Kitts is the poster child for the moral bankruptcy of the religious right. He won his first election in 2002 because of support from the anti-choice, anti-gay crowd. Yet his own personal life style hardly fits the people who financed him.

He had a reputation as a skirt chaser, party hardy type. He then got arrested for drunk driving and used campaign funds for personal use. His first opponent was a wife of a high tech engineer and mother who was active in the schools. In other words a family value business candidate but one who was pro choice, pro environment.

Kitts is an embarassment to his district and to the state, but he has the right values!!

Geeze. What exactly is the crime here? I'm no fan of Kitts, but this sounds like the type of legislation that every single legislator indulges in every single session. It's called pandering, or speaking to your base, or good politics, depending on your POV.

So they have a go-cart track with noisy little cars going around in circles and they now will be able to run noisy little motorcycles around the same circle.

How is this the crime of the century? I just enjoyed the best Indy 500 race in the past decade or so. The woman of the hour, Danica Patrick, hit a whole bunch of firsts for women in racing. She, of course, got her start on tracks just like the one that's owned by Mr. Egger.

Go Derrick!!!

Well, there's self-interest and then there's self interest. Kitts doesn't seem to know the difference (from WW):

Kitts' obliviousnesss to public perception on this topic comes on top of other more serious concerns. In his campaign last fall, Kitts paid more than $14,000 to a consulting firm owned by his then-fiancée and more than $25,000 on an advertising firm that also employed him. Campaign finance rules permit such expenditures as long as they are arm's-length transactions.

I think WW gave Kitts the little gold Rogue this week because of a developing pattern. And Pancho, your analogy isn't apt--supporting public policy that benefits groups of people unknown to you is called "good leadership;" supporting public policy that enriches people known to you is called graft.

There's been a rumor floating for weeks that Mr. Pulitzer has been sniffin' around on Rep. Kitts. After weeks, this is the best they could come up with? I thought the best version of the rumor was that he bought an expensive go-cart with campaign money (which would only be okay if he raced in district, right?).

What about the guys who stole nearly $200,000 from the Portland parking meters? I'd say they're bigger Rogues than Kitts. There are a lot of bigger Rogues any week.

Congrats on the honors, Rep. Kitts, and enjoy your week. You may not have deserved it, but don't let the chance pass.

This is the kind of stuff that's happening all the time, folks. Legislators try to improve the lives of those around them. Sometimes it's for their profression, sometimes for their family, sometimes for their hobby (would someone really balk at a hunter/legislator trying to change hunting regulations?), and even sometimes they try to improve things for the majority of Oregonians.

The finance issue is the only thing that raises an eyebrow, but that's the same issue the Oregonian has been mentioning for months (in rare contrast to them getting stories from WW). It might seem odd, but it's not public money and fully disclosed. Following the law is not Rogueish. Not working to change laws (like that) that you disagree with, now that's Rogueish.

The real scandal here is Kitt's affection for pocket bikes. Other that, I just don't see it.