In Big Win For Liberals, Waxman Ousts Dingell As Energy And Commerce Chair
This is big, big, big. In a victory for the Democratic left, Rep. Henry Waxman has just successfully ousted Rep. John Dingell from his longtime perch as head of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office confirms to us the vote count in the Democratic Caucus moments ago: Waxman 137 votes, Dingell 122 votes.
The defeat of Dingell is a major victory for environmentalists, removing a key obstacle to real energy reform just as a Democrat with climate change high on his agenda takes the Presidency.
Dingell, who first entered the House way back when Eisenhower was president, had been the head Democrat on this committee ever since 1981. But many of the more liberal members over the years came to view him as too friendly to Michigan's auto industry and hostile to environmentalists -- especially on issues like climate change and carbon limits.
It also shakes up Congress' seniority system and is yet another sign that the political momentum is squarely in the camp of aggressive Dems. Waxman played a lead role in staking out a far more aggressive stance towards the Bush administration than many other more cautious Dems would take.
Waxman used his House Oversight chairmanship to grill the administration over its scandals and incompetence, making him a hero to many Democrats and a viable candidate for change over Dingell.
Now his victory stands as a harbinger of just how much change is coming.
Late Update: More on what Waxman's ascent means here.
OK. Maybe, just maybe, change is actually coming, if that old fossil lost his chairmanship.
November 20, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny, isn't it. After FISA, I was fully prepared for Obama to disappoint me. I said to myself "remember, the important thing is not that he is perfect; it is that he is better than the alternative." When Lieberman kept his gavel, I looked at that and said "well, my expectations were properly low." But now I am finding myself being pleasantly surprised. Perhaps my expectations were too low. First health care and now global warming - two issues that I would not have been surprised at all to see dropped like hot rocks in light of recent economic events - are being treated with the sort of seriousness that they really deserve. I could easily grow accustomed to this sort of thing.
November 20, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign. With the news about Daschle, Napolitano, and now Waxman, I'm feeling encouraged.
November 20, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Waxman's victory probably has much more to do with Nancy Pelosi than Obama, so while I'm very pleased about this, it's separate from the steps Obama has taken.
I think Daschle is a great choice. Napolitano? I don't have an opinion at this point, except I admit that I'm quite pleased that a woman has been named to a position involving national security.
I'm hoping that Lieberman just eventually disappears from the conversation altogether. It won't be happening this week, however. He's on MTP this weekend. Fabulous. If I need to get fired up to finish raking up the 4 tons of leaves cluttering my yard, I'll watch it.
November 20, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point is well taken. I guess that, given that he is de facto leader of the party, I am giving Obama credit for all party successes (just as I am assigning him blame for all failures). Still and all, this is probably more Pelosi's doing than Obama's, so she should get the credit here.
November 20, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
They all deserve credit. They're all (Obama, Pelosi, Waxman) on the same page regarding energy independence, the environment, and the need for more public oversight of utilities.
Enron's manipulation of our current energy infrastructure causing rolling blackouts, and the inevitability of such a company arising given our present energy infrastructure, is the prime example of what they're all determined to fix.
It was inevitable that energy policies which are inherently exploitative and corrupt would create an Enron, a domestic version of what we've been doing abroad for a century. If the executives of Enron were literally part of a cabal formed in Venezuela, Indonesia, Kenya, or any number of ME nations, to extract revenge for US foreign policy, they could hardly have done worse.
***
Anyways, yes, Waxman is perfect for this. We need major reforms in energy policy that are both practical and ethically informed for our long term interest and that of the world.
November 20, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting too, that Robert Byrd was finally talked into relingquishing his role as Appropriations Chair in the Senate.
Seems Byrd was a key hold out when it came to using the budget as the route for passage of Universal Health Care. Byrd would not budge on his beloved Senate rules.
So, the pins are falling. The main players are being put into position that know how to oil the wheels and the Lions and Cats are ready in the Senate and House...to bring home the policies they have wanted to for years with all the expertise and procedural skills they know.
Obama is working his plan.
November 20, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give Em Hell Harry!
Oh wait a minute...Nancy You GO GIRL!
Well old Harry couldn't bailout GM but at least he saved the Mentum Industry
SO Harry you go too
November 20, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where else is the Left looking to push? The Speakership can't move much further left; Kerry replacing Biden's a push; I guess Bernie Sanders could take over as majority leader...just not sure what room's left for "Change."
November 20, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You liberals, you're just so, well, liberal!"
Ahh, the sounds of a dead Republican party and a dying Conservative Movement!
November 20, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me for asking a simple question, or what I thought was one. I take it from your response (or lack of one) that you can't think of any other moves either.
November 20, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign, Dorn. Those sounds of sore losers are music to my ears.
