majority leaders

Dave Knudson is majority Leader and Tom Dempster is his Assistant.

(PP gave me his codes to post this - he'll provide more detail later after work - MRX)

Comments

Anonymous said…
Noooooo! Say it isn't so, joe
Anonymous said…
Smartest move by that caucus in a long time.
Anonymous said…
Has Apa's head exploded yet? I'm in Pierre and haven't heard it so far.
Elephant's Memory said…
Just got the news. Thanks PP. This is great!
Anonymous said…
Where is this Knudson guy on abortion and gay marriage?
Aaron Lorenzen said…
Knudson used to be a registered democrat, he is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, and pretty much as liberal as Republicans come.
Anonymous said…
We are doomed.

Who is going to save us from the gays? Who is going to save the babies?
Anonymous said…
How are he and Lintz going to get along?
Anonymous said…
"he is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage"

This is not workable.

Can we impeach him?
Anonymous said…
I think this a smart and capable leadership team and the GOP is ready to kick some Heidepreim ass.
Anonymous said…
No, but perhaps Schonebeck can stage an uprising and get him run out in the Sutton hearings. I figured after Sahr, Dan Sutton, Duane Sutton, and other's I can't think of, that Knudson was next anyways.
Anonymous said…
Does anyone have more details? Who else ran for assistant or whips? What were the vote counts on the races? How did Knudson break the stalemate with McNenny?
Anonymous said…
So Lee declined to run for Senate again because he knew he was going to lose in Watertown, just like they threw him out in Webster. Where will he move next?
Anonymous said…
He lost in Webster because of the news stories about him blowing his temper and slapping the paper boy. You might remember that. It made the Associated Press and I'm sure his opponents in the 2010 governor primary will have copies.
Anonymous said…
Okay, for all you blogger and internet experts. How can I find out which state is the most conservative, with an all-Republican or nearly conservative Republican congressional delegation, and a truly conservative state legislature? I want to move there. Or at least to a really conservative congressional district. Not on either coast, though. I moved to South Dakota from a liberal enclave on the East Coast a few years ago because I got tired of it all. Now I think it is time to move again.
Anonymous said…
hey anon 4:29,
Just curious,
How do you define "truly conservative"?
I suspect your next move will be to Wyoming or Utah.
Mark said…
To 4:29: Adios and farewell. I'm a big tent Republican. So many folks like you are all for the big tent until someone like Senator Knudson gets a leadership post. Then your narrow minds collapse the big tent. You can't have it both ways. Unless you want the Republicans to get thumped again in two years, then you better start embracing other Republicans who don't necessarily share your narrow view. Better yet, start your own little party and see how well you fare.
Elephant's Memory said…
Well said, Mark!
Anonymous said…
Yes. I think that, historically, R's have done a great job of handling their differences behind closed doors, rather than using the press. Organized and having compromised and consolidated small differences in opinion, we were then ready to battle the D's.

This is where we lost it in the last election cycle. The problem was in the abortion ban. Public bickering and no compromising weakened the party and its candidates. Had the ban included exceptions, I would bet it would be on its way up the courts (victorious or not in the end), and there would have been about half as many D candidates running and less than half of those that did would have won.

Personally, I am privy to the more conservative group that supports the full ban, but would have had no problem in compromising exceptions in order to get something going and holding the party together. Most South Dakotans have some body part in the tent. Let's keep it that way.
Anonymous said…
Anon 4:29,

If SD is too liberal for you, I'm thinking China or Pakistan would be a perfect fit. Don't forget to write!
Anonymous said…
Did PP get pulled over on his way home from work? I cannot believe there isn't a new post yet!
Anonymous said…
Republcians maybe took a good first step towards fixing their extreme Christian coaltion led effort today.

The downside is both Knudson and Dempster will be more than willing to work with Heidepriem and Scott is going to end up looking like a real dealmaker who can get something done in Pierre.

Anonymous 4:29 -- are you a real person or just a figment of my imagination... I'm with the others, I can't imagine South Dakota much more conservative than it was. I do agree with you though that it may have been a tipping point and my personal hope is South Dakota begins looking more like Minnesota than Utha.
Elephant's Memory said…
Anon 5:25 -

You're right on the money! Isn't it odd that the Democrats could handle the diversity in their own party on the abortion ban? Usually they defeat themselves with infighting. But maybe they had nothing to lose, so it didn't matter that Billion with his anti-ban ads could cooperate on the campaign trail with the Senate sponsor of HB 1215 Julie Bartling. And remember that Bartling had a hard challenge in her own primary over 1215 and lost none of her support base in old and new parts of her district.

I used to hear whining from Democrats that they wish they could work together like the Republicans. Now I wonder if Republicans can work together like South Dakota Republicans did until a few years ago.

