Waxman-Dingell Showdown

Morning JNS -- Is there any word from the president-elect's team as to their preference? I've made the assumption that Waxman would be more preferable.

Well, that's a silly comparison from the "Dem leadership source." The one doesn't have anything to do with the other, and the House is different from the Senate, anyway.
-
Also, the CBC's standing up for the seniority system seems at a glance to be terrible news for people who prefer Congress to accomplish things, rather than rewarding folks from districts gerrymandered to be safe.

"Which one gets an intraparty challenge for the gavel of the Committee?" Just more proof that the seniority system in the Senate is utterly disfunctional. It's like affirmative action with no performance requirement.
.
I'm not against a seniority system per se, but seniority alone without a competency test is absurd.

wvng: why are you so shocked about this? After all just because members of congress get the best health care in the country, doesn't mean you and I should.

JOe Sudbay: "We'll find out today if the House Democrats are serious about energy and global warming issues. Dingell has been -- and would be -- the biggest obstacle. "

The truth is this, Waxman should have that job. If Dingell keeps it the reason why will be for the second time this week the Dems in Congress are choosing to come down on the side of cronyism. Its funny that while they are brow beating the Big 3 this week nobody will be question Dingell as to why he hasnt fought for higher fuel efficiency standards and in fact has at times opposed them. Waxman is the guy you want to have in that chair if we really want strong climate change legislation to get pushed through under Obama. Dingell is deeply entrenched with the Big 3 and everyone knows it but because he is a "good guy" they are trying to keep him in that chair. I can appreciate the fact that he gave money and campaigned for Dems but so did Waxman and the truth is if your best card to play is that you are better than Lieberman thats not a good sign. Seriously if he stays it will go down as once again as more of the same.

Well, that makes sense, Jay. Thanks for responding.

Andy. You are right. I should be ashamed, and reviled for my staggering ignorance.

I got that, JNS, but it's also true that seniority is not as powerful in the house, and that we've these battles over policy direction of the chairs before. The fuss about intelligence last time, for example.

IOW. cute but beside the point.

Reading the Politico on this it looks more to me like Dingell will retain the seat. People with seniority are so wary of unseating other people with seniority. They all want jobs to be about seniority rather than skill. The Congress of the United States is not a meritocracy.

Well, you know, what does "Obama's preference" have to do with it? Last I heard Congress was supposed to be independent of the Executive branch. You know, checks and balances and all that quaint Constitutional stuff?

What I fail to see in these Senate and House Committee-Chairmanship Debates is any indication that the Dems are taking a long view and asking themselves 3 questions:
.
1) Why is it that we have lower approval ratings than the current POTUS?
2) Why have these numbers *dropped* from 2006-2008?, and
3) Where do we want to be in 2010? (i.e. what are we going to do to fix #1 and #2?)
.
The honest answers are that the current congress has done diddly-squat towards enacting the change that was promised in 2006. Now here we are in 2008 with a new congress but still no super-majority in either chamber.
.
Since the makeup of the House and Senate have not changed, the *only* chance at enabling change is to change the leadership...seniority be d@mned.
.
If the House and Senate Dems do not see this, then they will be doomed to a repeat of 1994...Contract on America Part II.

kathy
.
Exactly! Say it with me MORE OF THE SAME!

JNS,
Yes, I realize he is the head of the party. The Party is not the same thing as The Congress. The Congress gets to organize, and *should* organize, as a law-making body and not as a political party. We saw enough of that during the 108th and 109th. Jes sayin.
.
I'm agnostic on the Lieberman issue.
.
Thanks for responding.

"The honest answers are that the current congress has done diddly-squat towards enacting the change that was promised in 2006."
.
Not exactly true. The House enacted their 100 days agenda, but Reid couldn't push it through the Senate due to Repug obstructionism. As Trent Lott said: "I think this is working out quite well for us" (or something like that).
.
Given that Obama has demonstrated exceptional strategic thinking, and that the Dem Congress keeps demonstrating "strength through weakness" as their core strategy, I am pretty happy to have them defer to Obama in setting about enacting his change agenda. If I never see another "Dems cave to rePugs" headline again it would be good.

If Dingell doesn't have a pet name for his Blackberry, I am thinking of one. Have him call me.

James, LA: Obama has an agenda to move through Congress. He might have a preference for members who would be supporters of his agenda in committee chairs versus those who would oppose him.
.
wvng: I wasn't trying to revile you. Let's not ever confuse comptence with electability(i.e., GWB). Is some 84 year old entrenched congressman going to substancially change his lifestyle and voting record because of some young whippersnapper is elected president?
.
Answer: See the 84 year old felon who just lost his re-election for senator of Alaska. There was nothing wrong with his lifestyle until he got indicted and convicted.

JNS - The question is not whether Dingell deserves to lose his chairmanship. The question is whether Waxman would be more effective at the job. Waxman's record indicates that he may be; Dingell's record is less clear.

kbangingmotown is exactly right about it.

The old Democratic circular firing squad has already destroyed the chances of a lasting Democratic majority, I see.
.
Don't these guys realize that we're still a center-right country?

Andy. I know.

Andy
.
I must point out that the same 84 year old convicted felon says he is not a convicted felon and has done nothing wrong and promised to keep doing business as usual HAD he been voted in. So the answer to your question would have to be no, he wouldnt change his lifestyle or voting record just because some young whippersnapper got elected. Thankfully the people of Alaska didn't allow him that option. The same way the Senate Dems shouldnt have allowed Lieberman that option and the Democrats in the House shouldnt let Dingell have that option. But of course they will

IMO, the Dems have to move Dingell out, this is too important. Obama is investing a lot of political capital and actual dollars ($150B over 10 yrs) in his green initiative. The only way we will be able to significantly decrease our reliance on oil while creating vibrant new industry is to develop alternative fuels to power our vehicles (only a small amount of oil goes to electricity, transportation is the dominant consumer). We will also need to have (force?) US auto makers to produce cars that use this fuel. I anticipate auto makers and Big Oil to fight this change. If so, Obama and our economy can't risk having the House Energy Committee advocate for the status quo. We need a Chair that is fully committed.

In our household we refer to all those jerks in Congress and CarTown that have protected Big Oil and the Big 3 as Dingellberries.

John Dingell is as responsible for the current State of the Union as anyone else. He's been on my "bad actors" list for decades.