Dingell Pulls From K Street, Hoyer to Mediate?

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 14:29


The lobbying in the House is continuing.

In particular, K Street has sought to convince members of the Blue Dog Coalition, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the New Democrats to back Dingell against Waxman, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"Lobbyists are doing intelligence gathering, talking to lawmakers they are on a first-name relationship basis with," said one lobbyist, who has made calls to drum up support for Dingell...

Since he was first elected in 1955 to fill the seat of his father, Rep. John Dingell Sr. (D-Mich.), the younger Dingell has amassed a formidable K Street presence.

His network spans the health care, energy, manufacturing and telecom industry sectors.

Dingell has forged strong ties with former senior aides-turned-lobbyists, including John Orlando of CBS Corp., Ryan Modlin at the National Association of Manufacturers, Marda Robillard of Van Scoyoc Associates, and Alan Roth of US Telecom. He's also close to Reid Stuntz of Hogan & Hartson and solo practitioner Michael Barrett...

"It strikes us that Chairman Dingell is more likely coming from Detroit to have a sensitivity to the current economic plight of the country when he looks at the various serious issues before the committee than Mr. Waxman, who is from Beverly Hills," NMA spokesman Luke Popovich said.

The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance has also come out in support of Dingell. In an e-mail blast to more than 22,000 members, SAOVA urged its grass-roots network to contact their Member of Congress about what they argue is an important voice of moderation.

"He's a voice of moderation where the large California cabal is scary as hell," said Bob Kane, chairman emeritus of SAOVA.

Hoyer, who is allied with Dingell ideologically but owes Waxman for his Majority leader status is attempting to mediate the dispute.  I've spoken with about five or six people close to the dispute, the basic sense I have is that Dingell's got better political skills and Waxman is highly respected.  The green groups are staying out of the fight, and one of Dingell's main arguments is that Waxman is an unabashed progressive partisan who can't get anything done whereas Dingell's more practical and can work across the aisle.  This is obviously not true, but the contours of the fight are organized around the fears of Capitol Hill insiders, and they dislike liberals.

Regardless, my sense is that Dingell, if he retains the chairmanship, will be forced to move more progressive legislation, so this challenge has been a net positive so far.

Matt Stoller :: Dingell Pulls From K Street, Hoyer to Mediate?

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Meeting my congressman about this (0.00 / 0)
Hi Matt,

I've requested a meeting with my congressman, Ed Towns, to discuss this issue and try for an inside perspective.  His scheduler is getting back to me, and hopefully I'll get my meeting before the leadership vote.  Nifty, right?  Keep ya posted...


Matt, (4.00 / 3)
I wish people would stop with the meme that Dingell is a conservative. I should think you would know better but I know it's a common mistake.

Dingell is an old-school New Deal Democrat. What does that mean? He's more progressive than probably 90% of Democrats on economic issues, but he's more conservative on some social and environmental issues. So yes it's regrettable that he's bad on climate change and choice issues, but I think it's a stretch to say he's the same ideologically as Steny. I can't imagine that Dingell has ever supported a single free trade bill and he voted against the Iraq War (Waxman voted for it).
Plus Dingell has introduced a single payer UHC bill every year since he's been in Congress.

Let's at least go into this knowing where people actually are, not where we'd like them to be because it's easier to pick sides then.  


um (4.00 / 1)
I wish people would stop with the meme that Dingell is a conservative. I should think you would know better but I know it's a common mistake.

I didn't call him a conservative.  Here's what I wrote about Dingell in my last post:

Dingell, an old industrial liberal who voted against the war, wants single payer health care and subsidies to polluters and drug companies and automakers, and is against action on climate change, and the other, a bad war vote with excellent follow-up investigations challenging the Bush administration and the hedge fund industry, a long-time progressive who believes there is no trade-off between the economy and the environment.  This is not a simple left-right dichotomy, though Dingell has insulted Waxman by calling him a left-wing anti-manufacturing Democrat.  It is, though, becoming a simple left-right dichotomy, even as someone who was once one of the most liberal icons of Congress moves more and more into the corner of the reactionary forces that will bake our planet.

Apology please.  


[ Parent ]
Well I mostly apologize (0.00 / 0)
Except that when you say this,

"Hoyer, who is allied with Dingell ideologically"

I think you could see how one would could draw the conclusion that you are labeling Dingell a conservative, or at least a conservative Democrat.