These calls in War College for purging Ed Olson and the GOP moderates as well as seeking to impeach Knudson and Dempster seem like Repubicans out west don't care if they demolish their party because they can't work with people who differ on some issues. That's not a good sign.

How about Bill Peterson or Sue Peterson for state chairman(woman)? Let's keep the tent from further shrink-wrapping.
Aaron Lorenzen said…
I think there is a major misunderstanding on what the “big tent" entitles.

In my view the big tent is Republicans that want small government, lower taxes but differ on social issues. That is where the big tent should be, that way everyone is happy, whether they be pro-choice or not.

The problem is the republicans in the state legislature and around the state that say they fit under this big tent are republicans that want to increase government spending and government programs, a very nice example of this would be Gov Rounds and any of his ponies in the legislature.

What we need is a big tent where there might be extreme right and moderate republicans, not two separate identities, or republicans that don’t have any core republican beliefs.
Anonymous said…
I don't really agree that Rounds is for bigger government. Most of the spending increases he has done have been related either to increases in Medicaid costs and prison costs, and most of the new FTEs are attributable to growth in enrollments and research programs at the universities. The only big new program that comes immediately to mind is the State Risk Pool, and that was a fairly small, focused effort to prevent a monopoly in the individual health insurance market.
Anonymous said…
7:25 is forgetting the targeted food tax cut which is nothing more than an inefficient government buraucracy.

Instead of giving a tax cut, Rounds created a system where it takes 6 new state employees to administer the paperwork (4 separate forms at different times each year from each applicant to get and keep the rebate), and only 25% or so of eligible people participate because of the incredible red tape involved.
Anonymous said…
1:45, I haven't heard it yet either. That's ok though, I've got the over.
GOP Guy said…
0-3. Not bad!
Anonymous said…
7:30:
This did add some gov't, but it was all that stopped the SD mob from voting out the sales tax on food! I would much rather have that, a flat tax with a few FTEs, than give the dems another reason to try and start an income tax.

You know Rounds isn't a big gov't guy. The only reason he gets a rap for any of that is because of the added FTEs - and that is to try and get more of a return on our federal tax dollars through research grants and such. Rounds held the repubs together for 6 years in the state senate. He did it by cooperating and negotiating positions with other legislators in private caucuses and meetings. We need someone in the legislature to step up and do the same starting right now. I hope Knudson can do it.
Anonymous said…
10:22 - Here Here!
Anonymous said…
How many votes did Napoli get ?
Richard said…
4:29, There is no place else. Infra-liberal eco-whacko socialist extremists and big government, big spending special interest country clubers are everywhere and have infiltrated a bureaucracy and party near you...where ever you go. Their called "moderates" now. Nope, better stand and hold them back here. Because now they ARE your party and there's no room for you in their tent.
Anonymous said…
12:02, Napoli got 3,648 votes
Anonymous said…
4:53 - What is your hypothesis that keeps the GOP from getting thumped in two years because of Knudson. It seems to me that Heidepriem will have an easier time storming the governor mansion now.
Mark said…
2:31 - My hypothesis is based on the hope (and it's only a hope at this point)that the new Republican leadership will energize the party by concentrating on issues that unite us: Issues of governmental policy, such as smaller government and lower taxes and personal freedom and personal responsibility. And that they will stay away from issues that divide us, such as abortion and gay rights. Values on those issues are are deeply held and personal. We won't change any minds one way or the other, and they defy being labeled as Democrat or Republican issues. There are Democrats and Republicans on both sides of each. So instead, stick to what works and concentrate on issues of governance. We can continue to lead this state if we do that.
Anonymous said…
I think we are WAY better off being led by Knudson than someone like Napoli or Apa if you want to win elections.
Anonymous said…
I hear rumors that some new legislative leaders are thinking about changing the 150% property tax valuation rule and using productivity on farmland as a basis for taxation.

That's not what we want to hear from our newly minted fiscal conservative leaders. Such a plan may sound good to farmers and ranchers in rural areas adjoining new growth developments but will unfairly shift the burden on the middle class homeowner in urban areas.

I think that many of the so called moderates who claim that the party should rally around limited government and lower taxes are not really sold on those values themselves. Such a proposal is bad for family values and bad fiscal policy. But we will see...
Anonymous said…
repealing the 150% rule and ag-z was on the burner months ago, has nothing to do with newly minted leadership
Anonymous said…
And getting rid of it will hurt farmers, not help them. Ag land evaluations will skyrocket when you put all the sales into the equation. Liberal lawyer Turbak is supporting this change.
Anonymous said…
9:06 - Do you think fighting against abortion to save lives can unite the GOP? It unites the Dems to take innocent lives.

Do you think it is acceptable to have your children taught an homosexual agenda in public schools?

How are my tax dollars represented given I prefer not to fund abortion nor have my children subjected to material in public school I find objectionable as their parent.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th