Bob Gray to Seek GOP Leadership post in next year's Senate

Tony Mangan over at KCCR News is reporting that State Senator Bob Gray is going to be going for the top political position in the State Senate this next winter when the GOP caucus meets (usually in November/December) to pick officers:
District 24 Senator Bob Gray says he may run for a leadership position in the state Senate next year.

The Pierre Republican is unopposed this year for a second term in the Senate. And with some Senators either retiring or losing primaries last week, that means the Senate will have a different look.

Leadership positions are open and Gray says he is thinking for one of those spots. He says a lot depends on the fall elections and whether the G-O-P keeps its majority in the Senate.

Legislators will gather in party caucuses after the November election to select their leaders. Gray says he will make a decision later this summer or early fall.
I also have it on good authority that you might see one of the big winners from the June primary also considering a challenge for a leadership position. The grapevine tells me that Senator Brock Greenfield is getting encouragement from friends and colleagues to consider a run for majority leader during his final two years as a senator.

Ironically, this would be the same position held by Governor Mike Rounds while Brock served under his tutelage as intern many years back.

Depending on what the fall elections bring, conservatives in the State Senate are energized and heady from the successes of the June primary, and have every intention of using, not losing, the chance they've been given to promote an agenda of lower taxes, and less government.

And to them, it means capturing some key Senate leadership positions this fall.


Anonymous said…
Brock stands zero chance of becoming majority leader. I would bet the farm on that one right now.
Anonymous said…
PP, are you actually in a sleep deprived haze suggesting that Brock is positioning himself to be the next governor? Holy Shi*, that's about the funniest thing I've seen on this site yet. You seriously think that's possible?
Anonymous said…
That's right. Heaven forbid a person of principle ever get elected to leadership. We need a good liberal like Knudson. That would appease the lefties who are so upset over the primary election results.
Anonymous said…
It has nothing to do with principle. It has to do with the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Brock said…
I think you're forgetting that John Koskan remains the front-runner. He's involved in a tough race, but if he prevails, he'll almost assuredly be the leader. He'd have my vote.

Anon 10:09, you might wish to wipe the sleep from your eyes and revisit the post. Pat clearly didn't say anything about "Brock positioning himself to be the next governor". The voters will have several good candidates to choose from in 2010. I wish them well.

It's precisely this kind of blather that cures me of any propensity to visit the blogs. While I'm writing, though, I would point out that it was brought to my attention that "feasant" posted a very flattering and humbling comment. Thank you feasant. I appreciate the sentiments you expressed.
Anonymous said…
John Koskan is not going to make it back. The new distric gives the dems a 20 point advatage. He's toast. This is why no one is talking about him being leader.
feasant said…
I still think of person of principle will get the position. There are quite a few to pick from, if it were up to me I would select Brock Greenfield. Look at he races he has won, never ever count out a winner. We couldn't do much better. By the way 9:00am mail me the keys. Might not be 2010 but remember this Governor Greenfield, I said it first.
Anonymous said…
feasant - whatever you want to bet on that I will match. I am dead serious. Everything I own says brock is not the next governor. What say you?
Anonymous said…
PP, you doing Brock for Gov shirts and selling them on your site? Lance R. for AG in 2010? Rick S. for Congress? All your buddies.
PP said…
Actually, I did Greenfield for Senate T-shirts this year, and that's about it.
Young One said…
Greenfield might be a nice enough guy, but, his thinking is a pattern of a broader tone that concerns me.

Why does the legislature insist on legislating morality. What obligation do they have to do so? What makes them think they have a right to tell someone how to live.

If Greenfield won't answer this, maybe PP will.

If they hide beind the U.S. constitution providing for the right to life, what about liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I think what you don't even realize is that this world is changing around you. The younger generation doesn't care about restricting marriage to a man and woman. They don't care about legislating morality.