November 20, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta say the Wax Man is some good lookin' hunk of wax..er...man. I mean what a stud!!!
November 20, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slow day at your Payday Loans shop Wallace?
November 20, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah...ever since the credit crunch it's been hard for me to sell off these cars I've been swindling from old ladies & "low information voters."
November 20, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
All those red states are still left to turn left, sfc.
November 20, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Speakership can't move much further left"?!? Seriously, do you really mean us to understand this in the plain sense of the words? It is nonsense. The Speakership could stop mouthing pleasant platitudes of the left ("we want to end the war now," "we are opposed to FISA's threats to constitutional rights," "Congress has an oversight duty to serve as a check on the power of the executive branch," etc) and actually do something to advance the progressive agenda. The fact that Speaker Pelosi says the right things means rather little to us on the left when she nonetheless runs the chamber in a fashion far more commodious to your side of the debate than to ours.
November 20, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
She could certainly "do" more...I was speaking to the fact that if you lined them all up side by side, there's not much room between her left arm and the wall.
November 20, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
From where you are, that probably seems true. Where you stand depends on where you sit.
November 20, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it looks like Democratic leadership and what they're doing is the very definition of "moderate" in accordance with an overwhelming mandate from the American public.
Did you notice we had elections in 2006 and 2008?
Sorry to inform you of reality, but you're just way behind the curve. The country has moved forward and left you behind. You're now about as much a centrist a segregationists were in the 70s, or laissez faire advocates were in the 30s.
November 20, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, I'm happy to talk merits of policies without ad homs.
But since you're fond of throwing around terms like "liberal/conservative" or "left/right" and seem to place a lot of stock in them, you should be aware that in fact you're in the fringe and people like me are in the majority and political center.
You stayed in the same place while the world turned.
November 20, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be AWESOME!!!!!!
November 20, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well they still rewarded Lieberman with his committee chairmanship...so I'd say the message is definitely mixed.
November 20, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The message is Pelosi for Senate Majority Leader
November 20, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha, definitely. Apparently the House knows how to get it done. My favorite comment about this:
"Dingell should have just endorsed McCain if he wanted to keep his gavel."
November 20, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the front page of TPM:
Pelosi is turning out to be an adept Speaker. Competence. Backbone. Wow.
November 20, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, how about some competance, some backbone. I like her, don't get me wrong, and I think that she deserves much credit on this score. On the other hand, she had it easily in her power to file the FISA renewal vote in the "wait until 2009" drawer, and instead she capitulated to Bush's insistence that the vote go through immediately. In other words, her backbone is an on-again-off-again sort of thing.
November 20, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely right about the backbone issue. And I feel so positively about Pelosi right now because of the contrast with Harry Reid. Who I do not think particularly highly of right now.
November 20, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not "backbone" it's leverage. Even the term "backbone" is incredibly naive.
You may have noticed we just has an election which was a major sea change whereby the political center endorsed a clear mandate for the Democratic Congress and Obama. That gave Pelosi leverage to do things she would have liked to do in 2006 but couldn't.
Voters and democracy actually matters. Leaders don't have magical powers, they rely on political support.
Pelosi always had spine, it's the American public who finally got one.
November 20, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn.
November 20, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you best understand bodily functions like yawns, backbone, posture, etc.
You should try discussing politics sometime.
November 20, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, you're easy.
You've made it glaringly obvious that you consider me naive, uninformed, and incapable of your supposedly superior level of analysis.
So why are you lowering yourself so much, by responding to my comments?
November 20, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're useful. Obviously.
November 20, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever floats your boat.
November 20, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, who do you think has more "backbone" in particular?
Where is this person who manages to consistently stand up with "backbone" in defiance of their own constituents or political realities?
Feingold? Kucinich? Lee?
Nope, they all do as their constituents would have them do and what political calculations will allow.
Backbone is a childishly simple analogy of physical strength used to describe a failure of political leverage whenever political naifs don't get what they want and can't understand why.
That's what "be the change you want" means. Stop whining or blaming leadership. Create the political mandate and they'll follow.
November 20, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, it's also true that as soon as the public goes into complacency again, then Pelosi will have no power for reforms.
In a decade or so, after a period of prosperity, it's likely the public gets intellectually lazy again and goes back to mindless consumption, and repeat the boom bust cycle. That's why it's so important to make lasting reform now.
That will almost certainly happen again, barring a profound enlightenment occurring over the next several years, which I'm skeptical of. Though it's possible if we can raise education and public participation for that to be a lasting outcome, and build lasting infrastructure which is inherently more enlightened, like getting off oil.
November 20, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dingell was done in by the auto industry failing. Everybody is wondering why the Big 3 didn;t build more fuel efficient cars and that falls back on Dingell.
