Key Committee Pick Signals Obama-Pelosi Direction

posted by John Nichols on 11/20/2008 @ 12:39pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (41)

Subscribe Now

There is usually reason to celebrate when the US House's tradition-bound seniority system is upset, and such is the case -- with a few cautions and codicils -- with the determination of the House Democratic Caucus to put California Congressman Henry Waxman in charge of the chamber's exceptionally powerful Energy and Commerce Committee.

In a showdown of the sort rarely seen in recent decades, the caucus voted Thursday morning to remove the current chair and long-time definitional player on the committee, Michigan Congressman John Dingell. The vote was close – 137 for Waxman, 122 for Dingell – but that does not make it any less significant as an indicator of the direction Congress is likely to take in a period when Democrats will control the executive and legislative branches of a federal government that Waxman thinks should be far more activist in its approach to environmental issues and the regulation of corporations.

That said, the Waxman-Dingell fight was never a precise left-right struggle.

Much of the media portrayed Waxman, the activist chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in the current Congress, as the liberal contender. And there is no question that, as the Bush-Cheney administration became increasingly excessive, the Californian was among its loudest and most powerful critics on the Hill – especially during debates on regulatory concerns that have too often been neglected by committee chairs who fail to utilize their broad investigatory powers. Waxman has, as well, been one of the steadiest critics of corporate wrongdoing on the Hill and a genuine ally of the consumer movement.

Dingell, who at 82 is the longest-serving member the current House, was characterized as the conservative player. But that was always more a matter of media shorthand than reality.

Dingell opposed authorizing George W. Bush to attack Iraq, rejected the Patriot Act from the start and has been a stalwart opponent of free-trade deals. The Michigan congressman has, as well, been the House's longest and steadiest advocate for a national healthcare plan.

Waxman, at 69 another House veteran, voted to authorize George Bush to take the country to war with Iraq, backed the Patriot Act and has abandoned the fair-trade position to back a number of free-trade initiatives opposed by labor, farm and environmental groups. (To his credit, Waxman acknowledged to this reporter several years ago that he was wrong on the war and has a generally strong record on civil liberties issues.)

Both contenders had progressive backers – with those for Dingell, long seen as the auto industry's man on Capitol Hill, coming more from members aligned with organized labor, while Waxman's were often younger and more engaged with environmental causes.

From the start of the chair race, there was a sense in the House that Waxman had one supporter who, though she did not actively campaign on his behalf, ranked above all others. Few doubted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted her fellow Californian and long-time ally to take charge of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Pelosi's allies in the House suggested – sometimes quietly, but toward the close of the competition more bluntly -- that Waxman would be a better fit as chair of a committee that will be critical to advancing the agenda of Barack Obama's administration on the energy, environmental, health care, consumer protection and telecommunications issues that are likely to be among the new president's top domestic priorities.

"The next two years are critical," argued Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, a Pelosi ally and Waxman backer. "It's not personal. It's about the American people demanding that we embrace change and work with the president on critical issues of climate change and energy and health care."

Waxman reinforced this message, arguing that: "We have a new opportunity that only comes once in a generation. We must meet the challenge."

The Obama transition team, while officially neutral in the contest, was seen by some as weighing in when it signaled prior to the caucus vote that Phil Schiliro, Waxman's former chief of staff, would serve as assistant to the president for legislative affairs. Effectively, Schiliro will be the president's top lobbyist on Capitol Hill.

What, then, can we take away from this shift in the chairmanship of one of the House's key committees?

1. Pelosi is more powerful than ever, arguably the most powerful speaker in decades. She has established a leadership team that is closely aligned with her, and appears to be getting the remaining committee chairs in line.

2. Pelosi and Obama appear to be on the same page, and are beginning to outline the structures of a close working relationship on domestic issues.

3. The focus on Energy and Commerce, as well as the expected appointment of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle as the new Secretary of Health and Human Services and the selection of Schiliro as the White House's chief lobbyist, suggests that Obama is preparing to make a major push on health care, and that Waxman will be key to that push.

4. The auto industry may yet get its bailout, but it will be under more pressure than even to radically change its approach, especially on environmental issues. This is not to suggest that Dingell did not care about the environment – he had, in recent years, taken up climate charge issues – but that Waxman is far more focused on this front.

5. Corporations, no matter what sector of the economy they operate in, are likely to find themselves facing more scrutiny from the Energy and Commerce Committee. Waxman has a very long record of embracing and advancing the regulatory and investigative agendas of the consumer movement.

Comments (41)

Well, come on, pure progressives...

going to tell us Henry Waxman is a "DLC'er Clintonite DINO just-as-bad-as-Bush'er"?

Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 12:50pm
This is the biggest difference between the Dems and Repubs. Dems actually disagree with each other, it is both a strength and weakness. Due to this intra party conflicts I dont' agree that Pelosi is one of the most powerful house leaders in recent History.

Posted by Extraneous at 11/20/2008 @ 1:18pm
Dingell, Waxman. 'sall good.

Posted by Sorelish at 11/20/2008 @ 1:42pm
This is good "change". Dingell is a dinosauer when it comes to the auto industry and enviromental concerns.

But, if Pelosi is a "Waxman backer" where the hell has she been the last 2 years when Waxman was trying to do his job bringing forth into the public eye, and the courts, the abuses of the Bush admin? She was hiding under (or OFF) the table.

The next big "change" needs to be Pelosi and Reid. Maybe someone that worked for Bill Clinton would be the change hoped for. :)

Posted by crabwalk at 11/20/2008 @ 2:11pm
Waxman is no friend of the consumer (or the UAW). Just wait until this nut forces his ideas on the mfg. of autos. Say goodby to Mich.

Posted by pyeatte at 11/20/2008 @ 2:52pm
Mich already suffers, under the watchful eye of Mr. Dingell. If the Auto industry had listend to the "fringe left" they would be selling lower gas consumption vehicles along with their japanese competition instead of being 5 years behind in r&d.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/20/2008 @ 3:24pm
No offense to Mr. Nichols, but I've never seen Dingell associated with the idea of national health coverage. HR 676 is co-sponsored by Detroit's John Conyers and Cleveland's Dennis Kucinich. Other than that, I'm delighted with the appointment of Waxman--he's a great Congressman.

Posted by mimsky at 11/20/2008 @ 4:06pm
the government needs to do something positive about the auto thing. bush cannot get out soon enough. every day is critical, here.

grandstanding needs to be put aside.

i say we save the auto industry, but do so with strings attached in some way - perhaps even partial public ownership. perhaps if the taxpayers owned a part of the industries they bailed out, they would not feel so shafted.

plus in the auto industry i might drive a buy american movement since in reality our cars are good quality again.

socialism? simply a natural and needed reaction to out of control capitalism...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/20/2008 @ 4:11pm
Posted by pyeatte at 11/20/2008 @ 2:52pm

Yeah because it's doing so well now.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/20/2008 @ 6:29pm
Doesn't anyone here think it is odd that NOT ONE story in The Nation has discussed the merits of Hillary as Secretary of State?

The most important cabinet pick but not a peep out of The Nation.

What's REALLY going on, JOHN NICHOLS?

Posted by Metteyya at 11/20/2008 @ 7:41pm
By Joby Warrick

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, November 20, 2008; 2:34 PM

The CIA repeatedly misled Congress and the Justice Department in their investigations of the 2001 shoot-down of a Peruvian plane carrying U.S. missionaries, according to findings of an internal CIA probe released today by congressional officials.

The agency's inspector general concluded that CIA officers in Peru consistently ignored rules of engagement in connection with the downing of at least 10 aircraft suspected of carrying narcotics over the South American country. Yet, CIA managers covered up the problems and knowingly gave false accounts to government officials investigating whether agency employees committed crimes.

Excerpts of the inspector general's report were released by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee. He called today for a new criminal inquiry, as well as congressional hearings, into what he described as a "startling" attempted coverup by the spy agency. ------

http://tinyurl.com/6olnp8

-----

they hate us for our freedoms.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/20/2008 @ 7:55pm
Jan. 22 1929 - THE NEW YORK TIMES

"The Iraq Government refuses to accept the British proposals that a British force should remain in Iraq for a further unspecified period."

July 6, 1930 –THE NEW YORK TIMES ‘Iraq's Freedom Now in Sight'

Jan. 16, 1948–THE NEW YORK TIMES

"Britain signed a twenty-year treaty with Iraq today that in effect guarantees the protection of that country… British and Iraqi armed forces will be interconnected in many ways. Britain will, for instance, under this treaty continue to sell arms to Iraq as heretofore."

Nov 20 2008

A session of Iraq's Parliament collapsed in chaos as a discussion among lawmakers about a security agreement boiled over into shouting and physical confrontation.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/20/2008 @ 8:07pm
"Doesn't anyone here think it is odd that NOT ONE story in The Nation has discussed the merits of Hillary as Secretary of State? The most important cabinet pick but not a peep out of The Nation. What's REALLY going on, JOHN NICHOLS?" Posted by Metteyya at 11/20/2008 @ 7:41pm

I think it is odd. Is she attaching strings? is Obama letting her hang for awhile?

I've got suggestions- Kucinich for Sevretary of Defense. Nader for Secretary of State. Throw a bone to the far left.

