Politics

Matt over at Left in the West <a href="http://www.leftinthewest.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=883">asks a question</a> of the Montana farm and ranch community about some editorials that are running around. Since i can't comment at Left in the West i would leave my thoughts here.<br />n<br />nFirst we have Rep. Kendall Van Dyk giving us his opinoin that <a href="http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/montana_stockgrowers_association_misses_mark_on_rural_values/C37/L37/">the Montana Stock Growers Association (MSGA) doesn't represent its members</a>. Then we have Errol Rice, executive vice president of MSGA, and <a href="http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/van_dyk_misses_mark_on_montana_livestock_industry/">his defense of the issues</a> Van Dyk brought up. Matt then says that Rice didn't have an adequate defense for his issues and the MSGA has a lot of explaining to do.<br />n<br />nTo start with, why didn't I bring this up when Van Dyk's original editorial come up? Because it was blatant, partisan politics and I don't respond well to them. Anyone with half a brain would realize this and not give it the time of day but since Matt asks I will give my take. Van Dyk and the Democratic party are just trying to peel off some members of the MSGA in front of the elections to try to maintain their majority in the state house. Thats all this is about since it is well known that MSGA leans Republican. most cattle producers that are Democrats are members of the Montana Cattlemens Association since it is organized and run as part of the Democratic Party. Trying to peel off MSGA members is obviously a Democratic strategy this time around.<br />n<br />nThe MSGA is a member driven organization. They vote on how they are going to stand on an issue if at all possible. HOW CAN A VOTE DRIVEN, MEMBER ORGANIZATION BE OUT OF TOUCH WITH ITS MEMBERS? It can't be. The stances it takes are what the majority of its members want. I am not a member of the MSGA but I do know how it works. Did they represent their members. Yes. Did their stance make the Democrats happy? No. So the Democrats, Matt being one of them, attack. So Democrats don't think that members of an organization can vote to run it like they want? Just because the MCA follows in lock step with the Democratic party doesn't mean the MSGA needs to. That might be what Matt and the Democrats want but that is not reality. The members of the MSGA have a choice and are exercising it.<br />n<br />nYou will note that I have not talked about any of the issues Van Dyk or Rice brought up. That's because anybody who reads my space here knows how I feel on almost every one of these issues. That's what I tend to talk about, issues. Not which political party is better than the other or which organization is supporting what. I talk about issues because that is whats important. There is no political party or organization that I completely agree with so I stay away from commenting on them to the best of my ability. Sometimes things force my hand and I talk about it but for the most part I don't. Also I didn't comment on the issues because i knew most of the MSGA position on them and Van Dyk misrepresented most of them but that's politics at its finest. Misrepresent your opponents position. <br />n<br />nSo Matt, you heard from me on this issue. A member driven organization that is vote driven does by definition support it's members and can not be out of touch with them. You might not agree with the policies they support, but its their right to support them if that's what they want. The people that don't agree with the MSGA position have all ready left and joined the MCA so what is the problem. Quit playing politics with this and let people have their opinion. That is what this country is about and what you claim you are fighting for.