November 20, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Everybody is wondering why the Big 3 didn;t build more fuel efficient cars..."
Because they weren't selling, everyone wanted SUV's. Now that demand has changed, so will the output of the industy.
November 20, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
yes, it's called being behind the curve.
November 20, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
People bought plenty of fuel effient cars over the past 30 years. They just all came from Japanese, Korean, or European automakers because they build a better, cheaper, more stylish small vehicle. Detroit has missed the boat.
November 20, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
From what I heard, a large part of it was that the profit margin was to low or non-existent on the small cars. Some put the blame for this on the high cost of wages for workers (pay and benefits). I guess in the next year and half or so, the wages/benefits will drop down to be equal with the wages/benefits of the foreign owned automakers.
November 20, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
From what I've heard, the wage difference is overstated. A typical US auto worker gets a wage and benefit package equal to $53/hour while a Toyota worker gets $47.
BTW, Charlie Rose did an excellent program on the auto industry crisis last night. The video should be up on his web site soon.
November 20, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS. While there was a big gap a while ago it's been narrowed. I think GM's biggest problem right now is the retiree package.
November 20, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. And it's not even that their retirement packages are so much more generous. The Big 3 have been operating in the US a lot longer than Toyota, Honda, et al., so they have a lot more retirees, and those legacy costs are killing them. One more reason to move away from employer-provided health care.
November 20, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. That's critical. Also, for employers to have efficient HCI options available to them.
November 20, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, a mere market correction, that's got everyone in my state of Mich. terrified.
November 20, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lobbyist-pushed truck tax breaks extended to SUVs gave these vehicles a significant artificial market advantage.
November 20, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
November 20, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know tons of people who bought pick-ups and SUV simply because the easy to non-existent pollution testing standards for yearly registration.
November 20, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a half-truth. It has been policy to encourage demand for these vehicles in order to support the domestic industry. For example, failure to raise CAFE standards which would have made fuel efficiency R&D more competitive. Large tax breaks for businesses to buy SUVs, but not automobiles, encouraged consumption.
November 20, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which brings us neatly back to Dingell.
November 20, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
Part of me would like the free market to 'heal' this problem via failure of 'bad' companies. Yet, I don't think we can afford such tragic job losses at this time. And I must acknowledge that the market has been rigged for years.
The intractable problem seems to be how to support all these jobs without rewarding the folks at the top!
November 20, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What complete and utter bullshit. Put out an affordable version of the Prius, Detroit, and I and millions of other Americans will buy it. You praise the free market to the skies but lament when it works against you.
November 20, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure how an affordable Prius makes my comment B.S. I'm also pretty sure a Prius is less expensive than a HUMMER but for some reason they were buying the HUMMERS...
November 20, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Big cars are more profitable than small cars. That's undeniable. When gas was cheap, people wanted big cars. And Toyota, Honda, etc. have been selling SUV's, too. But the difference is that the Big 3 structured their business in such a way that they were dependent on selling big cars to remain profitable. Foreign carmakers didn't. For sure Toyota and Honda are making a lot less than when they were selling SUV's, but they can survive without them. GM can't.
November 20, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Detroit could have built more fuel efficient SUVs which Detroit is currently trying to do.
Ironically both Dingell and his counterpart in the Senate, Carl Levin ended up by hurting the auto industry they were trying to protect. By caving to their demands to keep SUV's classified as trucks and to keep cafe standards as low as possible, Detroit was able to keep their blinders on.
To be fair, no one who goes against the auto industry can be expected to survive politically in Michigan. That's why no progress on the energy front could be made until Dingell lost his chairmanship.
November 20, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It didn't just "happen" that everybody bought SUV.
The "light truck" market was very deliberately created to produce highly profitable vehicles based on cheap pickup truck chassis and engines, while externalizing their real cost onto society. The SUV price didn't include the environmental damage, the cost of FP to secure ever expanding consumption, or the medical costs of simply rolling one over and breaking one's neck or someone elses.
SUV were always marketed on a moronic fantasy of "offroad freedom" in the comfort of driving one's sofa or entire living room. It was dependent on a moronic fantasy of gas prices forever under $2, perpetual growth, and no environmental concerns.
From the vary beginning the creation of the SUV market has been irrational and ultimately doomed to implode once reality sets in. Fuel was being subsidized by our enormous FP expenditures to secure oil. CAFE standards didn't reflect the real cost of oil, both in regards to FP and environmental damage.
Knowing that, and being too greedy and myopic, Detroit lobbied for loopholes for "light trucks" deliberately to escape regulatory oversight.
Dingell was a part of all that, always behind the curve.
November 20, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. I wonder how many times Dingell has been on the corporate jets that were made famous yesterday?
November 20, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Jonze nailed it.
