Olson watching the SDGOP imploding

Editor's note: like Liz May, South Dakota's favorite former teevee anchor-turned author, Shad Olson is watching the South Dakota Republican Party turning to shit.

"Toby Doeden should have spent his money supporting good conservative legislative candidates instead of running for governor."

That's the running "true fighters" narrative, now that many more smart and seasoned conservatives are begging Jon Hansen to see what was true, even before the Hansen-Lems campaign jumped Toby Doeden's formal campaign announcement date and Scott Odenbach seethed and fumed in Chamberlain last July about Doeden's presence in the race.

The Hansen-Lems ticket will split the conservative grassroots and give Dusty Johnson his best possible pathway to victory in the June primary. Because that was always the plan. Because ALL OF THEM are backed and supported by AFP and AIPAC.

All except the businessman outsider from Aberdeen.

But then, I wrote exactly that in February of 2025 and have repeated it ad nauseam, while the pipeline sheep dreamed their sleepy delusions about the true reasons for a Jon and Karla ticket.

Today's narrative, now that a great many others are making impassioned appeals for conservative unity as our only chance to show the establishment phonies to the door...

"Toby should have spent his money supporting legislative candidates instead of running for governor."

Yes. Morons. Now some facts. He has. He is. And he will.

It was only Toby Doeden's cash and support from Dakota First Action that allowed the "Freshman 15" conservative legislative class to sweep out the establishment incumbents and punch tickets for Pierre in 2025.

Including $50,000-plus in one State Senate district primary alone, allowing Carl Perry to stave off the Schoenbeck-Dusty Johnson RINO, Katie Washnok. (How's ole Carl expecting to fare against Ms. Washnok this time, without that kind of backing?) Good luck to you, Mr. Perry.

Doeden's PAC is spending $2-million in the 2026 legislative primaries in hopes of repeating the trend, in addition to bankrolling his own campaign. A campaign pledge announced at the same Chamberlain strategy session where Jon Hansen asked Scott Odenbach's permission before speaking to the group. (Real alpha, that guy.)

Anyone believing in some stupefying zero-sum game where Doeden's run for governor was coming at the expense of assisting another grassroots groundswell of actual conservative legislative candidates doesn't know fava beans from the hole they're planted in.

As I've maintained repeatedly and will until the end of time: South Dakota conservatives are too stupid, and now, too fractured to win.

All by design.

So, welcome one and all to the Tea Party Era, Part II. No political power. No access to actual policy influence. And lots and lots of rah-rah rallies and patriot commiseration events, full of energy but devoid of substance or ability to inflect the political universe.

"Scott Pressler came to South Dakota and scolded John Thune's obstruction of the SAVE Act.

ZERO impact on who controls the machines or counts the votes.

2000-era White House policies beget 2010-era political irrelevance for the GOP.

And lots of halting and meandering Rumble podcasts featuring painfully inarticulate, obviously confused and visibly miserable cultists, explaining to the room why running a Governor's campaign to nowhere, with zero money, to upend the state's most generous conservative political donor, was the "good and righteous" thing for South Dakota.

If Hansen-Lems were ever interested in that, they wouldn't have assisted in driving the wedge and sent out their battery acid-and-razor blades surrogates to set the scars.

A Dusty victory in June would and will complete the most stunning act of political subterfuge and betrayal in the history of South Dakota.

And, oh, how very different it all might have been...

Liz May: SD Earth haters are a wreck

After the Soviet Union fell Republicans became Earth haters and began their war on the environment substituting a new Green Scare for the old Red Scare. 

Today, Liz May is a white christianic Earth hater who clearly ignores historical trauma and institutional racism but represents District 27 in South Dakota's demented legislature anyway and blames the victims of Manifest Destiny for being part of the Fourth World. At any rate, it sounds like Earth haters aren't getting along and in Watertown there was a big blowup at Friday’s SDGOP women's meeting.

This Isn’t About Republicans. It’s About How We Govern.

By Rep. Liz May

Before I get into the substance of this session, I want to share, I missed the first week of session this year due to a brain injury. The following week, I was only able to make it through a couple of days before needing to step back again. It wasn’t until after that I was able to push through and finish most of the session—though I ultimately missed the final week as well. It made for one of the hardest sessions I’ve experienced.

