Against Gatekeepers

It's time to call out some bad actors in Idaho politics

There’s a famous quote I’ve always tried to keep in mind when it comes to this platform:

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

From day one, my goal with the Gem State Chronicle has been to discuss ideas rather than get bogged down in gossip or performative name-calling. I haven’t always achieved that ideal, but I’ve done my best to move in that direction.

There are plenty of other platforms that enjoy diving into the mud. Like professional wrestling, that kind of thing can be entertaining, but it’s rarely truly useful. When I’ve chosen to respond to individuals on this platform, I’ve tried to be fair and professional, even when I believed strong criticism was warranted.

So the question arises: how should I respond to the professional wrestlers of the world who spend their time and energy dragging my name through the mud? I’ve ignored many of these attacks for a long time. “Don’t wrestle with pigs,” the aphorism goes, “because you’ll both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

At some point you’ve got to do something about those pesky pigs.

Everyone has an opinion, and that’s fine. Love my work or hate it—or even hate me personally—I’m okay with that. But when people go out of their way to damage my reputation or threaten others for associating with me, that crosses a line. Over a 48-hour period last week, I was personally attacked by several different figures representing multiple factions in Idaho politics, each of which aimed to convince others to distance themselves from me.

I am compelled to respond today, not just to correct the record, but to expose a deeper issue that should concern anyone who cares about the future of political discourse in Idaho. Because this isn’t about ideology—none of the people coming after me are interested in debating my ideas. It’s about gatekeeping: controlling who gets to be part of the conversation and who gets shut out.

An important note before I begin: the four individuals I name in this article will likely be unhappy that I’ve chosen to respond to their attacks. Keep in mind, however, that all four have been publicly attacking me for weeks, months, or—in some cases—years, on social media and other platforms. I’m taking this opportunity to respond and set the record straight. Once I’ve done so, I don’t intend to say anything further.

Long before I got involved in politics, I made a conscious decision not to hold grudges. Long-term personal vendettas only distract from the real work of advancing conservative policy. This article will be my one and only response to the persistent attacks from people who view me as a political enemy, and then I’ll go back to not giving them a second thought.

On one side are former allies who, because of strategic and tactical disagreements over the past year, have decided I’m just as much an enemy as liberal Republicans or even Democrats. Perhaps no one has been more passionately aggressive in this regard than Dustin Hurst, formerly of the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and currently the treasurer of Idaho Freedom PAC (IFPAC).

I once considered Dustin an ally, a mentor, even a friend. I was never able to really fill his shoes as communications director at IFF, but he always had great ideas and offered valuable advice during my time there and afterward. When I decided to go all in on the Gem State Chronicle in late 2023, Dustin was my second interview guest:

That conversation feels like a time capsule from a distant past, doesn’t it? Not only did Dustin praise my work, he expressed enthusiastic support for political figures like Sen. Scott Herndon, Sen. Brian Lenney, and Rep. Heather Scott. Just a year later, he was savaging each of these individuals on social media:

What changed? Did Lenney, Herndon, Scott, and I all sell out? I suppose Dustin thinks so. When he and other former allies first started coming after me last year, I paused for some serious introspection. Had I changed my views for political gain? Did I sell out for a seat at the table? I went back and reread my earliest posts, and came away convinced that I had not. For example, I ran the numbers on grocery taxes back in February 2022 and concluded that it wasn’t a hill worth dying on. I reached the same conclusion then as I do now. I’ve been consistent on the issues.

I can’t speak for Brian Lenney, Scott Herndon, or Heather Scott, but the two who remained in the Legislature this year saw tremendous success in passing long-term conservative priorities during a session that IFF president Ron Nate called “one of the most conservative sessions in recent history.” Is that what “selling out” looks like?

I suspect there’s a certain libertarian mindset that resists any form of political power. Once conservatives gained a critical mass in the Idaho Legislature, they became the new power to fight. Perhaps Dustin sees himself as a kind of Gideon, continuously shrinking the size of his forces so as to give God all the glory.

In any case, I wasn’t spared Dustin’s ire. I don’t have any screenshots for you because I never found his statements interesting enough to save. I eventually blocked him on social media because he couldn’t resist replying to post after post with snark and anger. It’s really weird, honestly. When I have a problem with someone in the political sphere, my instinct is to ignore them and move on. But some people become fixated, unable to let go. They just keep punching, and punching, and punching. Earlier this week, a mutual friend shared an article of mine and offered some kind praise. Within minutes, Dustin replied. I didn’t see what he wrote, but whatever it was prompted a rebuke from our mutual friend, which I appreciated.