November 20, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this will settle some nerves, and reassure some folks that yes, change is still on the agenda.
November 20, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can see change in the air.
November 20, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's smog. Part of the reason we needed Dingell outta there!
November 20, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
November 20, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nailed it!
November 20, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well played. :-)
November 20, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seeing a break in the smog cover?
November 20, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I looked forward to many Sternly Worded Letters demanding Mother Nature present herself to the committee.
November 20, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This balances out the Lieberman lovefest a bit. Looks like the political action will be in the House, not with the Senate trogs.
November 20, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right or left, the House is always more volatile than the Senate. That's a feature, not a bug.
November 20, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can see Waxman lining up the Oil execs week after week on the Hill. This man likes some serious oversight.
November 20, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
November 20, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
What good is Dingel when he can do the job he was elected to do? The automakers and energy industry have been running the show for the past 40 years, yet there is no meaningful change.
I am glad they got rid of that old fool that is behoden to special interest.
November 20, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's what I said- in a sentence.
November 20, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a major switch. I'm for the bailout for purely political reasons, but I've been fed up with Detroit for 20 years at this point.
The myopic and shortsighted policies adopted by the automakers were breathtakingly bad, and Dingell and the congressional delegation from Michigan just kept ennabling them. I look forward to a change.
November 20, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel your pain. Still, bailing out the auto makers would save hundreds of thousands of blue collar jobs at a time when their loss would be devastating, especially to the region.
No matter how much the big three messed up in the past, we have to step up.
November 20, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have to, for the sake of workers who had little to do with this situation, certainly. But we're also going to have to have a serious discussion about the direction Detroit's heading in, and a discussion about unions, as well. I'm a union member myself, and probably owe my job to this particular union, but we're anticipating a very ugly collective bargaining session next time around, because we're pretty sure we're going to be asked to take some hits on pay levels and/or health care.
No one is going to be in favor of any of this, but at the same time, the economy is going to demand it. We're going to have to sacrifice something. But no one in the union really wants to hear that. It makes me nutty at times.
The reason I'm in favor of the bailout is that I don't want to hand Republicans an opportunity to crow in 2010 that the Democrats ruined Detroit, or some such nonsense.
November 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must add this is good news for the latenight comics as well.
November 20, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
you talking about the bald head, big ears, glasses and mustache? looks like a superhero to me.
November 20, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to mention those cute little "piggy" nostrils.
November 20, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it's also good news for the comics in the tubes. LOL
November 20, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Argh, you beat me to it. Yes! A blessing on those nostrils!
There's a new sherrif in town... Waxman is one tough MF.
November 20, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dingell voted against the war, Waxman voted for it.
November 20, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your point?
November 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just pointing out that Dingell isn't some great villain to the party or the country. Waxman is some great progressive warrior and Dingell is the spawn of Satan.
November 20, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dingell isn't some great villain, Jonze. He has been a major obstacle to the U.S.'s environmental policies entering the 21st century. Not because it was good for the country, but because it was good for his voters in Michigan and his backers in Detroit.
It's good that he's gone, and it's great that Waxman is replacing him. Just as it's good that Byrd won't be able to throw a monkeywrench into health care reform the way he did with Hillary Clinton's plans.
(And yes, I know, Clinton did many things wrong, probably, but Robert Byrd played a pretty big role, too).
November 20, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. But this is about Energy Policy, first and foremost. Dingell has been an obstacle to progress for a long time.
November 20, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Dingell is a bad guy at all. But he's from Michigan. Asking him to push iniatives/policies/legislation that were/are perceived to be bad for Big Auto is like asking the Senator version of Joe Biden to vote against legislation that favors the credit card industry. We forgave Joe and we don't have to demonize Dingell for acting similiarly, albeit with a different industry. But in terms of moving forward on energy policy and environtmental issues, Waxman taking over the chair is definitely progress and good news.
November 20, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
His inability to do anything that would be perceived as going against the auto industry, is why the House voted to boot him.
He may have felt differently about these issues personally, but he was unable to either convince the big three that they needed to change or take a much needed stand against them, so he had to go.
All my grousing about Obama appointing Clinton leftovers and what was looking like less of a change than I hoped for, seems to have been premature. Mea culpa, mea culpa.
November 20, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not about the war...it is about the future of this country. We all know why the liberals voted for the war, AIPAC.
This fight is about energy independent, health care for all e.t.c
November 20, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon. Seriously I think after the electorate judgement in 2006 and 2008 it's time not to use War vote as a disqualifier unless you still think it was a good idea to invade Iraq.
Many democrats are disqualified on those terms starting with Biden. Waxman is a man of ethics and intent.
November 20, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mean if any of these Senators believe Iraq war was a good idea it's an issue. Otherwise it's time to move on. Obama victory is the biggest referrendum against the war.