So do a cross-out on that sentence and then I'll completely and fully and contritely apologize. :)


[ Parent ]
adam (0.00 / 0)
You misquoted me, then lectured me for an error which I did not make, and now are refusing to apologize which means that you will do it again.  Just say sorry.  It's easy.  People make mistakes.  

This is not a negotiation and I'm getting to the point where I am simply just going to ban people who can't figure out the norms of basic decency.


[ Parent ]
I apologize for misquoting you and mischaracterizing your position on Dingell (0.00 / 0)
What I should have said was your statement that Hoyer is allied with Dingell ideologically could be misconstrued by me and possibly others as insinuating that Dingell is not a strong progressive on some issues since my assumption is that most people on this site do not consider Hoyer an ideological progressive. Which of course, your previous post makes clear you realize that Dingell is a progressive on economic issues.

I don't like your statement though that "this is not a negotiation". It's your site. Do as you please. If you feel I don't contribute anything around here and am not a worthwhile member, then feel free to ban me.


[ Parent ]
look (0.00 / 0)
You mischaracterized my statement.  You got it wrong.  I asked for an apology, but instead you gave a mealy-mouthed double-back flip passive aggressive response while acknowledging you were wrong.

Hoyer and Dingell are ideologically aligned, both are labor liberal types, but in other ways they differ.  I am tired of the rudeness and passive aggressive pointless sniping in the comments, mostly because it's lazy and puts the burden on me to disprove the lazy insults flung my way, which means I can't do other work.  I won't tolerate it anymore.  You can either choose to be intellectually honest and stop flinging this nonsense (and by that I mean apologize), or you can choose not to.  I will ban you if it's the latter, if it's the former I will welcome you openly.  

Either way, I'm not interested in wasting energy anymore and I'd rather shut down the comments than keep them as they are.


[ Parent ]
uh huh (0.00 / 0)
Matt this is the problem as I see it. I had a different view of the implications of your comment. I dispute the notion that Hoyer is a labor liberal type. I would wager that Hoyer has a significantly lower labor score than Dingell. Other people apparently also drew a similar conclusion from your statement because they recommended my comment. I apologized for mischaracterizing your position. As I said, what I should have said instead was I think your statement in the post was ambiguous. And the fact that you in this comment finally explain more why you think they are ideologically aligned (which I disagree with) indicates to me some acknowledgment on your part that the original statement wasn't clear. I'm sorry I didn't read your post from yesterday where you say exactly what I was thinking about Dingell...didn't have time to read it yesterday. I was going off of what you wrote today. I should have done more research and my comment would have been very different. It doesn't change the fact that the original statement that you wrote today could be ambiguous to many people as to where Dingell and Hoyer fall on the ideological spectrum.

What I don't like about your responses is that whereas you expect me to give you the most charitable reading of what you write (in this instance), you give me no such latitude. Either I apologize to you even if I think I had a legitimate point or else you'll ban me. Then you say I'm making mealy-mouthed statements. That's not insulting? That's acting decently? I've been around here for a long time, and feel like I've contributed quite a bit to the discussion here. It feels kind of insulting to me that this one instance is a bannable offense to you. It's disappointing to me that that's the level of loyalty, understanding, and willingness to talk things out that is afforded to long-time members here. I realize you guys put up with a lot of crap and have had a lot of instances of really bad insulting behavior. But come on. This is a disagreement, not fisticuffs.

I'm being honest in my apology and what I'm apologizing for. I retract my original statement because it is wrong and is not what you think.


[ Parent ]
More important than Lieberman issue IMHO (0.00 / 0)
I believe the global warming dire warnings, and Dingell is a huge obstruction to environmental policy reform.

John McCain won't insure children

He won't be... (0.00 / 0)
The energy plan is going to involve the autos.  We need to reduce emissions and kick the oil addiction.  Dingell will do what it takes to support the auto industry.  If we are going to build green jobs, how else would you do it?

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
He's been an impediment to change since the early eighties (0.00 / 0)
what's going to change now? Dingell is like those "New Democrats" of the nineties who favored deregulating utilities, finance and commodities trading, and now stand around like they did nothing to help compromise our economic position with a neoliberal economic agenda paid for by special interests on Wall Street and K Street. Dingell has been fighting the bad fight on pollution, CAFE and now global warming since the early eighties, yet he seems completely oblivious to how his efforts to fight regulation that would have forced innovation on Detroit has hurt them.

