News notes

Has John Dingell been wrong to protect the Big Three from tougher environmenal standards?

Yep.

Does that mean he should be pushed out of his chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee?

Nope.

Dingell, the 82-year-old Democrat who has been a member of Congress since 1955, has an impressive record as a protector of the environment and as a protector of the auto industry. Unfortunately, those two goals have been in conflict at times, and Dingell generally has sided with Detroit over issues like clean air and global warming.

On the other hand, Henry Waxman, the 69-year-old California Democrat who is challenging Dingell for chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce committee, is a long-time environmentalist with no auto industry in his back yard. He’s been free to push for tougher energy and environmental standards.

Now, with Barack Obama planning wide-ranging energy reforms – including some that the auto industry won’t like – it’s easy to see why the party leadership is considering dumping Dingell.

But it would be a mistake. Although many in the nation don’t want to admit it, the auto industry is too important to the nation’s economy to let it fail. And no one knows better than John Dingell the mix of energy reforms that are best for the nation – and that won’t push the auto industry over the edge.

At the same time, Detroit automakers would benefit from some tough love. They would be more competitive today if Congress had held them to higher mileage standards a decade ago.

Dingell will need to compromise – but that’s something he’s good at. Tougher environmental standards are necessary if we’re going to reverse global warming – not to mention continuing to clean up the air and water.

Rep. Dingell knows that, and will lead the Energy and Commerce Committee in that direction – if he survives the challenge from Waxman.

If Waxman takes over and runs roughshod over Detroit, the environment may benefit. But the nation would be worse off.

As America and the world celebrate the historic election of an African-American as president of the United States, a host of emotions are swirling through our collective minds.

We’re proud of America, for dealng another blow to racism and bigotry.

We’re amazed at how far we’ve come – just a generation ago blacks were fighting to attend the college of their choice or sit in the front of the bus.

We’re optimistic that Barack Obama’s election really does mean something special – a sign of a cultural shift toward a future closer to Martin Luther King’s dream.

But is it all about race?

Isn’t there more to Obama’s election than an historic milestone for African-Americans.

We should be proud, amazed and optimistic about what his election means for race relations. But most Americans didn’t vote for Obama because of his race.

They voted for his message of change. They voted for his plans for getting out of unpopular foreign wars and switching our economic focus from the rich to the middle class.

And most of all, they voted for hope.

Hope that America can be a leader in the world without being a bully.

Hope that we can put American ingenuity back to work creating jobs on our shores, not overseas.

Hope that we can provide basic services like health care for all of our citizens.

Hope that we can balance the federal budget, not by cutting services for people in need but by ending policies that don’t make sense – like fighting expensive wars while cutting taxes on oil companies making billion-dollar profits.

Yes, let’s celebrate for a few days the amazing milestone that Barack Obama’s election represents.

But then I hope we – the entire country – can get to work tackling the tough issues and  moving toward that vision of the future that was behind so many of those votes on Tuesday.

As the White House and Congress swing to the Democrats, along with the spoils of victory come the responsibility of ruling.

It’s been more than 40 years since one political party has controlled the White House and held a filibuster-proof lead in the House and Senate. If that happens tonight, and it now seems possible, that’s a lot of power in a few sets of hands.

John McCain tried vainly to convince American voters that giving control of Congress and the White House to the Democrats was a bad idea.

But voters apparently were more angry with the way the Republicans handled their turn at the helm than worried about Democratic control.

Still, with power comes responsibility. And with the nearly absolute power voters have given the Democrats comes a greater responsiblity to not screw it up.

Checks and balances are a good thing. That’s why our government is set up the way it is, with three branches, each holding different powers, and with two houses of Congress. And that’s why one of them, the Senate, requires 60 of the 100 votes to move legislation along.

I’ve always been a fan of the famous line, sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson and sometimes to Henry David Thoreau, “That government is best which governs least.”

With the mess we’re in now – both the economy at home and our place as a leader in the world – it would be good if the folks atop the Democratic Party moved carefully and slowly.

Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have their hands on the steering wheel and their foot on the throttle. Even if they miss the 60 seats in the Senate, they’ll be close.

This isn’t a time, however, to show off how fast you can drive your new wheels – or to stick it to the Republicans by flexing your muscles.

It’s a time for smart, thoughtful, cautious change. And for bringing the minority party and mainstream America along for the ride.