November 20, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, WOW. Didn't expect it at all!
November 20, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone heard how involved Obama's people are in these choices? It was clear he was behind the Lieberman choice, but is this involvement more widespread than that?
November 20, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
See my post below, Obama had already chosen a former Waxman staffer as congressional liaison.
November 20, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If, as Josh's Republican staffer says, this is really a story about Nancy Pelosi asserting her progressive muscle, then it is a double win.
I've been waiting and hoping for Pelosi to run true to her progressive roots since she became Speaker. She was a member of the Progressive Caucus, for cryin' out loud! But for most of the past two years, her politics have been indistinquishable from those of, say, Harry Reid, who has never been mistaken for a progressive.
Yay! Let Nancy be Nancy!
November 20, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holy Crap what a headline.
November 20, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Out. Fucking. Standing. O happy day!
The change train is a-comin' down the track. DO NOT stand in its way!
November 20, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't life lovely these days, if you're a Democrat?
November 20, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dare we say, we actually feel...hope.
November 20, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's still pretty stunning, given how it's a total reversal.
And it just keeps growing and I think it will continue. I'm extremely hopeful.
November 20, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been lurking for several years. Decided it's time to sign in.
If this is just a beautiful dream, I don't ever want to wake up! After the last 8 years, I can't really believe this is happening.
Especially the building momentum! This is going to be fun: the Republicans in House and Senate are more firmly controlled by the hard right wing while the general public (and political) sentiment is swinging quickly in favor of Obama's progressive values.
If the GOP tries to obstruct Obama's initiative, they will be ridden into the ground, they will turn themselves into a permanent (and small) minority party! O God! Can this be real???
November 20, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, but, Jon Mecham tells me it's a center right country!!!
/snark
November 20, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena:
Haven't been this happy since I met Ann Richards when she was Governor. Right before her death I met her at a big event and said, "You are still my Governor." She said "Honey, you made my night."
November 20, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
O I didn't see this earlier, dammit.
What an awesome comment - brought tears to my eyes.
November 20, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You bet it is. In fact, it's a great time to be an American. Many of us just don't realize it yet.
I hope Bush pardons all of the criminal fucks who trampled the constitution these past 8 years, including himself. That admission of guilt would give us license to ship them all off to the Hague for a long overdue war crimes tribunal. (Turns out Bush's pardon's only good on US soil. Don't anybody tell him!)
My hope grows stronger every day. Change is coming by leaps and bounds. This is fabulous!
November 20, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This makes all the work of the past two years worth it.
November 20, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dayumn!!!
And that is all.
November 20, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although this is a very good switch in the chair, in some cases I think the chairs don't need to be changed, just that they feel embolden to actually push the liberal-progressive policies and bills forward. If we start making serious progress on the health and climate fronts, and the infamous center-right populace doesn't riot in the street, but rather applauds real work and solutions being done, then we can expect the other committees etc to improve, even with the same Dems chairing them.
November 20, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Michigander, I'd say Dingell and Detroit just didn't get the message: In the future, we will need to burn less oil and pollute less. And I think that message started becoming apparent in the 1970s.
Right now, we're in that future.
November 20, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's strange how an industry that was founded by innovators became so resistant to change. Instead of taking 20th and 21st century challenges head on, the Big Three dragged their feet at every opportunity. From seat belts to higher milage standards they've done their utmost to block progress.
The biggest problem the automakers face is getting rid of the dead wood and bringing in new people who will shake things up in a big way. People who aren't afraid of change, but embrace it.
November 20, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama did sort of indirectly signal his preference here--from the NYT story--
The incoming Obama administration had also signaled its direction when it named Philip Schiliro, a longtime and loyal aide to Mr. Waxman, as the new White House director of Congressional relations.
As with Daschle at HHS, this signals that Obama is very serious about a new and comprehensive energy policy, along with environmental protection. They aren't fooling around, and I couldn't be happier.
November 20, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Health care reform, here we come!
Waxman is the single best legislator in Congress.
November 20, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somewhat related....I knew Dingell has been in Congress for a long time but I didn't know he dates back to the first Ike administration. And he succeeded his father in the seat. A John Dingell has held that seat for 75 years!
November 20, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
O Happy Day! Waxman was my congressman for 15 years. Now it's Jane Harman. Ugh. But I'm still a Waxman supporter. PRIDE. Ah, now we can love our government again.
November 20, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question: Will Waxman still retain his House Oversight Chairmanship or will he have to give it up? And if he has to give it up, who would be the most likely to take his place?
Thank you.
November 20, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you can be chairman of two committees.
November 20, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you examine the overall regulatory climate there are peripheral reasons, some having to do with the influence of oil companies, that have a lot to do with the vehicles coming out of Detroit.