Dingell has no credibility whatsoever when he talks about competitiveness and industry. The industry he has so slavishly prostrated himself to is the most uncompetitive, inefficient, and ineptly managed in the world. The UAW is in dire straights because no one wants to buy Detroit's automobiles, and part of the reason they don't want to buy their cars is because they get shitty gas mileage. Detroit would be a world leader in this field today if guys like Dingell, working at the behest of the UAW, hadn't blocked the regulations that would have forced them away from SUVs and into hybrids. How's Dingell's old "you're going to cost jobs, you don't care about industry" line looking now? Detroit is racing plug-ins like the Volt to the market place, but the Volt will cost 40-50K, meaning it's essentially a boutique car! Honda is going to release a new Insight that gets 60-68 mpg and retails at 18,500K starting next April. This should be an American car, but thanks to Dingell and his ilk, it's not. Dingell has held Detroit's hand as they walked over a cliff, just as Wall Street Democrats helped the finance industry do the same.  


[ Parent ]
Interesting Fight (0.00 / 0)
Having worked on the Hill and done Energy and Commerce work, I think Dingell was a fine Chair on most issues in the 1980s and early 90s.  However, I think it is time for him to step aside for new leadership.

Dingell is actually really progressive on most issues except for the auto industry and the environment.  My main complaint with him was that he helped block numerous of attempts to increase CAFE standards and improve air quality in order to protect the auto industry.  You could lay some of the auto companies problems directly at his door step since an increase in CAFE standards would have forced them to innovate and could well have saved them.

I will say that the argument that Dingell is better at moving legislation than Waxman is true.  I like and respect Henry and he has had some legislative successes but he does not come close to possessing Dingell's skill at moving bills.  Dingell is a master at the legislative process and that is a skill few possess.

Having said that, I think it is time for a change.  Not to sound like I am discrimating against seniors, but Dingell is 82 and has served as either Chair or Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee since 1981.  New blood at the helm would be a good thing.


Do you think (0.00 / 0)
his skill at moving bills is more a reflection of him, or of his staff?

[ Parent ]
Both (0.00 / 0)
Dingell is very skilled at navigating the legislative process.  On the other hand, most Congresspeople are only as good as their staff and Dingell has traditionally hired top notch people.

[ Parent ]
Interesting (0.00 / 0)
If Waxman took over I wonder how well both those traits would transfer over to the new chairman.  

[ Parent ]
Waxman Is Good (0.00 / 0)
but Dingell is a master.  Waxman did maneuver around Dingell with the Clean Air Bill of 1990 but Dingell successfully blocked most of his environmental reforms.  

Waxman also has traditionally had excellent staff and I don't think the committee will skip a beat if Waxman becomes Chair.  In fact, I think it is time for the transition to happen.


[ Parent ]
Maslow's hierarchy of needs. (0.00 / 0)
I am not interested in Waxman.  People need to go to go to work.  If people don't go to work, they can't buy anything; and without demand, there will be no economy.  If you want people to care about the environment, you need to put them back to work.  Besides, I so agree with this.  

"It strikes us that Chairman Dingell is more likely coming from Detroit to have a sensitivity to the current economic plight of the country when he looks at the various serious issues before the committee than Mr. Waxman, who is from Beverly Hills," NMA spokesman Luke Popovich said.

There was a poll on dailykos, 1 - 10 how important is the environment.  It came up 5.    The economy is what won the election.  It is what people voted for.  It has to come first. If fixing the environment becomes the new economy, that's even better.  

 

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  


[ Parent ]
The Auto Industry (0.00 / 0)
is so out to lunch.  This is the least innovative industry in the US and they have fought increasing CAFE standards by arguing that they would destroy the industry.  Yet, as their market share plunged they kept building big, hulking SUVs while ignoring passenger cars, hybrids, etc.  

Count me as one who thinks increases in the CAFE standards would have actually helped the industry b/c it would have forced them to innovate, invest in hybrids, electric cars, etc.  Dingell enabled much of the problem that exists in today's auto industry which might be a good reason to change Chairs of the Energy and Commerce Committee.


[ Parent ]
washington drug rehab (0.00 / 0)
An effective addiction treatment program on the needs of each individual resident.
===================
Taylor
washington drug rehab

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search