I had two cocktails," Kitts says. "I don't know why he put in his report that I said I had six drinks."
Kitts declined to take an on-the-spot preliminary breathalyzer test and, after calling a friend, contacted Stephen Petersen, a lawyer from Rainier, who drove to the station. According to the report, on Petersen's advice, Kitts again refused to take a breathalyzer test, which he now says was a mistake.
On a positive note, if he loses he is young enough to make a political comeback.
He does have a LOT of baggage, and I think there is more out there, but he ay be the best the Republican Party of the 1st District can get for '06.
-Guy
David Wu admits to 'inexcusable behavior'
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=71758
Wu people, be careful>>>>more to come
I've never met Kitts but I'm going to say that his youth is his biggest obstacle. His youth does allow for a hard fought two or three time try in order to win the seat though.
Can he fundraise enough to beat Wu? Does he know enough people and has he put together enough of a network to actually rise to the challenge?
Whats he known for in the district? When you think about legislators there is usually a reputation that preceeds them. I remember when Randy Leonard ran for city council his reputation worked against him early on. Currently Jason Atkinson's reputation is mentioned alot by the Mannix people when trying to bat down claims that Mannix can't win. Will Kitts have that same deal?
In the spirit of giving both sides of the story, Wu is a failed rapist, not a rapist. Either way he doesn't deserve to be in office.
Like I said, I'm holding reservations on Kitts, mainly because of a few things that I saw/am seeing.
I'll detail them later.
And yes, I call Atkinson a sure thing.
Saying Atkinson is a "sure thing" is a "sure sign" of political inexperience. He will have his butt handed to him in May. That's my prediction.
Support him if you like, sure. But a "sure thing?"
Wow.
-Andy
sailor...do you even know him? i have people ready to give him a lot of money...if he is going to be another goli, i dont want to touch it. i think he has great work ethic...how else did he win last time?
All the comments about Wu and Bush and Atkinson and everyone else aside, I can address some Kitts questions:
1. He has a conservative voting record.
2. He is best known for his bill in the 2003 session that would have mandated that no state employee could make more than the governor, and his work in election reform last session.
3. He is articulate
4. He will have a lot of out of state money coming in from DC and FL in his race, as well as TV exposure on MSNBC from Scarborough. He is a good fundraiser.
5. His weakness is he does have the fratboy image to get over (although, that hasnt hurt Ted Kennedy). This image is basically confined to political insiders, though the WW article about the DUI let the cat out of the bag too.
It is therefore somewhat dangerous for him to give up his House seat to run for Congress at this point, when people may not be fully comfortable with him because of this. And the Dems keep raising this campaign money thing, though it is apparent that he did nothing illegal. People obsess over this now, thinking they can sink people. I don't care what people spend THEIR money that was given to THEM on, and neither should any of these other people that are so over concerned about keeping the government out of their personal lives. If its legal, or there is no quid pro quo, and he reported it, then drop it.
Why not try debating a Republican on the issues instead of trying to sink them with invented scandals? Why? Because Democrats' ideas only resonate in about 12 counties in America, so they have to put everyone else down.
6. Final analysis: Kitts can win, but it will be a bumpy ride.
One more thing - he is more politcally astute than people give him credit for.
Hey Coyote-
Why don't you send him a questionair on what he stands for. I want to see more.
Enquiring Minds Want to Know!
Kitts promised to be a solid pro-gun vote. As soon as he was approached by the girls from Ceasefire Oregon, he folded up and sponsored a terrible anti-gun bill. He later claimed he did not know his bill was anti-gun. But he refused to back off of the bill until the day it was killed in committee. THEN he removed his name from the bill.
"Anonymous" or "unknown" right above.
Please cite the Year & SPECIFIC bill number.
Thank you!
Ahhh, Andy. I knew it was going to be you who said that I show "Political Inexperience". Needless to say, you don't know me, so don't bother trying to comment on me. Thank you.
But you've given me all the motivation in the world to be assured of an Atkinson win.
For what it's worth, here are Kitts' interest group ratings from vote-smart.org:
NARAL: 67 percent
Planned Parenthood: 33 percent
Oregon Farm Bureau: 100 percent in 2005, grade of D in 2003
Taxpayer Association of Oregon: 100 percent
Associated Oregon Industries: 83 percent in 2005, 82 percent in 2003
National Federation of Independent Business: 91 percent
Oregonians for Food and Shelter: 100 percent
ACLU: 0 percent in 2005, 17 percent in 2003
Oregon Education Association: 36 percent
Oregon League of Conservation Voters: 12 percent in both 2005 and 2003
Dads Against Discrimination: grade of F
NRA: grade of A- in both 2002 and 2004
AFL-CIO: 50 percent in 2005, 56 percent in 2003
American Federation of Teachers: 50 percent in 2005, 20 percent in 2003
Sailor,
Your claim was so outrageous that it proved your inexperience. Not even Atkinson would claim he is a sure thing.
And the fact that you think that because I called you on one outrageous claim it proves his win is "assured" makes the point even more.
Find me one person with a political record of experience that would agree with your statement that Atkinson is a "sure thing".
I don't have to know you to make observations about your level of political knowledge. And it is apparent to me that you are new at this. That is not bad, we all started somewhere. It is just a fact.