Doesn't anyone find it peculiar that Detroit actually does make very fuel efficient vehilcles which are available in other countries but not here? This is a puzzle with lots of pieces, some of which we aren't noticing or which aren't being reported.
For instance, a lot of the pressure against Detroit is coming from southern right-to-work states where we happen to find the automotive factories of foreign owned companies. It should not have escaped our attention that the cable networks had elected representatives of certain southern states commenting and beating the drum against Detroit. A bit of a conflict there.
There is also the fact that the Big 3 doesn't manufacture anything anymore. They're assemblers. Thus, well over half of the labor pool actually work for suppliers that are mostly non-union and who have wage rates common with or less than the wages of foreign producers. And where unions exist in the shops of these suppliers they are running out the last union contract they'll ever have.
I'm not defending Dingell but a lot of what is being fed to the public in all of this isn't being factually portrayed. There is far more going on here than meets the eye. Just saying.
November 20, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. There are far more pieces to this puzzle, especially given that most auto inducstry profits are in China vs. the USA.
I do think this is a regional conflict as well. The South called folks who fled to the industrialized North 'wage slaves' as they were lossing their 'free labor' for agriculture in the South.
I beleive we have this conflict playing out again with the auto industry only this time folks are fleeing the North for lower standard of living costs and auto plants.
November 20, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
To some extent Detroit is a pawn in the bigger game being played out on Wall Street and in Washington. In spite of the size and importance of the auto industry you can see the relative economic contribution by looking at the Wall Street bailout numbers vs the proposed Big 3 bailout. Given that this is being run by political apointees with ties to Wall Street I think Detroit is at a decided disadvantage.
One other thing in play here is there may be a hidden agenda to further chip away at organized labor. I'm sure few people have missed the continuous wage comparisons being thrown about. Taking money out of the pockets of working people has become a national pastime.
November 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I vote for Waxman (which isn't hard because he ran uncontested this year) -- but still I get a great satisfaction because I like the guy. I think this is a really good development, and Dingell -- who's been good on everything but the environement -- is finally getting his comeuppance.
One of the problems the formerly Big 3 are facing is that they made big, low mileage crappy SUVs for far too long without focusing on cars that people want in a time of economic crises. Dingell shares some of that blame with his wife who's an exec at one of those companies now looking for a bailout because of their lack of foresight.
November 20, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Sad to see all the Michigan-hate around here. I agree Dingell has been an impediment to the environmental policies I'd like to see, and do hope that better policies will come out of the committee now, but... as a Michigander, I am cognizant of the fact that it will come at a real and painful cost to Michigan, at least the southern third of the state. We're already suffering here, and to see people practically dancing on Michigan's grave is... well, sad.
November 20, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think anyone is jumping on Michigan or the people in Michigan here. I think most people would agree that no one wants to see more people lose their employment during this economic turmoil but unfortunately i think it's unavoidable. Most of what I read has to do with the leaders (or lack thereof) of the Big 3 auto makers and their inability to foresee how bad their decisions have been. I disagree with the premise that the market conditions dictated that everyone wanted gas-guzzling SUV's, what other alternative did they provide? If they had spent nearly as much time and money promoting the smaller, fuel efficient cars (either new ones or the ones they already had in their portfolio) could they have affected people's buying choices? Maybe. Let's not even get into providing fuel efficient cars because it is obvious that they weren't interested in that.
November 20, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, this is straight-up awesome news.
November 20, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not a Michigander so I can not truly empathize with any seriousness the issues facing the communities in your state. What I can add to the conversation is I recently met a couple who are fellow "michaganders" from the detroit area down here in Texas. This was about a year ago. After getting to know the both of them during a couple of conversations I asked the husband what Detroit was like. He talked about the changing seasons, the cold-rainy whether and the old blue collar communities of his childhood. He said there were araeasof the city where he would ride his bike for block after block of old empty factories. I asked if detroit as an image could simply be substituted as a symbol of the big three, his reply was simply "yes!"
I think many of us commentators on here have been dedicated to economic policies which support efficiency, limited pollution and equatable workers rights. Of course I can not speak for everyone but personally I have felt for a long time that it was obvious that many of the decisions of the Big Three were impractical. They fought Nader back in the day for asking for seatbelts. Many of the safety features required on Auto's would never have made it to the marketplace with out the advocacy of non-profits, activist and dedicated civil servants within our own government. It would not be a stretch to conclude that CAFE standards would not even be a thought nor increased MPG without the aid o government and NGO's. And instead of owning up to their failures, the big three seem to cry that the government is always picking on them and that Gov't regulations keep them from being competative. Let's get this straight the Big Three have made billions in profits over the last couple of decades. Are they simply saying that the regulations on their business causes them to come up with short-term strategies (Truck and SUV marketing) because a long-term approach is infeasable? I simply think that they have been asking for cake and eating it too. If they can not as a company come up with an approach that fulfills the long-term goal alongside some short-term success then maybe they have the wrong guys running the company.
