ROSEVILLE, Minn. (AP) — Minnesota Senate Republicans met Tuesday to choose a new majority leader to replace Amy Koch, who resigned amid revelations she had an inappropriate relationship with a Senate staffer.

Republican senators gathered at a suburban hotel and planned told hold a news conference after the closed meeting to announce their new leader. The politicking over potential successors has taken place largely in private, and it wasn’t immediately clear which names were placed in nomination, though some senators mentioned as possible candidates took themselves out of the running last week.

Koch publicly admitted to the relationship last Wednesday. She gave up her leadership post Dec. 15, one day after she was confronted by her colleagues about the relationship. She said she will not run for re-election, but she remains a senator.

Along with the speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader is one of the most powerful posts in state government. They wield considerable authority in deciding which bills get considered and which are left to languish in committee.

Neither Koch nor other GOP senators have publicly named the Senate employee with whom she was involved. But on the day her resignation was announced, other Senate Republicans announced that caucus spokesman Michael Brodkorb, one of Koch’s chief aides, was no longer employed by the Senate. Brodkorb has not publicly commented on the reasons for his departure either, but he has hired a lawyer.

The new majority leader must try to unite a 37-member caucus that’s still reeling from the scandal, with the Jan. 24 opening of the legislative session approaching quickly. The session could be dominated by the MinnesotaVikings’ quest for partial public funding for a new stadium, an issue on which lawmakers of both parties are split.

Senate Republicans have held the majority only since last year, when the GOP took control of both chambers, and all 67 senate seats will be on the ballot in 2012, including a number held by GOP freshmen from swing districts.

Further clouding GOP prospects for 2012, the state party organization is in disarray. It’s still somewhere between $500,000 and $1.2 million in debt after the 2010 election. The party’s chairman, deputy chairman and executive director all have left in recent weeks.

Comments (26)
  1. something stinks says:

    I am so tired of getting pile driven in the backside lately, I could just…..fart!

  2. james2 says:

    So an adultress bigot will be replaced by another bigot. What’s new?

    The MN GOP may try to forget, but we on the chopping block facing constitutional disenfranchisemnet won’t.

    Amy the adultress will be the poster child of hypocrisy and lies unless she moves to recind the amendment.

    1. Balanced Beam says:

      James2 makes no sense whatsoever. If he (they) want to argue why the state has an interest in extending the definition of state-recognized “marriage” to a new group of relationships that has not previously received such recognition, then he (they) should make the argument. This effort to personalize the issue by attacking one person for making a common human error is a sad effort to perhaps mask the lack of an argument for why the state should extend the subsidy.

      If Amy married a woman, she would be a hypocrite. If Amy claimed heterosexuals never have fidelity problems, she would be a hypocrite. She did neither of those things. James2 just seems angry.

      1. james2 says:

        Thanks, it makes perfect sense. And you know it.

        Otherwise, I won’t take your bait. Everybody already knows the talking points.

        1. sarn says:

          No we don’t please inform us. What are the “talking points”, and if “Amy the adulteress” can be the poster child for lies and hypocrisy can we put Senator Wiener and Bill Clinton on that poster and give them catchy nicknames too?

        2. Balanced Beam says:

          It really doesn’t. Please explain what the state gets in return for offering tax breaks, benefits, etc., for people’s personal decisions to enter into a relationship. Certainly you don’t need the government’s stamp of approval for your relationship to be meaningful, do you? I mean, men and women get “married” all over the world, even in places where there is no financial or legal advantage to do so.

          The overwhelming basis for the government offering those benefits was because male-female marriages the chief family unit and the arrangement for the vast majority of child bearing and raising. What is the basis for extending the subsidy to same-sex couples? Why would single people need to pay for yet another group of relationships?

          1. jackactionhero says:

            “What is the basis for extending the subsidy to same-sex couples? ”

            Because they also provide a stable legal relationship status that gives them various rights.

            This is not about “single people paying” again. That is simply not the case here, and that is a diversionary tactic by ho.m.oph.obes.

            The world changes and evolves and it will acknowledge that being gay is not a crime or immoral. Once you acknowledge that, the playing field is all of a sudden obviously slanted and needs to be corrected to provide legal viability for all American citizens, not just ones some people consider “preferrable.”