Posted by twillie at 11/20/2008 @ 9:35pm
Here is the major difference between Congressman John Dingell and Henry Waxman:

John Dingell is frequent critic of Israel and AIPAC (one of the very few in Congress who dares to do so) Henry Waxman is an American Jew, and thus dos not criticize Israel (He voted for authorizing the Iraq War and for the Patriot Act).

It is a day of reckoning for AIPAC using Pelosi as its executioner.

Posted by CripThink at 11/21/2008 @ 12:45am
I think we are headed for a showdown in this country between the haves and the have-nots. The workers and the unions have been shafted for so long, that the promise of building solar panels is not going to be enough to solve the problem. We need to talk wages, here. Eight dollar an hour jobs are just not cutting it, even if that rate includes health care. I hope Obama has the guts to tackle this issue. Salaries are going down in this country, ever since we became a "service economy." Going green is all well and good, but if you are talking about creating lots of low-paying jobs, replacing the $26 per hour the UAW workers make, you are going in the wrong direction. I would like to see The Nation do a series of articles on the connection between the demise of the middle class and the demise of unions.

Posted by jonnirae at 11/21/2008 @ 02:17am
'Long as these sons-a-bitchs leave me an my wallet alone, I'm happy.

But you know, seriously, any guy with the name "Dingle" has GOT to know how to fight!

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/21/2008 @ 09:26am
"4. The auto industry may yet get its bailout, but it will be under more pressure than even to radically change its approach, especially on environmental issues. This is not to suggest that Dingell did not care about the environment – he had, in recent years, taken up climate charge issues – but that Waxman is far more focused on this front."

the gov should buy stock in the industry in the name of the taxpayers. once things stabilise one day, the gov can sell off the stock, reprivatize, and give a tax rebate. hell - the irs ran a whorehouse in nevada a few years back...hmmm...

call it socialist - i don't care. if taxpayer money is going en masse to corporate america...i want something concrete in return.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/21/2008 @ 10:44am
This is the biggest difference between the Dems and Repubs. Dems actually disagree with each other, it is both a strength and weakness.

Posted by Extraneous at 11/20/2008 @ 1:18pm

This is a great oversimplification, but the Repubs are the party of the status quo and the Dems are the party of change. Who wants change? Not the mostly successful, traditional family, small government (leave me alone) types. The people who want change are the poor and minorities such as blacks, Jews, gays, etc.

The Dems are a collection of special interests, that's why they disagree with each other more than Republicans. That's why you get blacks stabbing gays in the back on Prop 8. And you can see a number of lamentations from the liberal elites regarding those poor, dumb n*****s who are so stupid that they fell for the dishonesty of homophobes, rather than amditting to themselves that a member block of their coalition is, statisticly speaking, one of the most reliably homophobic in the country.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/21/2008 @ 10:45am
i've liked waxy for a while. looks like that character actor who often plays mob bosses.

and has been active in calling down the repugnants too...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/21/2008 @ 10:54am
Dingell is a critic of Isreal because of the large muslim population in Mich. He does try to watch over the Big Three as much as he can but being stuck with a domestic automobile industry that is not competitive with the foreign mfgrs, there is a clear limit of what he can do. If the left had its way, forcing Detroit to make cars nobody would want, they would have been a ward of the US long ago. It was gas hitting $4 plus a gallon that changed the public's appetite. The only chance for Detroit now is chapter 7, which would allow restructuring and create "real change" (your favorite phrase). A huge liability is allowing workers to retire before 65 with health coverage. Listen, if someone, who is healthy, wants to retire under 65, fine, just do it on your own hook, don't expect someone to cover it.

Posted by pyeatte at 11/21/2008 @ 11:27am
A huge liability is allowing workers to retire before 65 with health coverage.Posted by pyeatte at 11/21/2008 @ 11:27am

Even in the goddamned Soviet Union workers retired at 55. You're living in the dark ages.

Posted by Sorelish at 11/21/2008 @ 11:45am
Posted by pyeatte at 11/21/2008 @ 11:27am

So, you admit, it's not that you want Ford, GM, or Chrysler to go out of business....

just bust up the UAW?

Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 11:46am
Listen, if someone, who is healthy, wants to retire under 65, fine, just do it on your own hook, don't expect someone to cover it.

Posted by pyeatte at 11/21/2008 @ 11:27am

I recently reviewed the pricing for a deal in France that blew me away. It was for annuities for teachers.

In France male school teachers retire at about 70% of their salary at age 60 and females retire at age 55. That sexism is encoded in their law.