Joining Dustin in that particular pile-on was John Heida, who runs Stop Idaho RINOs:

There are a few things to unpack here. First, John accused me of lacking a spine, of going whichever way the wind blows. That’s absurd. I take plenty of stands. In fact, the most recent dust-up that had John upset with me came after I supported H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill. John opposed the bill and seemed angry that I didn’t share his view.

Hurst and Heida are unfortunately proving the moderate Republicans right when they accuse conservatives of engaging in purity tests and witch hunts. If you don’t think eliminating grocery taxes is the number one issue, you’re a RINO. If you deviate more than a few percentage points from IFF’s Freedom Index, you’re a RINO. If you criticize Young Americans for Liberty for calling conservative lawmakers “traitors,” you’re a RINO.

What John dismisses as “blowing with the wind” is simply my desire to explore every side of an issue. There are political influencers on all sides who don’t want you to think; rather they want to make you angry. The entire premise of SIR is that there are villains in Idaho that must be confronted, whether via screaming on social media or donations to PACs. That’s fine. I’ve always been content to let SIR and similar groups do their thing, but they are clearly not willing to extend the same courtesy.

The other accusation—that I’m a “paid shill” or “on the payroll”—refers to my consulting work with the Idaho Freedom Caucus (IDFC). As you recall, following the 2024 session, IDFC split, with most members choosing to support Speaker Mike Moyle’s reelection, while a minority supported a challenger. I had been doing communications consulting for the IDFC since December 2023, coordinating with Maria Nate, Idaho director of the State Freedom Caucus Network, who from the beginning asked that I keep it quiet.

After the split, I continued consulting for the remaining IDFC members. When people started asking what had happened, I got permission from co-chairs Rep. Heather Scott and Sen. Tammy Nichols to reveal my involvement. I couldn’t ethically explain the situation without disclosing my role, so I published my account in December, fully explaining how I was connected to it all. Am I unbiased? No, and I’ve never claimed otherwise. But I strive to be fair.

Here’s what Hurst, Heida, and others calling me “compromised” don’t understand: nobody has editorial control over this platform but me. The Gem State Chronicle currently has two advertising partners: Lynn Bradescu and Money Metals. Their support doesn’t entitle them to dictate what I say. Neither do any of the supporters who pay for subscriptions via Substack. Neither do any of my consulting clients.

You see, when I work with a person or organization, I am providing a service. That might mean drafting an article, editing content, or consulting on messaging. It does not create a reciprocal relationship in which they can demand I write—or not write—anything on my own platform. It’s the free market at work.

Could I be influenced by the fear of losing a gig? Sure. And that happened once. In early 2024, I was still getting the Chronicle off the ground when I took a short-term contract with IFF to handle communications. With Wayne Hoffman gone and Ron Nate stepping in, IFF needed help, and I needed income. It made sense.

While I was an employee at IFF, I understood that the organization had to come first, before my personal projects. The Chronicle was still just a Substack newsletter at that time, and I made sure that nothing I posted ran counter to IFF’s agenda. As a contractor, however, having begun turning the Chronicle into something much larger than it was before, that line was more blurry.

When I wrote a post mildly supporting a compromise library bill—one for which I had given tepid support in committee testimony—Ron Nate asked me to take it down. IFF rated the bill a -2, you see, and he didn’t like the mixed messages. Despite pointing out that my post was published before the score and reflected my own independent judgment as a library trustee, not an IFF contractor, I was given an ultimatum, to which I ended up complying. At the time, I couldn’t afford to walk away. But it made me sick to my stomach, and I vowed never to let that happen again. That experience was a teaching moment in which I learned that editorial integrity is priceless.

To be clear, I don’t hold the incident against Ron. He was settling into a tough role during a turbulent time, and I understand why he wanted consistency in messaging.

Something similar happened later with the House Republican Caucus. I was briefly involved in hosting podcasts with Republican representatives. Or should I say “podcast”, as only one ended up being published—my interview with Rep. Jaron Crane, the caucus chair. Crane took issue with an article I wrote criticizing a bill he sponsored, and while he didn’t outright demand that I kill the story, the implication was clear. I went ahead and published my article and we quietly parted ways.

Again, I don’t hold a grudge against Rep. Crane. He has his focus—promoting the House GOP Caucus—and I have mine. If they end up in conflict, then so be it. Now that the Chronicle is fully operational, I have the freedom to lose a gig rather than surrender editorial control. If Dustin or John truly believe I sold out for $500 a month over the course of a year, then they never thought highly of me to begin with.

