bjtc_brian
Member
Shit, I didn't know beer was involved in "volunteering"!!! Guess I better get my act together!
A really well written LTE in Montana papers!
- Thread starter shoots-straight
- Start date
Dang, my son and I spend a few days elk hunting and all hell breaks lose. First time I have ever written to endorse or support any candidate, at any level. Probably won't do it ever again, unless I find an election to be as important as this one and the stark differences between the two candidates on issues that are high on my priority list.
Interesting to read this and the many emails I got from my conservative friends. The best email coming from a conservative friend who did not say whether he agreed or disagreed with my sentiments, but gave me some great perspective, "The great thing about this country is that we are all entitled to voice our opinion and we all get to vote." Simple, and very true.
A little background on how I arrived at the decision to write a letter. Will try to provide it without taking too much of your time.
I have been involved in politics too long. It is one of those tasks that I despise, but in today's world, find it to be incumbent on all of us to protect and enhance all we cherish. In that process, I have had chance to interact with most Montana politicians on either a state or national level, sometimes both, and often having strong disagreements with all sides, at one time or another.
The process has shown me that as much as I am a conservative person, I have come to the understanding that I am not good at party politics. I really don't care about "R" or "D". I care about issues and the character of the people that end up getting elected.
I hate talk radio and TV politics. The crap on CNN and FOX news is so much BS, I feel vomit starting to reverse from my stomach whenever I accidentally surf to one of those channels. Same for the intelligent entertainers who are making millions on talk radio by convincing rabid partisan listeners that they know that they are talking about.
Rehberg has been involved in MT politics for a long time. Being conservative, I think I have voted for him in all his past races. Not because I had any strong feelings about his talent, or any belief that he really cared about issues I find important. Rather, like most of you, voted for the guy as a "known commodity." I knew what I was going to get with Rehberg - nothing real sharp, hard right leaning, etc. I viewed his legislative ineptness as almost an asset when voting for the lesser of two evils. His inability to get anything accomplished gave me comfort that he couldn't do too much to upset me, as his track record showed him to be mostly a "Get nothing done" kind of guy. So, being conservative and finding no compelling virtues to his opponents, he got my vote.
I had had some discussions with Tester when he served in the Montana Legislature. We disagreed on some things, agreed on others. He seemed to be open minded, and in his time there, I thought he did a good job. Since he got elected, his staff has always been reaching out to me and other hunters asking for input, seeking ideas about new initiatives, etc. This was long before his reelection bid, showing it to be genuine interest in leading on the topics.
I was surprised when I was asked to serve on Tester's advisory panel for his position as Chairman of the Congressional Sportsman Caucus. Most know I am conservative and not inclined to keep my mouth shut when issues of importance pop up. I am a political risk to anyone who asks me to serve on an advisory group.
I agreed to do that, as I had many meetings with Tester's staff on wildlife issues over the previous years. They took a sincere interest on those topics. It seemed an opportunity to make a difference while working with someone who seemed interested in making a difference for hunters, anglers, and public lands.
In the requests myself and others in our hunting and fishing groups have made to Rehberg, never has a meeting been provided, and he has served for a very long time. Hunters and our issues seem to be either low on his priority list, or we are a voting block he takes for granted because he has the "R" by his name.
With this show and website, the interaction I get with all politicians, of all political stripes, is a lot more than what you read here. Hunt Talk is by far the largest source of information for Montana hunting politics, and on public land issues across the west. Lots of political staffs and writers lurk here, not just from Montana, but all across the west.
As a result, I am blessed with a platform that gives me opportunity and responsibility to speak up. The "responsibility" part being what I take most seriously. I will try to explain herein.
The hunting and fishing media world is way too passive on our important topics. There is a reason our vote is taken for granted - our big media, both TV and print, are chicken chit when it comes to speaking out on topics important to us. They roll over on our most important topics, in effect they become enabling entities to the process that allows conservation budgets to get zeroed out, allow oil and gas regulations to get lowered to a point that no one can deny the impacts it is having on deer, antelope, birds, etc.