At the same time, it was also one of the most contentious. The infighting within our caucus made it even more challenging to stay focused and do the job I was sent there to do. I’ll be honest—I had moments where I had to work hard to keep my emotions in check. That’s not something I’m proud of, but it’s something I’ve learned over the years. Once words are said, you don’t get them back. And if I’m being real, my ancestral background reminds me I’ve got a little fire in me—I’ve had my share of moments. You either learn to manage it, or it manages you.

Through all of that, I never lost sight of one thing: it is an honor to serve the people of District 27. The folks back home didn’t elect me to be perfect—they elected me to be honest, to stay grounded, and to do the work, even when it’s hard.

When people look at the South Dakota Legislature today, they see something they’re not used to—Republicans disagreeing with each other, sometimes sharply. To some, it looks like division. To others, dysfunction. But what we’re actually seeing is something much deeper—and much more honest. The truth is, this isn’t a fight about personalities or even about conservatism itself. It’s a debate about what government is supposed to be.

The Republican Party is a political label. But what’s happening inside the legislature has very little to do with party—and everything to do with how each of us views the role of government. There are three primary governing philosophies at play, and understanding them is the key to understanding everything else.

The first is populism, often closely aligned with libertarian thinking. This group is driven by a deep skepticism of government. Their focus is on limiting it, resisting it, and questioning whether it should be involved at all. Their first question is simple: should government be doing this in the first place?

The second is conservatism. Historically, conservatism has included both limiting government and responsibly governing the institutions that exist. A true conservative does not reject government but believes it should be structured, stable, and accountable. Conservatism is about managing government responsibly—ensuring it functions properly, maintaining order, and improving systems where needed without tearing them down.

The third is what can best be described as expansion or growth-oriented thinking. This group views government as a tool. They are focused on using it to drive economic development, build infrastructure, expand services, and create outcomes.

All three of these philosophies exist within the same political party—and that’s why the conflict feels so sharp. These are not disagreements about being Republican. They are disagreements about what government should do.

You can see this divide in nearly every major issue. Taking money from one fund and redirecting it to another—some see that as economic growth, others see it as misuse. Regulating behavior in schools—some see it as protection, others see it as overreach. Funding nonprofits—some see it as meeting real needs, others see it as expanding government. These are not partisan disagreements. They are philosophical ones.

That same divide exists in how people interpret the South Dakota Republican Party platform. The platform emphasizes individual liberty, limited government, and personal responsibility—principles that strongly reflect populist and libertarian thinking. At the same time, it recognizes that government has essential functions that must be carried out—something rooted in conservatism. One philosophy reads the platform as a call to limit government wherever possible. Another reads it as a responsibility to govern effectively within defined limits. Both claim the platform—but they are not operating from the same understanding.

And right now, that tension is playing out in a very visible way. The populist wing—supported and amplified by outside voices, advocacy groups, and social media commentary—has had a significant influence on the tone and direction of the party. That influence is not always about governing. Often, it is about messaging, pressure, and defining who is or isn’t considered “conservative.”

Strong disagreement is expected in a legislative body, and no group is without fault. But when disagreement turns personal, it undermines the work for everyone. That shift in tone was evident this past session, where debate too often moved away from policy and toward confrontation.

I also want to share a personal perspective on the Freedom Caucus, because I had the opportunity to see it up close when it was first being formed in South Dakota. I was invited to attend an early meeting to consider joining. I listened carefully, and when I left that night, I asked that the national leadership reach out so I could better understand how the group operated. A few days later, I received that call. Toward the end of the conversation, I asked a simple question: would I be expected to vote the way the group directed? The answer I received was yes—that membership required voting with the group. That told me everything I needed to know. 

I’m a ranch girl, and I wasn’t elected to take orders—I was elected to use my judgment. The people I represent expect me to be honest, to think for myself, and to make decisions grounded in logic and common sense. We’re not going to get every vote right, but we won’t get any of them right if we’re just following someone else’s instructions.

That’s not how I believe this job should work. In my view, the Freedom Caucus—both in South Dakota and across the country—operates from a libertarian philosophy that prioritizes limiting government above all else. That approach helps explain much of the disruption and tone we saw this last session. It may work for some, but it’s not how I believe governing should be done.