And after you go through a number of times when the guy you were convinced was a sure thing loses, and you go through the soul searching process that happens afterward, you learn to be a little better at spotting the winners.
We can talk about it further after the primary, when you are likely to be more receptive.
-Andy
For those of you that honestly think Atkinson has statewide appeal - you should look at his NO vote on SB 752 on 8/18/03. The same goes for Sen. Bruce Starr and any congressional
aspirations.
An insane vote that will come back to haunt them both.
Kitts could give Wu a decent run. He certainly should be able to top Ameri's 38% take. But the district probably permforms too Democratic for a four term incumbent w/ a decent war chest to be beaten.
Andy, I can smell your fear. That's the reason why your continued abberance toward the thought of Atkinson as the main guy gives me a quiet assurance. Because you wouldn't be doing this, if you didn't see your guy in trouble.
You say that I'm new at all of this, however you do not know anything of my background. This just shows that you're not only grasping for straws, but that you're not doing your homework.
I expected better from a GOP insider. Tis' a shame. Being smug isn't your strong suit, you may want to leave that to others.
My continued "aberrance" (I assume you meant to say that I find the idea abhorrent) to the thought of Atkinson as the main guy is precisely because, as you correctly identify, I am a "GOP insider". As such, I have (by definition) insede information that causes me to hold to views I do. And no, I won't share all of those inside info bits with the blogoshpere. Suffice it to say for now that he has no record of accomplishment that leads me to want to follow him, and I know of certain character deficiencies that cause me great concern as well. And yes, I have personal experience, voted for him, put up his signs, and was a great supporter. And, unfortunately, I can no longer do so based on what the past few years have revealed to me.
If I am wrong about your background, please enlighten me and I will ne happy to apologize and think of you as experienced but merely incorrect.
As far as being afraid of Atkinson, you are right. I am afraid of him being a distraction. I am afraid of him taking resources away from the race that will just be wasted on his failed candidacy. Same as Saxton. I am not worried in the slightest that he will win either the primary and, assuming the other candidates are in a plane crash and Atkinson wins the primary, I am not concerned that he will win the general election. He gives no reason for people to trust him. Saying as he did in Washington County that people should trust you with their vote because you will bring them "hope" is arrogant (to assume they are hopeless and you will bring it) and lacks substance (the question asked what will you do for us in this county if elected). AS does the idea that his age should be a reason to vote for him, a case he has made all over the state and in print. I am younger and more conservative than he is, does that make me qualified to be governor? No.
However, I have just been convicted that this discussion would be better held in a forum that was on topic at a later date, with apologies to the Coyote for taking up comment space in an off topic manner.
-Andy
Doug,
I think Mannix's sponsorhip of the bill that overturn several county level "no special rights" laws could haunt him as well.
In February, discussing allegations that he spent his campaign funds on personal expenses, lawmaker Derrick Kitts (R-Hillsboro) told The Oregonian his basic test is: "Would I have that expense if I wasn't a state representative?" Well, Kitts' latest campaign fundraising report seems to show him working even when visiting family over the holidays in Puyallup, Wash.-where he reported a Dec. 27, 2004, "meeting/food" tab for $75.52 at a local sports bar called Mugs N Jugs. Kitts will have to find some other Puyallup venue in the future-in May, the city closed down the club based on an unlicensed stripper performance, as well as the club's reputation for generating more DUIIs than any other bar in town. Kitts did not return Murmurs' calls.
http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6791
Coyote,
Are you speaking of the "Son of 9" County Ballot Measures the OCA pushed through after Measure 9 failed statewide?
I highly doubt going against the OCA, "Son of 9," and an era this state's Republican Party seems to want to put behind itself will hurt Mannix in anyway.
It hasn't hurt him in the past, and anybody who wants to stand up for Lon Mabon as a means of attacking Kevin Mannix really ought to reconsider. I am sure the Atkinson and Saxton camp can do better.
-Guy G.
Hey Coyote:
Would that be Mannix distancing himself from the OCA measure about which Perry Atkinson said "the Republicans should move away from the gay thing. We've lost this battle. I think this whole issue has run its course."
http://www.wweek.com/html/politicsa080900.html
Nice try.
-Andy
So I checked into this "Son of 9" business based on all the hullabaloo here.
Mannix was NOT the sponsor of the bills, but if he had been, I would be throwing kudos, because:
As he argued at the time, decisions about sexuality and family should be made at the state level, rather than having a patchwork of various school districts or counties each having their own "gay" rules, which would complicate the issue.
Turns out he was right, in principle, as we saw with Multnomah and Benton counties deciding that gay marriage was ok in their counties. We countered with a statewide issue saying no, that is a decision Oregon voters as a whole need to make.
So I think Kevin was right on this one, and Lon Mabon was wrong. I also learned that Mabon tried to recall Mannix because of this vote. Typical.
Mannix was NOT in favor of the gay agenda being taught in schools or being accepted by any county. He just believed it was more appropriate as a statewide decision. I agree with him on that. I don't want individual counties making gay marriage, for example, legal in Multnomah county, then we would have to recognize them in Marion county and the state would have to give them benefits.
Post a Comment