Oddly enough, critics like Hurst and Heida have become strange bedfellows with figures on the other side. One example is Greg Graf, a blogger who seems to spend most of his time writing screeds about people in the Idaho political sphere. I don’t read his blog, but friends occasionally send me screenshots showing he’s taken various shots at me over the years. I don’t care—it’s his prerogative, and I prefer to discuss ideas.

Graf went after me a few weeks ago for my article examining the potential opportunity cost of Gov. Brad Little’s veto of Senate Bill 1314. He apparently pointed to Money Metals’ sponsorship of the Gem State Chronicle as a smoking gun that proves I’m nothing more than a paid mouthpiece for Stefan Gleason. Once again, he demonstrates that he doesn’t understand how this works.

First, I disclosed in the article that Money Metals is a sponsor, in case readers might have missed the graphic on the front page and the article sidebar:

Owner and CEO Stefan Gleason is well known as a supporter of conservative causes and sound money policy. The Money Metals Substack is a reliable source of news and analysis on monetary issues. Both the company and its owners donate to numerous conservative candidates and organizations—including, earlier this year, this very platform.

Second, nobody at Money Metals told me to write the article in the first place, or even what to say. I had been mulling over the idea for months as I watched the prices of gold and silver continue to rise. I actually reached out to Gleason for information on how much it would have cost to store physical gold and silver, but he had not responded in time for the article.

Third, I reached out to Money Metals earlier this year asking them to be a sponsor, because I know that the company is likeminded in many ways, and they have donated to numerous conservative candidates and causes over the past few years. I appreciate their support!

Let me be clear: Money Metals is a sponsor of the Chronicle. That’s disclosed. But no one at Money Metals asked me to write that article or told me what to say or not to say. The idea came from me, the research came from me, and the words came from me.

Graf also accused me of being a “white supremacist,” which is so absurd it hardly merits a response. I consider it not only baseless but slanderous, and I categorically reject that label. It’s the same smear leftists use against Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, Brent Regan, Heather Scott, or any other conservative who won’t play by their rules. I count myself in good company.

What absolute hubris to lecture a United States Senator about who he is allowed and not allowed to associate with. Ask yourself why a grown man would talk like a character from Mean Girls.

Incidentally, this is the same Greg Graf who has worked with Take Back Idaho, a group supposedly fighting “extremism” and “misinformation”. Former IFF president Wayne Hoffman called them out years ago for simply repackaging left-wing positions and past political figures while using the supposed threat of right-wing extremism as a fear tactic. In 2024, the Secretary of State’s office fined Take Back Idaho for failing to report expenditures related to Graf and his firm.

According to the Idaho Dispatch, which initiated the investigation, Graf demanded their remove his name from their website:

Today, Graf went against his own stance on not speaking to Idaho Dispatch and demanded that we never speak of his name again. Graf demanded that we take down any mention of his name on our website.

Idaho Dispatch stands by our reporting, and we will not comply with any ludicrous demands from political figures who are trying to silence media outlets from reporting the truth.

I wonder if I will receive a similar demand. For the record, Graf has never once asked me for comment for any of the blog posts attacking me. In any case, I have no intention of ever mentioning him again. Life is too short to dwell on unpleasantness.

I would much rather ignore all this nonsense. This article is not only taking my time and mental energy, but valuable space on my platform that would be better used to discuss election issues, cutting government spending, or other policies. But a line was crossed when these attacks expanded to political figures with whom I associate. In addition to Graf, former state senator Mary Souza also attempted to pressure Sen. Jim Risch after he reposted one of my articles on X. This isn’t just petty. It’s poisonous:

Ratio

I have posted two articles critical of Mary Souza (June 2023 and June 2024), so I can understand that I’m not her favorite person. Yet her beef with me started well before any of that. Once the darling of conservative groups like IFF, Souza saw her standing decrease as her votes tended more liberal. When Idaho conservatives, including her own central committee in Kootenai County, chose to support Dorothy Moon for secretary of state rather than her, she seemed to hold a grudge. She appeared to have a special anger toward Brent Regan, who is chairman of both the Kootenai County GOP and the board of IFF. In early 2023, she penned a series of articles denouncing IFF, finding reasons to go after every employee, including me, even though I had only been there a few days.

Needing some reason to attack me, she found a silly tweet I’d posted saying that any woman who supports repealing the 19th Amendment is someone worth getting to know. Despite me explaining the tweet, and stating without qualification or reservation that I do not support repealing the 19th, Souza and her friends continue to use this as evidence that I am a bad person who must not be associated with.