The divide becomes even clearer when you look at the budget. Every year, we hear concerns about the size of government. But the legislature is only in session for about 40 days, while the executive branch operates year-round, building and administering the base budget long before we ever step into the appropriations room. By the time most legislators are reviewing the budget, much of it is already built. Limiting government is part of governing—but governing also requires deciding what must exist and making it function responsibly.

If the true concern is the size and growth of the general appropriations bill, then the focus has to be where that bill is actually built. That means spending less time bringing policy bills that add mandates and more time in the appropriations room—where budgets are reviewed line by line, questions are asked, and real changes can be made. That’s where outcomes are shaped. Raising objections on the final day may sound strong, but it doesn’t change the result. At that point, the work has already been done. If anything, it highlights a lack of engagement in the process itself. Governing requires more than commentary at the end—it requires showing up early, doing the work, and taking responsibility for the outcome.

When you look at the bills that were brought forward this session, many of the same voices calling for smaller government were also introducing legislation that expanded it. Bills like HB 1243 required schools to take on new mandates and even exposed the state to additional legal costs. Others, like HB 1241, added procedural requirements that increase administrative burden. Even when framed around rights or values, these bills still require enforcement, oversight, or compliance. Government doesn’t grow only through spending—it also grows through mandates, enforcement, and administrative requirements. You cannot say you are limiting government while consistently adding mandates to it.

Citizen engagement is important and necessary—but it is different from carrying the responsibility of governing. There is a growing trend of voices who follow the process from the outside and speak with certainty about how it should be done, without ever having to carry the responsibility of doing it. They reduce complex decisions to simple narratives and labels. Anyone can criticize a vote. Governing requires owning the outcome.

At the end of the day, this isn’t about factions in Pierre. It’s about the people back home. They’re not asking us to win arguments. They’re asking us to get it right.

We don’t need to eliminate disagreement. But we do need to be honest about it—and responsible in how we handle it. Because the future of this state won’t be decided by who is the loudest. It will be decided by who is willing to do the work.

Montana Libertarians field candidates for every federal office

Founded in 1979 the Montana Libertarian Party has been a factor in elections in the state for decades often stealing voters from Republicans and since this interested party left Montana in 2011 more Earth haters moved into the state making it ripe for another Copper King era. 

Over 100,000 new residents moved to Montana since 2018, contributing to a 2-to-1 Republican-leaning voter registration edge among new arrivals. This trend contributed to a sweep of statewide elections in 2024, including the defeat of incumbent Democratic Senator Jon Tester by Republican Tim Sheehy, a newcomer to politics. The 2024 election cycle cemented this change, and early candidate filings for 2026 indicate a further push by conservative state leadership to consolidate power, highlighting the ongoing, complex political realignment of Montana.

So, migrating Republicans from California and Washington State warp elections in Montana where conservatives in the eastern district detest Californians even as real estate values soar putting people in the margins who voted for the Orange Julius farther into the boonies where jobs are scarce. So, contradictory occurrences are making Montana politics very weird and rich catholic Californians in the Bitterroot Valley clash with rural eastern Montana-born Protestants.

The Montana Libertarian Party holds online Zoom gatherings for interested parties every Wednesday at 6:00 pm MST.

Libertarian candidate interest is up, party leaders say, and they expect voter interest could be too. The Libertarian ballot is full of candidates, all younger than 50 and none having previously run for office in Montana under the Libertarian banner. In the Western Congressional District, there are 10 candidates — five Democrats, three [Earth haters], an independent [sic] and a [L]ibertarian — lined up to replace retiring incumbent Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke, who is not seeking reelection. All told, there are nine Libertarians on the Montana ballot in 2026, including five for the state Legislature: Dru Koester of Helena, J.C. Windmueller of Missoula, Dave Von Eschen of Great Falls, Jordan Ophus of Havre, and Greg DeVries of Jefferson City. [Montana Free Press]

Pop quiz @SteveDaines: Who attacked the United States on 9/11?

Was it:
A) Sunni Islamist al Qaeda, a known enemy of the Shiites in Iran, or
B) Shiite Islamists in Iran, Hezbollah, and the Houthis

HINT: The US is now backing the group in Syria at Israel’s request https://t.co/KWaHq17aVy

— Montana Libertarian Party (@Montana_LP) March 3, 2026