November 20, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the demise of the American auto industry is going to seriously hurt America nationally when it comes to foreign trade. It just seems like an omen of bad things when all auto manufacturing is owned by foreign countries.
I do not think this will bode well for us as a capitalist society nor will it help us maintain our soveriengty.
We may find ourselves looking back at this time when America was sold off to the foreign bankers and governments.
We will produce nothing and be very dependent on foreign governments.
November 20, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
While everything you say is true, if we don't rescue them, the effect on the region and the nation as a whole would be catastrophic.
Charlie Rose had a good discussion on it last night.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/clip/9628
November 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign but, like Pelosi said.."show us the plan and we'll show you the money" No more blank checks. The big 3 are still going to have massive lay-offs even if they get the bailout so, its imperative we see a working plan for the future, not just a temporary bandaid.
November 20, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sure seems to contrast with what has occurred in the banking system and on Wall Street. No plan at all. Paulson has been winging it. Just gimme the money. Citibank laid off how many the other day?
November 20, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I'm in favor of bailing out Detroit, these executives, especially Wagoner, did a lousy job of making their case. Wagoner didn't come across as cooperative or believable and sadly none of them stood out as especially talented, bright or up to the task.
November 20, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I drive a Prius and doubt US car makers can produce a car 100% of that quality and technical polish in the next few years. Having said that, I'd love to buy a US car of that quality, or close, if I could.
Where US makers can succeed immediately is with less expensive cars for the domestic market, such as the Form Focus, which will be very competitive in that segment. Expect to see a large number of fuel efficient hatchbacks and more hybrids from Detroit very soon.
A lot of consumers will reflexively buy any reasonable American car offering. Many others, like myself, would certainly like purchasing an American car if they can produce something even close to a Prius in regards to technology, reliability, polish, and looks. Which US makers are actually close to accomplishing.
To be fair, American auto makers have been improving and moving towards smaller more
Asian and European style cars for several years. They already produce a number of small fuel efficient cars for foreign markets, so they can pivot to producing them in and for the US market pretty quick. Cars like the Ford Focus for or Chevy Malibu example can be a platform for a number of small to medium sedans competitive with many foreign brands. (even if a lot of the parts are foreign made.)
A very important symbolic change is the body design, which you may notice is all noticeably more European and Japanese looking in recent US models. They have new products ready for roll out.
Labor costs are down and HCI reform would really help Detroit.
So I actually think a turnaround for some or all of the big 3 is very possible if they make it through this crisis. Detroit has all the advantages over the long term, if they can just stop screwing it up and take a lesson from Japan.
November 20, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Giving money to the automakers is like giving money to your deadbeat brother-in-law. You just know he's going to piss it away and in no time he'll be back for more. On the other hand, you can't very well let him starve to death, either. It's a classic damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't quandary. Anyone who says they have the right answer doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no right answer. All the options are bad.
November 20, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's totally simplistic. The auto industry is not your "brother in law" and you should actually learn something about it.
In general, if you need to rely on such vague and simplistic analogies, and can't discuss the specific facts of the subject, you should have the intellectual honesty to admit you don't actually know what you're talking about.
The problem of course is that intellectually lazy people are seldom intellectually honest.
November 20, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whiterosebuddy, I am not in any way advocating the government should sit idly by while watching the Big three go up in smoke. I am merely acknowledging the simple fact that Detroit's big three have been covering up their failures with short-term solutions, such as SUV's and big trucks. Look some people need trucks to move supplies around, and some people need big vehicles because they are often with friends in family. But everyday over the last decade we have seen more and more big cars and trucks on the road with one occupant. I hear friends tell me that they do not feel comfortable in a small car, I hear parents tell me that they will not put their 16 yr old child in a small car because they are afraid. This is ridiculous; most of the large cars on the road are infinitely more dangerous simply because of their weight. I understand parents wanting to protect their kids, but 16-25 year olds are some of the most dangerous drivers out there on the road. Not to add the fact that oil is a finite resource and the fact that the US has not built a new refinery in the US for over a decade or so. Why is this relevant you ask? The American public that used to drive a sedan and now drives a SUV is most likely consuming more fuel. Therefore we are eating up more gas as a nation, and the US auto companies sold us this path. Is it any wonder that oil prices rose, especially when you factor in the emergence of China and India? I am not the CEO of an American car company but it doesn't take a genius to have seen that eventually as fuel prices rose (which essentially means the price of almost all commodities rises as well) would force American consumers to make tough choices about how they would spend their money. So when I go out and shop for a new vehicle that is fuel efficient, the two that really stand out are the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid. Where is the American version of these cars? It's not there!