            1. Balanced Beam says:

              That was a valiant attempt. The subsidy of marriages as currently recognized was based in large part on child production and raising. Simply providing “stable relationships” could be promoted among any mixture of people independent of whether there is or is not a romantic relationship.

              You seem to think that something is either subsidized by the government or it is considered a crime or immoral. Flying kites is fun. I enjoy it. Yet, the government does not subsidize my kite flying. Does that lead to the conclusion that flying kites is a crime or immoral in the state’s view? Of course not.

              If the current subsidy of hetero marriages is unfair or no longer supported by the way of the world, then that should be changed. Adding a group based on their preference (whether by nature, nurture, or both) does not follow as equitable, especially when almost half the population are not candidates for the old or the new relationship arrangement.

              1. jackactionhero says:

                “You seem to think that something is either subsidized by the government or it is considered a crime or immoral.”

                No offense, but if that’s what you think, then what we are witnessing here is your poor reading comprehension skills interfering with your understanding of my position on this issue.

                1. desert eagle .50 says:

                  What exactly is your alleged position on the issue? Please be specific.

      2. frozenrunner says:

        Not in James defense but common human error? Leadership in inappropriate relationships should not be a common error. A leader touting the sanctity of marriage should not be making what you call a common human error. The act defileing her vows that would make her evil to one who would like a chance to make such vows but cannot.
        Is the balance beam what you hit people with who are not far right?

        1. Balanced Beam says:

          What exactly in my posts would you describe as “far right”? Or is that just a label you wing out there to take the focus on the actual discussion.

          When a third of all people admit to some form of infidelity, that would make the error fairly common.

          I’ll also try to type more slowly so you will get it. ANYONE can take those vows if they want. The issue is whether the state has a reason to recognize the relationship for financial subsidy. Why would that subsidy be better than spending the money on early childhood programs?

          1. concerned voter says:

            In God’s Own Party, the GOP, adultry is breaking God’s commandment. It’s not a law, statute, or even a proclamation. It’s a commandment.

            So go ahead and be a shopping store Christian. It’s ok Amy cuz God’s Own Party can change the Bible too.

            My Mom used to say that just because everybody does it, doesn’t make it right.

            1. Balanced Beam says:

              Wow. I am sure the lefties love having “concerned voter” on their side on this one.

              1. Jim says:

                The state shouldn’t be giving tax breaks and incentives for anyone to get married. Get the government out of the marriage business.

  3. Here ya go says:

    His father is well known. At least he remains true to the GOP

    1. What Next? says:

      OK Rob/Here ya go…your point is what???? Perhaps a little less free time would help you.

  4. Kevin says:

    They should do it like they do when they elect a new Pope…They could light a fire at Daytons house…..and when they have elected the next GOP POS they could change the color of smoke…….Gosh cant wait……I bet its a guy this time…..

    1. What Next? says:

      Funny, and I have been led to believe that it is always a Dem POS…in my lifetime, I think I am right!

      1. Ima POS says:

        @ Kevin and what next. POS? who are you to determine that is all a person is? What makes you so great that you can make that determination?

        1. Kevin says:

          They are all POS! And someday when you grow a sack and use a real name….and comment your own views…you wll understand that…..until then go tell your mommy you made poo poo and she will pat you down in that “special” way….

  5. worryfree says:

    A person who violates the sanctity of marriage while telling others how to live their lives is a hypocrite.

    1. Balanced Beam says:

      Again, nobody is telling people how to live their lives. It whether the state must recognize same-sex relationships as marriages for subsidy.

      1. Jim says:

        If Republicans are not telling people how to live their lives, then why provide incentives for a straight couple to get married and not a gay one? Why the distinction based on sexuality if it’s not an attempt to impose one’s morality via the legal system? (This is an honest question, not an attempt to make a point.)

  6. Julie says:

    Women in power mess up to. When will politicians and other power hungry people learn that their actions speak louder than their words. Are there any honest politicians out there?

    1. Kevin says:

      @Julie….an honest politician is an oxymoron…..the money, power and egos take over. the average worth of a congressman is now $800,000. Many have spent their own millions to be elected including Dayton. You and I have no money, hence we could never be a politician….they are all POS who deem to make their choices for us…regardless of our views….beecause they know best…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Watch & Listen LIVE