Ironically, the people attacking me over that tweet seem to have the most trouble with strong women in the Idaho GOP. In 2022, they pulled no punches going after Dorothy Moon, Priscilla Giddings, and Janice McGeachin. The latter especially took serious abuse from the moderate to left wing commentariat during her tenure as lieutenant governor. Some people in Idaho have a problem with women but it’s certainly not me.

I strongly support conservative women like Chairwoman Moon, Reps. Heather Scott, Elaine Price, Barbara Ehardt, Sens. Tammy Nichols, Christy Zito, Glenneda Zuiderveld, and so many more. Even those with whom I have significant disagreements, such as Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen, I treat respectfully, as befits her office and as a fellow human being and Idahoan.

That’s more than can be said for those making cheap attacks, isn’t it?

Souza’s claims of racism and anti-semitism are ridiculous as well, especially coming from a woman who accused Wayne Hoffman, a Jewish man, of only being in it for the money:

I don’t think Mary Souza is antisemitic, but she of all people should be careful with context.

Leftists—including those spiritual leftists who claim to be conservative or Republican—play an evil game: they pick a controversial figure and demand that you disavow them. If you do, then they’ll do it again, with someone slightly less controversial. If you refuse, then you’re now the next controversial figure set to be disavowed. Either way, their goal seems to be to cancel anyone to the right of Barack Obama.

Remember how the fake news media went after Donald Trump in 2016:

No matter how many times Trump disavowed outright white nationalists like David Duke, the media kept presenting a narrative to the American people that he was tacitly supporting them.

It didn’t work then, and it will not work now.

Do you notice anything about all of these examples? Not one of them engages with my ideas. They’re all personal attacks, aimed at impugning my motives and damaging my reputation. I’ve stayed silent as long as I could, but when those attacks turn into threats and insinuations against anyone who dares associate with me, I’m compelled to speak out.

I believe that the common thread between the recent attacks on this platform is a desire for control. Too many political figures crave the power to define the conservative right, including the power to ostracize anyone they choose. They weaponize labels like “compromised,” “sold out,” “racist,” or “sexist” not for honest debate, but as cheap tools to silence political enemies. The point isn’t discussion; it’s control.

Attackers coming from the left hold that outright socialists, globalists, and people who think it’s fine and dandy to mutilate children in the name of transgenderism are all normal parts of the political discourse. But anyone who still believes in traditional values, puts America first, or thinks Christians have a role to play in civil government, is beyond the pale.

Meanwhile, those coming from the right seem to believe that anyone claiming to be conservative must not only follow a strict set of policy principles, but also agree on strategy and tactics. Specifically, their policy principles, and their tactics. While I agree with Pastor Doug Wilson’s formulation of no enemies on the right, others are more in line with Anakin Skywalker’s maxim that “if you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy.”

In both cases, a small number of people claim the authority to decide who gets to be part of the conversation—and who must be shut out. That’s precisely why the Gem State Chronicle exists: to offer an independent voice among Idaho conservatives, and to equip you with the tools to be more engaged citizens of the Republic.

Why is this so important that I’m breaking my usual rule and naming names, potentially permanently burning bridges in the process? Because conservatives need to unite! We need to know who’s on the team and who’s not, and move forward as a team, not as a bucket of crabs trying to pull each other down.

Last year, leftists in Idaho united around Proposition 1, ranked-choice voting. Would-be gatekeepers like Greg Graf were enthusiastic supporters of Prop 1, but Idaho voters wisely rejected that convoluted scheme to hijack our elections. I was proud to see Idaho Republicans unite in opposition, and I hoped that unity would carry forward into legislative victories in 2025.

And it did. I believe the success of the 2025 session stemmed in part from the communication lines opened in 2024. Electing more conservative legislators also played a major role. Now the question is: how do we build on that success? Will we let left-wing gossip-mongers scare us into silence? Will we let infighting destroy our chances at future victories?

On Saturday, leftist groups unveiled their latest initiative: a proposal to legalize abortion in Idaho. If Republicans can unite in opposition to this heinous effort—as they did against Prop 1—then Idaho will remain a sanctuary for life. But if we let bad actors and professional wrestlers fracture our unity, we will lose this fight. And the murder of the unborn will once again take place in the Gem State.

That’s what’s at stake. This isn’t about me or this platform—I’m just one small piece of a much larger movement. This is about the future of Idaho. What kind of state do you want to leave for your children and grandchildren? Will they inherit a conservative Idaho, where traditional values are honored? Or one that was lost to the left through infiltration and infighting?

Will Idaho stay Idaho, or will it become another Colorado or California?

The choice is yours.

Now, let’s get back to discussing ideas.