I look at the landscape of this Senate race and fully understand that it is one of the most important national races of the election cycle. I look to see which person, if the winner, would do the most for hunting, fishing, public access, public lands, conservation funding, etc., not just in Montana, but across the entire country.
Both have had many years to demonstrate what they would do for hunters and anglers if reelected. I don't need to go on very long about the accomplishments, or lack thereof, for each of the two candidates in this race. Enough to say, that it would be a very lopsided ledger, heavily in favor of Tester. To the point, that I cannot recall one single thing Rehberg has done to help public land hunters and anglers. I can name a few that he has done that hurt us.
For those of you who have different priorities on elections, I appreciate and respect that. I share many of those same priorities. I worry about the national debt, I worry about taxes and spending.
I couldn't care less about abortion, gay marriage, or the many other social issues the fringes on both sides use to get people riled up. To me, government has real problems to address and should not be meddling in the private lives of citizens.
When it comes to one of these two being a fiscal conservative or a fiscal liberal, reading the comments of some here and in the newspapers makes me laugh. If I was Tester, I would have fought hard against the spending increases of the last four years. The same as if I was Rehberg; I wouldn't be crowing about fiscal conservatism when I participated in the Bush-Cheney debacle that reversed the financial direction of this country as much, or possibly more so, than has Obama-Biden.
I feel neither of these candidates will have a big impact on the Federal budget situation. Whoever wins will have a vote in the Senate, but they will not be sitting on the committees charged with fiscal policy of the country. They will be leaned on by their party bosses to vote for the package their party leaders have put together.
Will we have "tax and spend" or "borrow and spend." From a rudimentary sense, that is the only difference I see in the fiscal policy of the two parties. Both overspend to great degrees. Even when the Repubs had control of all houses in the Bush-Cheney years, they spent to a degree that astounded me. If the Dems spend to that degree, I am not as pissed, as I expected that from them.
Point of all that to show why I see no differences in either party when it comes to fiscal discipline and I see no way that either of these candidates will have significant influence over national fiscal policy, something I am very concerned about. To base my vote on expected resolution of national debt seems impractical when neither party has the stones to do anything about it and neither of these candidates will be on a committee or position to bring about the needed change.
That leaves me to make my decisions based on hunting, access, conservation, etc. Those are the important issues that either of these candidates, if elected, could have major influence over.
As a final issue, I am tired of the hunting vote being taken for granted. I am also tired of our big media groups failing to speak up for candidates out their carrying water on behalf of hunters.
If someone takes me and my issues for granted, they do so at their own peril, at least for what little difference this platform has on the outcome of the issue. Especially if they have had years of elected service to make some effort on our behalf.
Equally, if someone takes a stand on our behalf, they should be recognized, regardless of political affiliations. Tester has stuck his neck out on behalf of hunters, anglers, and those concerned about public access. It is my opinion that if a person sticks his neck out for me and my fellow hunters, I am sticking my neck out for him, regardless of what party affiliation there is. Thus this letter of support.
Regardless of who you support, make sure you vote. It is one of the most valued rights in the world and a right that was secured and preserved with great sacrifice.
Interesting to read this and the many emails I got from my conservative friends. The best email coming from a conservative friend who did not say whether he agreed or disagreed with my sentiments, but gave me some great perspective, "The great thing about this country is that we are all entitled to voice our opinion and we all get to vote." Simple, and very true.
A little background on how I arrived at the decision to write a letter. Will try to provide it without taking too much of your time.
I have been involved in politics too long. It is one of those tasks that I despise, but in today's world, find it to be incumbent on all of us to protect and enhance all we cherish. In that process, I have had chance to interact with most Montana politicians on either a state or national level, sometimes both, and often having strong disagreements with all sides, at one time or another.
The process has shown me that as much as I am a conservative person, I have come to the understanding that I am not good at party politics. I really don't care about "R" or "D". I care about issues and the character of the people that end up getting elected.
