A story appeared in the blog Left in the West this week that purports to be about the “ethical conflictions” of an independent source with ties to Congressman Denny Rehberg.

In what has become the norm, the blogger promoting the story felt obligated to point out that because Dr. Craig Wilson’s son works for Rehberg, the professor should be excluded from weighing in on any future story involving the Congressman. The blogger went on to question whether Wilson’s professorship qualifies him as a political expert.

While I don’t claim to be an expert on experts, I think most would agree a Ph.D. warrants some recognition. However, in Wilson’s case, the real deciding factor in the author’s use of the term ‘political expert’ may result from the fact he’s been offering his insight into the realm of Montana politics for over three decades. Regardless, whether Wilson deserves to be referred to as an expert in his field of study is not the case in point.

The real question is whether or not a purported expert should be able to weigh in on a story if that individual can be directly linked to the subject matter at hand. If indeed there is an “ethical confliction”—if such a phrase were to exist—perhaps the expert should recuse themselves from commenting on the story.

Unfortunately, Montana has about as many qualified political analysts as it does successful bloggers. For the sake of argument, let’s all agree that Wilson should be excluded from commenting on any story involving the Congressman. However, to be fair, we should agree that his replacement not only possess a similar background in the field of political science, but also have no ties whatsoever to Rehberg.
　
At first glance, Dr. Jim Lopach seems like a perfect fit. As a professor at UM, Lopach has been actively involved in state politics for decades and has more degrees than Left in the West and this blog has daily visitors combined.  Unfortunately, I’ve heard that Dr. Lopach’s nephew, Tom, is currently Sen. Jon Tester’s chief of staff.  While Sen. Tester was not mentioned in the story Wilson weighed in on, the mere possibility that Rehberg and Tester could square off in 2012 should disqualify Lopach.
　
With both professors out, the fate of political commentary in the state falls squarely on the shoulders of “seasoned” journalists. 　Much like their professorial counterparts, a journalist is expected to be objective and to publish works in their various fields of expertise. These expectations, of course, do not pertain to bloggers. Then again, people actually care enough about what journalists and professors have to say to pay them for their insight.
　
When it comes to Montana politics, few journalists possess the knowledge, skill and tenure that Chuck Johnson does. But shucks, it appears that even Chuck has a skeleton in his closet. I’ve heard that Johnson’s brother-in-law is Jim Hunt, who was the early favorite to unseat Rehberg in 2008 before losing out in the Democratic primary to John Driscoll.

Thankfully, political commentary in Montana isn’t a boy’s only affair. Jennifer McKee, a journalist for Lee Enterprises, has proven herself a stalwart in the political arena. But McKee’s dilemma appears to be even closer to home than Johnson’s. I’ve heard that McKee’s husband, Jonathan McDonald, works as a lawyer at Jim Hunt’s law firm. No word yet on whether Jonathan McDonald is related to Dennis McDonald but chances are slim. Not because McDonald’s a popular surname, but because Dennis McDonald isn’t really from Montana.

The point is Montana is a small state and anyone who has lived here long enough to be considered an expert political analyst likely achieved such status because they possess an ability to circumvent the ethical boundaries of ancestral relations.