I had no idea.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/21/2008 @ 11:49am
Nader for Secretary of State. Throw a bone to the far left. Posted by twillie at 11/20/2008 @ 9:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

that moldy old bone? notachance.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 11:59am
SORELISH,

If you continue to reduce, through age, the amount of time that wealth can be produced, while continuing to increase again through age, the expenditures, your society soon WILL be in the Dark Ages.

You know, like the old Soviet Union.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/21/2008 @ 12:18pm
"Even in the goddamned Soviet Union workers retired at 55. You're living in the dark ages." Posted by Sorelish at 11/21/2008 @ 11:45am

That's a laugh. The USSR collapsed under its own weight, too. Is that what you want?

When Social security started, average life span was about 66 years. Now, its over 80. We need to increase the retirement age to at least 70. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees you 15 golden retirement years. People live longer, they can work longer.

Posted by twillie at 11/21/2008 @ 12:25pm
I say, Twillie, old man, good show!

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/21/2008 @ 12:32pm
Yes Chip & if we continue to adhere to the "necessity" of global competition, we too will be working for nothing. At least they had Voznesensky & the Moscow Symphony. What will you have, Rush on the ukulele?

Posted by Sorelish at 11/21/2008 @ 12:44pm
Mozart at the BSO

Treasures of the Czars at the Baltimore Museum of Art

The Flower Gardens at the Smithsonian Castle

Not bad for a greedy competitve society.

and last but not least:

TRANS SIBERIAN ORCHESTRA AT THE MARINER CENTER!!!!

:)

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/21/2008 @ 12:57pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/21/2008 @ 12:57pm

Gee, maybe you'll get to sit next to David Brooks one of these days.

Posted by Sorelish at 11/21/2008 @ 1:07pm
BTW, I understand Pat Buchanan has a theory on what's wrong with Big Auto....and you'll NEVER guess what the "problem" is...

yep, they were forced to make their factories safer and stop discriminating!

Who could have guessed?

Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 1:42pm
Sorelish: The official Social Security Retirement age in this country is 65-66 for full benefits. Medicare kicks in at 65 period. Now, if this is the stone age, contact your favorite dem representitive and complain. Plus I don't care what it is in other countries, I don't live there. The fact is, there is no free lunch, someone pays for it somewhere. The huge wave of baby boomers is hitting now and will probably require major changes to the system. I suspect the congress and administration (no matter who it is) will continue to raise the age for full retirement. If you are in your 20s or 30s now, count on 70+ by the time you get there.

Posted by pyeatte at 11/21/2008 @ 2:23pm
Mask: The biggest problem the Big Three have is the UAW, yes. It's not just the UAW by itself, it's the fact that the companies went along with demands for unsustainable benefits because it was easier to kick that can down the road and let the next generation of executives deal with it. Making cars was the top priority. Now the CEOs have their own issues to deal with and it may be that if they go chapter 7, everything gets changed, including the CEOs and their boards.

Posted by pyeatte at 11/21/2008 @ 2:35pm
Posted by pyeatte at 11/21/2008 @ 2:35pm

Kinda weird there, pye. You START by blaming the UAW...but end up talking about how dumb the CEOs!!!!! were for being so generous.

Was this in Rush's "2nd hour monologue"?

Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 3:23pm
BTW, I understand Pat Buchanan has a theory on what's wrong with Big Auto....and you'll NEVER guess what the "problem" is... yep, they were forced to make their factories safer and stop discriminating! Who could have guessed? Posted by Mask at 11/21/2008 @ 1:42pm

And, where did you read this theory of his?

Posted by twillie at 11/21/2008 @ 3:26pm
Come on, Mask. Give us your source.

Posted by twillie at 11/21/2008 @ 4:18pm
Mask: Not that I know of, but I remember the history that goes back a couple of decades. The fact is the American auto mfgrs have an hourly cost of about $78 per vs the $47 for the foreign plants in the South. Can't survive with that.

Posted by pyeatte at 11/21/2008 @ 9:03pm
People live longer, they can work longer. Posted by twillie at 11/21/2008 @ 12:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

spoken like an ignorant young whippersnapper. you know a lot of old people?

Posted by emile duBois at 11/22/2008 @ 11:44am
a huge number of baby boomers getting old? who could have anticipated that?

Posted by emile duBois at 11/22/2008 @ 11:47am
So the solution is to unionize everything and have all industries with labor contracts like GM has with the UAW? Sort of living-wage on steroids. And this will really work?

Posted by sntauri at 11/22/2008 @ 1:40pm
spoken like an ignorant young whippersnapper. you know a lot of old people? Posted by emile duBois at 11/22/2008 @ 11:44am

Yeah, I do. I'm closer to the end than the beginning myself.

Posted by twillie at 11/22/2008 @ 3:01pm