Via Politico

 

California Rep. Henry A. Waxman on Thursday officially dethroned longtime Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell, upending a seniority system that has governed Democratic politics in the House for decades.

 

In a secret ballot vote in the Cannon Caucus Room, House Democrats ratified an earlier decision by the Steering and Policy Committee to replace the 82-year-old Dingell with his 69-year-old rival. The vote was 137-122 in favor of Waxman.

 

The ascension of Waxman, a wily environmentalist, recasts a committee that Dingell has chaired since 1981 with an eye toward protecting the domestic auto industry in his native Michigan. The Energy and Commerce Committee has principal jurisdiction over many of President-elect Barack Obama's top legislative priorities, including energy, the environment and health care.

 

The vote Thursday allows Waxman to unseat the dean of the House just three short months before he was set to become the longest-serving chairman in the history of the institution.

 

Waxman's unexpected challenge has quietly divided members of the Democratic Caucus since the election and forced wavering colleagues to cast a gut-wrenching vote. And the results Thursday could leave a bad taste in the mouth of Dingell supporters, who led a vocal effort to keep the chairman while Waxman’s team led the quiet coup that led to Thursday morning’s stunning vote.

Via Politico

This is a message. It says not only that change is coming, but also, that Detroit's symbol of energy policy is being supplanted by something more in the California mode. More environmentally friendly, and probably a much bigger emphasis on alternatives, which is a good thing.

 

Its also nice to see the Dems take a step away from the purely seniority based system for these slots.

 

This is a message. It says not only that change is coming, but also, that Detroit's symbol of energy policy is being supplanted by something more in the California mode. More environmentally friendly, and probably a much bigger emphasis on alternatives, which is a good thing.

I agree 100%. This was a clear message that Detroit better get it's arse in gear.

It is also a message that we're going further and further left, and you better like it or get the hell out of the way.

 

It is also a message that we're going further and further left, and you better like it or get the hell out of the way.

On energy policy, yeah, I think that's the plan. And, good. Better than Drill, Dumbasses, Drill.

 

 

Isn't he the guy who held mock impeachment hearings in a basement closet?

On energy policy, yeah, I think that's the plan. And, good. Better than Drill, Dumbasses, Drill.

Agreed. I think both sides of the aisle want some for of energy policy reform / independence. Some say the road is to drill in America and have a slower transition. Others say let's not baby this, let's take it on hard, fast and with passion (eek, I am i stil talkig about energy policy? lol)

 

It's really a matter of philosophy in my opinion. Waxman / Obama want it hard, fast, and with passion

I am fine with drilling here in America if there are other conditions attached to it, because that would mean it was one part of a multifaceted solution. "Drill baby drill" is not a solution by itself, it's a weak ass bandaid.

I am fine with drilling here in America if there are other conditions attached to it, because that would mean it was one part of a multifaceted solution. "Drill baby drill" is not a solution by itself, it's a weak ass bandaid.

the question is if a bandaid will really fix a gaping stab wound. Many of us say no. Others say it's better than gushing blood everywhere.

Yay.

the question is if a bandaid will really fix a gaping stab wound. Many of us say no. Others say it's better than gushing blood everywhere.

It will help stop the bleeding, but not by itself. You have to do other things. Apply pressure, elevate, close it up, etc.

This is like trying to come off a drug addiction. Do you wean off, or walk away?

 

I am OK with drilling on already-leased land for that purpose. And offshore drilling that is already allowed by statute.

 

But these people who actually think that new drilling is an immediate fix are kidding themselves. New drilling OR new alternative sources will both take time. But the alternatives, in some cases, are actually already more ready than oil. So why bother drilling more?

 

On energy policy, yeah, I think that's the plan. And, good. Better than Drill, Dumbasses, Drill.

 

 

I can't wait to see how this affects the economy.

I can't wait to see how this affects the economy.

Right now, it's probably about the only way out of the banking mess.

I can't wait to see how this affects the economy.

Should be a very good thing for the economy.

 

Should be a very good thing for the economy.

 

 

I'll sell that til no end.

Waxman's been a hell of a congressman. Congrats to him.

This is great news.

Should be a very good thing for the economy.

 

Unless energy policy changes so that energy costs are double what they are now, which can easily happen if they get too regulation-happy.

Should be a very good thing for the economy.

My wife and I are looking to move to Iowa here in the next two years. If they announced a massive windmill farm project in eastern to central Iowa, I'd gladly apply and move tomorrow. So, I think a massive energy building project would be great for the economy.

Unless energy policy changes so that energy costs are double what they are now, which can easily happen if they get too regulation-happy.

What regulations do you feel could be implemented that would double energy costs?

 

What regulations do you feel could be implemented that would double energy costs?

You could argue carbon caps would. Also, if there was some sort of an "renewable energy" mandate, it might force companies to invest money in solar or wind. And to afford that, they may have to raise prices.

You could argue carbon caps would. Also, if there was some sort of an "renewable energy" mandate, it might force companies to invest money in solar or wind. And to afford that, they may have to raise prices.

Carbon caps could certainly do so.

 

The latter example you give would not. It could raise CONSUMER prices, but not energy costs. In fact, that would end up lowering energy costs.

 

What regulations do you feel could be implemented that would double energy costs?

When I read that what came to mind was the clusterf*** of uneven regulation that happened in California a few years back.

When I read that what came to mind was the clusterf*** of uneven regulation that happened in California a few years back.

You mean the electricity markets failure? That was pretty epic. That wasn't even a cost issue either, and it was both overregulated and underregulated in various aspects. Just a huge clusterf***, as you said.