It's part of their religion, I suppose, and their blind pursuit of what they interpret to be God's word. My interpretation - do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This is crazy. Conservatives are crazy. Enjoy your victories now. You won't keep getting them on these issues in the future. We're a more enlightened younger generation. We're more tolerant.
Anonymous said…
You're more stupid!
PP said…
Young one -

Actually, I'd disagree with your assertion that the younger generation is less and less conservative. Actually, if I've seen anything, they're more.

The Greenfields and Lattrells and some of the other candidates that are running are fresh out of college (despite the best efforts of some of their college instructors)are conservative to the core.

They see how big government is, and how much it takes out of our pockets.

They don't think they had a *bad* education, so they question why people are screaming about endlessly needing to dump more money into it without accountability or direction.

They recognize the American dream - that wealth and prosperity comes from individual initiative, NOT government programs.

Sure, some views might be more varied on some aspects of social conservatism, but most are pretty consistent. And they are conservative.

Look at the other side. Stephanie Herseth might be pro-choice, but I seem to recall that she's also for marriage being between a man and a woman, somthing that got her in dutch with a few party activists. But she's no fool - she knows where she needs to stand in SD.

Is the general public out there criticizing her has an extremist? The silence is deafening.

Young generation on your side? I'm not seeing it. But at the same time, I'm smiling because I watch all these young candidates coming up through the ranks. And they're on MY side.
Anonymous said…
"The Greenfields and Lattrells"

This is enough for me to suggest again that we go to a bi-annual legislature, bring back Bill Janklow and marginalize the legislature. Anti-Democratic, yes, but soley for safety sake.

Brock can be majority leader. Lattrell has leadership written all over him and my head just exploded! Sometimes the inmates shouldn't run the place they should just do their time.
Douglas said…
Did "Bob Gray" do campaign work for Kirby or Barnett?

Anyway...I am amused PP that you say conservatives are upset about "big government", but never seem upset by big government or big government when it infringes on privacy or women's rights.

Big government and big brother government with a hand in every woman's crotch is not a problem, but government that actually tries to do something for the unrich is a real big government problem?

Republicans aren't generally opposed to big government when the inefficiencies benefit them or their corporate supporters.
young one said…
PP -

Wow! You couldn't be farther off base with your logic in this case.

I said the younger generation doesn't care as much about legislating morality as this legislature seems to.

I didn't mention education or big government.

But, while where there. Education should have accountability and direction. But, there's a two sides to accountability. How can you hold someone accountable without giving them the resources they need to do the job? If my dad told me to shovel the driveway, I would expect he give me a shovel. Seems fair.

As far as big government, I agree. I think the answer is in individual initiative and not in more government programs. I don't know if I said anything to the contrary.

What I did say, though, is that the younger generation is more tolerant. Every generation is more tolerant - its a natural progression. There were, not too long ago, a generation of older people who believed segregation was the best policy. That's not tolerated any longer.

And, one last swipe here, PP - let's see if you answer the question this time - if you are against government getting into people's lives, then why legislate abortion? Why make those decisions for people?

I said conservatives are crazy. Not Republicans. I actually think there's alog of agreement between Deomocrats and Republicans - just not between conservatives and liberals. People want to label all Democrats liberals and all Republicans conservatives, but, I think we are nation of centrists. I think there's more centrists in this state than you realize.
Anonymous said…
You're way off young one, PP is right, the younger generation of political activists is more conservative, including the abortion issue. They are wise enough to see that pro-choice is absolutely wrong, there is no comparison to slavery. Slavery is a moral wrong and so is killing children.
Youngone said…
Here's why its doomsday for the old Republican guard. More kids are going to college. Tolerance is directly proportionate to education level, in general. In general, the more educated the person is, the more likey they are to be a Democrat.

Also, a recent Pew poll asked several questions regarding the republicans' so called moral beliefs. Young people were consistently more tolerant. For instance, nearly 60% of young people believe its OK for gay couples to adopt children.
Young one said…
Oh, and I almost forgot. Research by the Kaiser group clearly states that while younger people have not given way to believing abortion is right, 70% still believe that the choice should be left up to a woman and her doctor.

See... there's a differnce. They have morals, but, don't want to force them on anyone else. Then again, they don't have to win elections.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long