I hate talk radio and TV politics. The crap on CNN and FOX news is so much BS, I feel vomit starting to reverse from my stomach whenever I accidentally surf to one of those channels. Same for the intelligent entertainers who are making millions on talk radio by convincing rabid partisan listeners that they know that they are talking about.
Rehberg has been involved in MT politics for a long time. Being conservative, I think I have voted for him in all his past races. Not because I had any strong feelings about his talent, or any belief that he really cared about issues I find important. Rather, like most of you, voted for the guy as a "known commodity." I knew what I was going to get with Rehberg - nothing real sharp, hard right leaning, etc. I viewed his legislative ineptness as almost an asset when voting for the lesser of two evils. His inability to get anything accomplished gave me comfort that he couldn't do too much to upset me, as his track record showed him to be mostly a "Get nothing done" kind of guy. So, being conservative and finding no compelling virtues to his opponents, he got my vote.
I had had some discussions with Tester when he served in the Montana Legislature. We disagreed on some things, agreed on others. He seemed to be open minded, and in his time there, I thought he did a good job. Since he got elected, his staff has always been reaching out to me and other hunters asking for input, seeking ideas about new initiatives, etc. This was long before his reelection bid, showing it to be genuine interest in leading on the topics.
I was surprised when I was asked to serve on Tester's advisory panel for his position as Chairman of the Congressional Sportsman Caucus. Most know I am conservative and not inclined to keep my mouth shut when issues of importance pop up. I am a political risk to anyone who asks me to serve on an advisory group.
I agreed to do that, as I had many meetings with Tester's staff on wildlife issues over the previous years. They took a sincere interest on those topics. It seemed an opportunity to make a difference while working with someone who seemed interested in making a difference for hunters, anglers, and public lands.
In the requests myself and others in our hunting and fishing groups have made to Rehberg, never has a meeting been provided, and he has served for a very long time. Hunters and our issues seem to be either low on his priority list, or we are a voting block he takes for granted because he has the "R" by his name.
With this show and website, the interaction I get with all politicians, of all political stripes, is a lot more than what you read here. Hunt Talk is by far the largest source of information for Montana hunting politics, and on public land issues across the west. Lots of political staffs and writers lurk here, not just from Montana, but all across the west.
As a result, I am blessed with a platform that gives me opportunity and responsibility to speak up. The "responsibility" part being what I take most seriously. I will try to explain herein.
The hunting and fishing media world is way too passive on our important topics. There is a reason our vote is taken for granted - our big media, both TV and print, are chicken chit when it comes to speaking out on topics important to us. They roll over on our most important topics, in effect they become enabling entities to the process that allows conservation budgets to get zeroed out, allow oil and gas regulations to get lowered to a point that no one can deny the impacts it is having on deer, antelope, birds, etc.
I look at the landscape of this Senate race and fully understand that it is one of the most important national races of the election cycle. I look to see which person, if the winner, would do the most for hunting, fishing, public access, public lands, conservation funding, etc., not just in Montana, but across the entire country.
Both have had many years to demonstrate what they would do for hunters and anglers if reelected. I don't need to go on very long about the accomplishments, or lack thereof, for each of the two candidates in this race. Enough to say, that it would be a very lopsided ledger, heavily in favor of Tester. To the point, that I cannot recall one single thing Rehberg has done to help public land hunters and anglers. I can name a few that he has done that hurt us.
For those of you who have different priorities on elections, I appreciate and respect that. I share many of those same priorities. I worry about the national debt, I worry about taxes and spending.
I couldn't care less about abortion, gay marriage, or the many other social issues the fringes on both sides use to get people riled up. To me, government has real problems to address and should not be meddling in the private lives of citizens.
When it comes to one of these two being a fiscal conservative or a fiscal liberal, reading the comments of some here and in the newspapers makes me laugh. If I was Tester, I would have fought hard against the spending increases of the last four years. The same as if I was Rehberg; I wouldn't be crowing about fiscal conservatism when I participated in the Bush-Cheney debacle that reversed the financial direction of this country as much, or possibly more so, than has Obama-Biden.
I feel neither of these candidates will have a big impact on the Federal budget situation. Whoever wins will have a vote in the Senate, but they will not be sitting on the committees charged with fiscal policy of the country. They will be leaned on by their party bosses to vote for the package their party leaders have put together.
Will we have "tax and spend" or "borrow and spend." From a rudimentary sense, that is the only difference I see in the fiscal policy of the two parties. Both overspend to great degrees. Even when the Repubs had control of all houses in the Bush-Cheney years, they spent to a degree that astounded me. If the Dems spend to that degree, I am not as pissed, as I expected that from them.
Point of all that to show why I see no differences in either party when it comes to fiscal discipline and I see no way that either of these candidates will have significant influence over national fiscal policy, something I am very concerned about. To base my vote on expected resolution of national debt seems impractical when neither party has the stones to do anything about it and neither of these candidates will be on a committee or position to bring about the needed change.
That leaves me to make my decisions based on hunting, access, conservation, etc. Those are the important issues that either of these candidates, if elected, could have major influence over.
As a final issue, I am tired of the hunting vote being taken for granted. I am also tired of our big media groups failing to speak up for candidates out their carrying water on behalf of hunters.
If someone takes me and my issues for granted, they do so at their own peril, at least for what little difference this platform has on the outcome of the issue. Especially if they have had years of elected service to make some effort on our behalf.
Equally, if someone takes a stand on our behalf, they should be recognized, regardless of political affiliations. Tester has stuck his neck out on behalf of hunters, anglers, and those concerned about public access. It is my opinion that if a person sticks his neck out for me and my fellow hunters, I am sticking my neck out for him, regardless of what party affiliation there is. Thus this letter of support.
Regardless of who you support, make sure you vote. It is one of the most valued rights in the world and a right that was secured and preserved with great sacrifice.
Rat Fink
Member
I wont answer my phone unless the name ID comes up. So sorry if I missed your call Ben. Shoulda called me from your cell and you woulda got me. LOL
jryoung
Well-known member
Great post Randy, I don't think I could agree any more. It sickens me that the discussions around spending cuts focus on topics such as Big Bird and conservation, while there are 4 gigantic gorillas in the room.
As noted previously, hunting/fishing/conservation is my issue and I will vote for the candidate that supports it/them. I just filled out my ballot this morning, when it came time to vote for US Senator from CA and realizing it will be Feinstein again, I almost wrote in Tester.
I was disappointing to hear several ads for Tester when I was in MT last week and none of them mentioned hunting/fishing/conservation....can't say I blame them for the ads they were running, but it does illustrate that the hunting and fishing vote is often ignored.
As noted previously, hunting/fishing/conservation is my issue and I will vote for the candidate that supports it/them. I just filled out my ballot this morning, when it came time to vote for US Senator from CA and realizing it will be Feinstein again, I almost wrote in Tester.
I was disappointing to hear several ads for Tester when I was in MT last week and none of them mentioned hunting/fishing/conservation....can't say I blame them for the ads they were running, but it does illustrate that the hunting and fishing vote is often ignored.
So they "don't know what the hell is going on" based on their age or because they are attempting to further their education?
Rat Fink
Member
There were no people named cooter on my list.
I'm sure you had "Man Beast" on the call list. :hump:
Nope, nor was there a Ron Swanson.
RobG
Well-known member
I do it for the free pizza and beer.
Crap, I did it for free.
RobG
Well-known member
Thanks for speaking up Randy. In your additional comments I am glad you pointed out the lack of difference in their fiscal responsibility ("tax and spend" vs "borrow and spend") - I wish more people would realize that. In addition to wildlife I'd say there was a stark difference in how they view the fourth amendment and limiting federal control in Montana. Again, the reality is contrary to the myth of Republicans being the protectors of our constitution. That, more than the wildlife issues, spurred me into action.
Rob