That is not to say that the big three have not made inroads, surely the Escape Hybrid, Ford Focus, Chevy Colbalt and other small vehicles meet the basic threshold but they seem to have come after the Japanese manufacturers had already established their small car brands. I believe that we are going to have to bail these guys out, and any sort of bankruptcy needs to not be totally gutting to the workers associated with the big three. In order to take care of our economic future I believe that all parties in the auto industry are going to have to make steep concessions going forward and have to accept a long-term recovery approach. Look I think we can do it, but I have very little faith in many of the people who have been "dealing" with these issues over the last two decades or so.
So I will have to swallow this recovery plan just like I swallowed the last, but my hope is that the next admin will be much more sensitive to long-term strategies concerning consumer protections, environmental concerns, and economic policies.
November 20, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, Japan always knew it had scarce resources, so it acted accordingly. And in much of Japan and Europe the roads are centuries old and too narrow for a SUV. So they're physically impossible in many places. Japanese work trucks for example are much narrower to fit.
So it's not as though they were necessarily inherently smarter. They just ironically had an advantage through adversity, while we're the victim of our prosperity.
November 20, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
A critical thing here for people to keep an eye out for, and probably for Josh/Greg to chase down:
Who takes over Waxie's Oversight committee.
The reason this is critical is that an Obama admin will likely let the Whistle Blowers talk to congressional oversight committees than the Bush Admin. Career Officials who have been gagged by the Bush Admin will suddenly be available.
All committees have oversight functions.
But Waxie's committee is *the* oversight one.
Why is it important to see who takes Waxie's spot?
Only the House version of this committee was chasing the Bush Admin over the last two years.
It's might be coming to you by this point...
Who chaired and continues to chair the Senate committee with this function? And how much oversight was he up to in the past two years?
*light bulb*
Got it?
So as much as Progressives want Waxie in Energy (which I very much do as well), we need to badly get a watchdog like Waxie *and* his flat out terrific staff to succeed Waxie. We can not count on the Senate committee to do the job given You Know Who still sitting his rump in the chairman's seat.
So Josh and Greg might want to follow this one up, and Progressives might want to make sure we get a Good One in that House chair. We need a true successor in that role who carries on in the spirit of Waxie.
John
November 20, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm very glad to see Waxman in a position to create more ethical infrastructure which will reduce future corruption and change the overall zeitgeist, rather than perpetually playing whack-a-mole against a system that is inherently greedy and corrupt. He'll make a much larger difference going forward.
Also, going forward we'll have a lot more sunlight/reform in Government under Obama. While I'm concerned about the past as prologue and punitive measures, I'm more concerned about building infrastructure which is inherently more ethical and less prone to corruption going forward.
Remember that Enron was the logical conclusion of an energy policy, FP, and market all based on predatory practices. You can draw a straight line from colonialism and empire to domestic greed and corruption like Enron represents.
That needs to change from the ground up, to reform an environment which tends to produce criminality.
November 20, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am "somewhat optomistic" about the intial hires for President Elect Obama's cabinet.
He recognizes that he is inexperienced, and is attempting to put experienced people around him.
I see that as a good thing. I liked the Chief of Staff choice. However, I would caution that he keeps just hiring "former Clinton Adminstration workers", then, the questing becomes..."Is his "change" mantel...just "Clinton II" ?
And offering Senator Hillary Clinton -Secretary of State, seems to be a very questionable decision..(a political stunt.."politics over substance"..(Does anyone really think, that Senator Clinton..and President Obama will be able to build that "Trust level", to speak on national issues?.....In your heart..."really". What is the answer to that question?---I say "NO".
He should offer the job to (Govenor Eliott Richardson) who has both, experience internationally, and as a fluet Spanish speaker, could help us negotiate to solve our border issues with Mexico.
Regarding his decision to offer some positions of power to women,..this is "Not New"
Let's not forget that a certain woman of color (Condelezza Rice) -"Republican" has already served as both, National Security Officer, and is the current "Secretary of State".
So...Obama offering either position, to a woman, or a person of color... is really just a continuation of President Bush's policies of "Opening High Level Positions to Minorities and Women". Nothing "new" about that. (Remember Attorny General -Gonzales (Hispanic), General Colin Powell (African American). (Assistant Attorney General --Lee (Asian)
The "Biggest" problem right now..is that OBAMA has not chosen a TREASURY SECRETARY...in the middle of our current economic crisis. Whether anyone likes it our not...this is the "KEY" position, and his "indecision" to act on this key position is causing unnecessary worry in the financial markets...This decision was needed to be done "yesterday", and his procrastination in this choice, raises the 1st "question" of his leadership judgement.
November 20, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink