ANTI's Attack Washington Animal Owner/Sportsman Champion Rep. John Dingell

[Bob_Kane]

Dear SAOVA Friends,

There’s an extremely important fight taking place in Washington this
week. You need to understand what’s at stake and protect your
horse ownership interests. A cabal of California-based ultra-radical animal rightist
Democrats is attempting to topple Rep. John Dingell as head of the
powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee and replace him with
Rep. Henry Waxman. John Dingell is the dean of the House and is the
highest profile and most influential supporter of sportsmen and
animal owners in the U.S. Congress. See his legislative
accomplishments at http://www.cookpolitical.com/node/2404 John is
also an avid big game hunter and waterfowler, a dog owner and has
served on the boards of NRA and Ducks Unlimited. He has never let us
down and has repeatedly gone to bat for us on hunting, fishing,
conservation, animal and gun ownership, influencing other legislators.

Chairman Dingell was one of a handful of Democrats who voted against
HSUS’s AMERICAN HORSE SLAUGHTER PREVENTION ACT in 2006. This bill
inserted the federal government into the life or death decisions of
equine owners. His forceful and elegant condemnation of HR503 was
memorable.

September 7, 2006 Floor Statement on HR503, AMERICAN HORSE SLAUGHTER
PREVENTION ACT at CR H6323

Mr. DINGELL. I love the people who are pushing this bill, but it is
a bad bill. It is triumph of emotion over common sense. We have
before us a solution, a poor one, to a nonexistent problem.

We have many things that need to be addressed in this Congress,
but here we are putting on the floor a piece of legislation poorly
thought out, without having had proper hearings or proceedings, over
the opposition of a committee, when we have many other things that
need doing; health care for Americans, minimum wage, a budget deficit
of terrifying proportions, and the appropriations bills and the
budget have not yet been completed. While the Nation is at war,
working families struggle to make ends meet, and government runs
record deficits the leadership has put this curious piece of
legislation on the floor.

The bill would eliminate humane slaughter of horses. If there is a
complaint about how the horses are being slaughtered or transported,
there is a way for this body to address that, and I am sure in good
will this body would in the exercise of its oversight powers do
exactly that.

The bill does not count for the high cost of caring for these
unwanted animals, nor does it consider the impact that this
legislation is going to have on the environment.

You know, we have a curious situation where we are going to have
to wind up cremating every horse that dies in the country, or we are
going to have to incinerate them. I have no idea how we are going to
dispose of a huge number of 1,500 to 2,000 pounds of horse each time
one of these events happens.

Now, basic care costs $1,800. There is no requirement here that a
person sell or slaughter his horse. The owner of the horse can do
what he wants with it. That makes eminent good sense to me.

But I don’t think anyone has thought out the consequences of this
legislation, what is going to happen with regard to the massive
number of horses that are going to have to be incinerated or cremated
and the consequences of that with regard to the environment.

This is a bad piece of legislation. It should be rejected.

---

HR503 passed that day, but failed in the Senate. The extremely
heavily lobbied, ill-conceived measure didn’t receive a floor vote in
2007-2008.

Literally, without exception, Mr. Waxman and his group attempting to
unseat John Dingell are animal rights zealots who have been endorsed
and funded by the anti-animal owner, anti-hunting Humane Society of
the U.S. (HSUS). HSUS considers this sub group its hard core
strongest supporters. They introduce dozens of ill-conceived animal
rightist bills every year. It’s critical that a very senior, high
profile moderate Democratic committee chairman such as John Dingell
not be dragged down by these elements. Should these radicals succeed,
an experienced and meaningful voice will be muted and the next
Congress will take decided shift to the left in all legislative
areas.

ACTION REQUEST: This week, as soon as possible, telephone and email
all House Democrats and urge that they retain John Dingell as
chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The caucus vote
will occur on either November 17 or 18, 2008 and newly elected
members will have a voice.

Please share this message widely.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance - http://saova.org/
Issue lobbying and working to identify and elect supportive
legislators

[Equibrit]

Wolf !

[Bob_Kane]

Waxman Coup Worries Moderates

Waxman Coup Worries Moderates
By Tory Newmyer
Roll Call Staff
November 10, 2008

Facing the prospect of a liberal surge in House Democratic senior ranks, party moderates in the Blue Dog and New Democrats coalitions are banding together to make sure centrist lawmakers prevail in two critical internal fights.

Leaders of the two groups were in talks last week to plot rallying support for Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) in his bid to beat back a challenge for his gavel from liberal Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and to enlist Rep. Joe Crowley (N.Y.), a New Democrats leader, to run for the vice chairmanship of the Caucus.

The coordination marks a departure for the groups, which have not traditionally worked together, and a shared fear that with Democrats preparing to take control of all levers of political power, moderates could get steamrolled by emboldened liberals.

“We’re very concerned about the direction that some are trying to move our majority,” said Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), Blue Dog co-chairman for communications.

Leaders of both groups were working the phones last week to round up support for Dingell, the 27-term dean of the House, in his counteroffensive against Waxman’s surprise challenge. Ross and Reps. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) and John Tanner (D-Tenn.), both senior Blue Dogs, joined Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the New Democrats, on Dingell’s 26-member team.

“There are definitely conversations going on” among leaders of the groups to find support within their respective ranks for Dingell, a senior New Democrats aide said.

Dingell and Waxman aides alike are trying to frame their contest as centered on who will make the most effective legislator — and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), an ally of both, likewise played down the notion that the fight will highlight an ideological rift in the Caucus. But Dingell, an ardent defender of his home-state auto industry, and Waxman, an ally of environmentalists, have taken dramatically different approaches to climate change and energy issues in the past — debates expected to be prominent next year.

It is not yet clear how strongly New Democrats will rally to Dingell’s defense. With 60 members, they present a vote-rich source of support. But the group emphasizes green technology and high-tech innovation — priorities that are at times at odds with the manufacturing base Dingell champions.

Leaders of the groups are working together to draft Crowley into a leadership bid.

Ross said he and other Blue Dog leaders called Crowley last week and encouraged him to jump into the race for the Caucus vice-chairmanship, the fifth-ranking slot in leadership. Crowley, who lost a bid for that post in early 2006, has not yet announced whether he will run. So far, Reps. Xavier Becerra (Calif.) and Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) have entered the race. Also thought to be eyeing the race are Reps. Kendrick Meek (Fla.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.).

Crowley is not a Blue Dog, but Ross said members of his group understand that the New Yorker would be their best shot at adding a moderate to the leadership team. It reflects a recognition that Blue Dogs themselves, mainly white Southerners from rural districts, can’t run one of their own and hope to win over a majority of a heavily diverse Caucus representing mostly urban and suburban areas.

With a Crowley bid, the moderate faction would in effect be hoping to recover a leadership seat they are losing with the exit of Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) — a New Democrat with razor-sharp instincts. Emanuel announced last week he is quitting the House to take a job as President-elect Obama’s chief of staff.

Taken together, the contests present key tests of an unformed alliance between the groups that could prove a force in the next Congress. But much remains in the air. The groups have at times struggled to maintain unity within their own ranks. And it is not yet clear how they would work together to shape the agenda next year.

Aside from broadly centrist tendencies, the two groups don’t have much in common. While most Blue Dogs represent socially conservative, rural districts, most New Democrats hail from socially progressive, suburban districts. On policy, Blue Dogs are fiscal hawks that have been singularly focused on defending pay-as-you-go budgeting rules. New Democrats have trained their attention on promoting free trade and a high-tech agenda. They mostly backed the Wall Street bailout, which split the Blue Dogs, and are now focused on regulatory modernization of the financial markets.

“I can’t even wrap my brain around how that would work in an Obama administration,” a senior New Democrats aide said. “There will be conversations, but it’s premature right now.”

Ross said the groups will work in concert to prevent a liberal overreach that would spell a repeat of the mistakes Democrats made in the early 1990s. “We’re not going to be the most popular folks in our party, but we’re going to ensure that we as a party govern from the middle and not the extremes,” he said. “And we’ve got the votes to keep that from happening.”

Against the backdrop of the ideological rift, the fight over the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce panel continued to rage on Friday, with both sides deploying their whip teams to sew up support among their colleagues.

While Waxman’s announcement last week caught Dingell flat-footed, whispers of a coup attempt by the Californian have persisted in Dingell circles for months. In June, in a move Dingell allies insist was unrelated, the Michigan Democrat backed off his longtime resistance to opening a leadership political action committee and founded the Wolverine PAC. Corporate donations poured in, and Dingell tapped the funds to spread about $80,000 to moderate incumbents and challengers, according to CQ MoneyLine.

Waxman has been using his own account to engender goodwill with colleagues for considerably longer. While Dingell is one of the most recent Democrats to kick off such a fund, Waxman was the first House lawmaker to open a leadership PAC, founding his L.A. PAC in the late 1970s to boost his bid for a subcommittee gavel. Waxman used the account to dole out about $238,000 to Democrats this cycle.

[Beverley]

Equibrit is right. Congressman Dingell used to go deer hunting with our group, and a good friend of ours worked for him. Waxman or anybody else will pry that gavel out of his cold, dead hands.

My message to you is much the same as my message to Hokieman on that other idiotic thread. If you guys keep spreading alarmist drivel, you will before long tune out the people who matter most to your cause.

[Bob_Kane]

Wolf, wolf? Everyone’s an expert, all of a sudden

Wolf, wolf? Everyone’s an expert, all of a sudden. I happen to consider John Dingell a personal friend and worked with him the 80’s. His office asked for this help. Smart DC lobbyists say this is 50/50 today. Nancy Pelosi wants John Dingell taken down, but know-it-alls like you have figured it out and already have a whip count. Right?

I’ve nothing to do with Hokieman, but have a word of warning. What comes around, goes around for MFHA hunts and foxhunters.

[Beverley]

@Bob Kane;3644455

I happen to consider John Dingell a personal friend and worked with in the 80’s. His office asked for this help.

To be honest, Bob, I don’t believe you.

Nor do I put much stock in your knowledge of the workings of the Congress.

I’ll spare you the history of energy policy that weighs strongly here. If you really did work with Dingell in the 80s, you ought to know it cold. But I’ll note that you have a nasty tendency to threaten any foxhunter that dares to disagree with you. It surely doesn’t garner you any brownie points, nor, by extension, your cause.

[Bob_Kane]

A true time waster from Utah

[QUOTE=Beverley;3644506]
To be honest, Bob, I don’t believe you.

Nor do I put much stock in your knowledge of the workings of the Congress.

I’ll spare you the history of energy policy that weighs strongly here. If you really did work with Dingell in the 80s, you ought to know it cold. But I’ll note that you have a nasty tendency to threaten any foxhunter that dares to disagree with you. It surely doesn’t garner you any brownie points, nor, by extension, your cause.[/QUOTE]

You want honesty and perspective? You think this post is a lie and idiotic? I’ll match my first hand knowledge of every energy bill and oversight hearing in Energy and Commerce during the 80’s with anyone but John’s professional staff. You don’t want to go there, believe me. It would bore this list and demonstrate again that you have too much time on your hands posting trash on this and any other subject that amuses you 2-3 times per day, every day ad nauseam.

Nasty is sometimes required. Lead, follow, or get out of the damn way. I don’t know how Congress works? I made a very good living proving you are wrong. Also see http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/06_SAOVA_Bob_Kane_Prt1-08.asp

[Beverley]

Well, Bob, Bless Your Heart

Same Bob Kane that worked in Lisle Reed’s shop, if memory serves? Okay, that explains a lot.

BTW your link didn’t work, but I think I found the article you intended for me to read. Amusing that you moved the Energy Dept’s existence up by three years. To me, an indication that facts aren’t all that important to you.

One could ask who has too much time on their hands if you track how many posts I put up in any particular time frame? Amazing.

I’ll leave it to readers to amuse themselves with your inconsistencies if that is their desire. My bottom line remains the same. You are not doing hunting any favors by your posts. Quite the contrary, I’m afraid.

[Bob_Kane]

Blowing smoke

The link [URL=“http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/06_SAOVA_Bob_Kane_Prt1-08.asp”]Meet Legislative Legend & Lobbyist
BOB KANE, SAOVA, my 2006 interview regarding the defeat of HSUS’s PAWS bill and SAOVA is corrected.

To the best of my knowledge, I never met Lisle Reed. You’re wrong again, but volumes of contrary facts don’t seem to slow you. You just duck, weave and blow smoke about the timing of FEO/FEA/DOE.

COH’s user profile contains a poster’s frequency. There’s no mystery or counting. You and Equibrit have posted here 7869 times and average 4.6 posts per day, day after day, year around. Have you no other life? I now better understand why Dennis Foster prefers to deal with Masters and foxhunters with some stature and substance.

Read Steve Kopperud’s interview at http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=267063 It will give you an idea of how and why HSUS is winning this fight. One of the keys is strong leadership and focused dedication. You very rarely see the anti’s taking shots at one another since Wayne Pacelle took over has HSUS CEO. In case you missed the news, sportsmen and animal owners lost big-time last week and the next eight years will be hell, starting with the possible toppling of John Dingell, our highest profile Washington supporter.

I received a very gracious hand-written note from Chairman Dingell after the Horse Slaughter bill vote. He thanked me for my kindness and friendship and suggested we might meet in the woods hunting. My goal this week is to see that if we do meet, he’s still Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

[Bob_Kane]

Blowing smoke

The link Meet Legislative Legend & Lobbyist BOB KANE, SAOVA, my 2006 interview regarding the defeat of HSUS’s PAWS bill and SAOVA is corrected.

To the best of my knowledge, I never met Lisle Reed. You’re wrong again, but volumes of contrary facts don’t seem to slow you. You just duck, weave and blow smoke about the timing of FEO/FEA/DOE. That’s low level insider baseball stuff and has no relevance to this discussion. The general public doesn’t care who worked seven days per week during the Arab Oil embargo and what the sign on the door said, only that I did my job moving fuel.

COH’s user profiles contain a poster’s frequency. There’s no mystery or counting involved. You and Equibrit have posted here 7869 times and average 4.6 posts per day, day after day, year around. Have you no other life? I now better understand why Dennis Foster prefers to deal with Masters and foxhunters with some stature and substance.

Steve Kopperud’s a top-notch solid lobbyist for AG interests. Read his recent interview at http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=267063 It will give you an idea of how and why HSUS is winning this fight. One of the keys is strong leadership and focused dedication. You very rarely see the anti’s taking shots at one another since Wayne Pacelle took over as HSUS CEO. In case you missed the news, sportsmen and animal owners lost big-time last week and the next eight years will be hell, starting with the possible toppling of John Dingell, our highest profile Washington supporter.

I received a very gracious hand-written note from Chairman Dingell after the Horse Slaughter bill vote. He thanked me for my kindness and friendship and suggested we might meet in the woods hunting. My goal this week is to see that if we do meet, he’s still Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

[Equibrit]

I think you’ve out-stayed your welcome …Bob.

[CarrieK]

Bob, I didn’t have an opinion on you or your posts, I also lurk over at FOL and have seen your posts, again with no opinion one way or the other. But really, you’ve stated your concern re: Congressman Dingell, fair enough, but your responses to folk who question you and who disagree are in a manner contrary to the tone of this forum.

[Bob_Kane]

Tenor, decorum and tone

[QUOTE=CarrieK;3646535]
Bob, I didn’t have an opinion on you or your posts, I also lurk over at FOL and have seen your posts, again with no opinion one way or the other. But really, you’ve stated your concern re: Congressman Dingell, fair enough, but your responses to folk who question you and who disagree are in a manner contrary to the tone of this forum.[/QUOTE]

Carrie-
Your observation regarding COH’s usual decorum and tenor is well taken. However, I believe your comment is otherwise misdirected. Please review this thread carefully. I posted it here because I thought the Dingell-Waxman situation was important to U.S. horse owners and sportsmen and woman. Literally immediately thereafter, within nine minutes, an unknown Equibrit did a drive by. Beverley Heffernan followed up, rudely challenging me, calling me a liar and idiotic and saying I posted drivel. Further, she questioned my background and bona-fides. Not much equivocation or decorum there.

At post #7, I finally gave Ms Heffernan a personal retort as well as a SAOVA/Bob Kane lobbying tutorial that many in the US already know. The response from Equibrit and Ms. Hefferman: “Whatever.” Not “We see your point, we’ll make some calls for Mr. Dingell, or thanks, just get lost.”

FOL listgod Matt Simpson is a left-wing Dennis Kucinich supporting wimp, but there some strong, animal rights threat savvy folks on that list. I don’t know what to make of this largely silent group. It may not matter.

[Beverley]

Get it straight, Bob

Disagreeing with someone is not being rude.

I will challenge you or anyone else I believe to be posting inaccurate or misleading information, when I believe it to be damaging the pro-hunting cause. If you don’t like it, tough, I don’t particularly care. Your credibility with me is still zero based on this post and past examples of your work. One person’s opinion. Get Over It. Or continue to fuss and fume and make snide remarks, makes no difference to me, it only reflects poorly on you and SAOVA.

I’ll leave it to reasonable people to form their own opinions on how or whether an interview in a dog magazine makes one a ‘legend.’

[Equibrit]

@Bob Kane;3646729

just get lost."

Need I say more ?

[wateryglen]

whoa! leave it!

Personally I absolutely agree with the other posters. The sky is NOT FALLING!! Describing the next 8 years as hell?!!! Why bless your heart!!!:rolleyes::rolleyes::uhoh::uhoh::uhoh::uhoh::uhoh:
How do you figure getting your message across or trying to mobilize support when you come on here and insult us & our fellow foxhunters AND our organization. Your real message; however valid is totally lost IMHO!
You have to be nice!! Otherwise…buh bye!!!

And please don’t assume we aren’t concern about politics…or that we don’t/can’t mobilize; we are maybe just more polite! Such is the tradition of OUR sport.

[linquest]

Insulting someone who’s not even involved with this thread on a post about decorum? :no:

[flyingchange]

Bob,

I see you are in Madison. Who do you fox hunt with? Thanks

[Bob_Kane]

K Street Quietly Comes to Dingell’s Aid

K Street Quietly Comes to Dingell’s Aid
By Anna Palmer Roll Call Staff
November 13, 2008, 10:18 a.m.
With the gavel for the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee hanging in the balance, Democratic lobbyists are rallying behind current Chairman John Dingell (Mich.), as he tries to fend off a well-publicized power grab for the job by Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.).
While discussions for House leadership races are typically done at the Member level, several former Dingell staffers said that hasn’t stopped them from working the phones to put in a good word for the Capitol Hill denizen.
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.
Still, lobbyists said their activity has been tempered by not wanting to appear too far out in front of Dingell’s Capitol Hill whip team.
There is also concern among lobbyists that Waxman could try to paint Dingell as being too close to downtown.
“For folks on K Street it’s just not wise to get too actively involved,” said the lobbyist.
The House Democratic Caucus is expected to vote in a secret ballot on the chairmanship next week.
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.
Dingell’s Chief of Staff Michael Robbins is primarily running his whip operation. Robbins reached out to Dingell alumni and friends with a late-night e-mail last Thursday, acknowledging that many had offered “support and assistance.” The e-mail missive included talking points and press clips for them to use. Further, Robbins asked K Streeters to “gather intelligence” from Members and staff.
After receiving their marching orders, lobbyists said they have been quietly reaching out to lawmakers and helping staff strategize potential pickups in the chairmanship race to ensure that Dingell would continue to run the committee.
Notwithstanding the call for downtown’s help, Dingell spokeswoman Jodi Seth said her boss’s focus is on Capitol Hill.
“Chairman Dingell has long-standing relationships with lots of people in Washington who have called and offered their help, but Dingell sees this as an election among Members of Congress,” Seth said in an e-mail.
Waxman’s spokeswoman declined to comment about the gavel race.
For many it’s not just about loyalty to Dingell.
Should Waxman be successful in his attempt to oust Dingell, he would wield considerable power as the House gets ready to tee up climate change and health care reform. That, in turn, could force companies into a far more defensive lobbying posture since Waxman is likely to call for much stricter regulations against industry.
Although Waxman’s move to wrest control of the committee from Dingell appeared to catch the Michigan lawmaker by surprise, rumors have been swirling for weeks that Waxman might make a move for the enviable post.
Both Waxman and Dingell have long had financial support from industry as the No. 1 and No. 2 Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Coming from the home state of the Big Three automakers, Dingell has received more than $625,000 over the past two decades from automakers, more money than all other Members of the House have received from the industry since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Waxman has also had generous contributions from industry, including insurance company Aflac, the American Hospital Association, and the American Medical Association, all of which have large stakes in the upcoming health care debate.
Both Members also have leadership political action committees, which can be used to curry favor with fellow Members. Since opening the Wolverine PAC in June, Dingell has spread the wealth to colleagues, contributing about $80,000 to moderate incumbents and challengers, according to CQ MoneyLine.
Waxman has long had a leadership PAC, founding LA PAC in the late 1970s. He has contributed about $238,000 to Democrats this cycle.
While walking softly is the norm downtown in leadership races, the National Mining Association is one industry group openly supporting Dingell’s retention of the chairmanship.
“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.

[Bob_Kane]

Steering Committee Divides Votes Between Dingell (22), Waxman (25)

Steering Committee Divides Votes Between Dingell, Waxman
By Tory Newmyer
Roll Call Staff
November 19, 2008, 1:44 p.m.

The Democratic Steering and Policy Committee voted Wednesday to recommend that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) replace Rep. John Dingell (Mich.) as the Energy and Commerce chairman in the next Congress.

But the vote, 25 for Waxman and 22 for Dingell, means both lawmakers are eligible for the gavel and the fight now goes before the full Democratic Caucus, which meets Thursday morning to decide the outcome.

Dingell currently chairs the Energy panel. Waxman is No. 2 on the committee, and launched a surprise bid to wrest the gavel in the wake of the Nov. 4 elections that enlarged the House Democratic majority.

Both contenders needed to gather at least 14 votes to advance to the full Caucus, which will convene at 9 a.m. Thursday. Neither man enters Thursday’s session with a distinct advantage, a reality underscored by Wednesday’s vote.

Indeed, the Steering Committee’s endorsement does not guarantee Waxman an edge before the full Caucus.

The last time Democrats faced a high-profile fight for a top committee slot, in 1996, Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Texas), the then-ranking member on the Banking and Financial Services Committee, failed to secure the backing of the Steering Committee. But when the contest reached the full Caucus, Gonzalez beat back challenges from the second- and third-ranking Democrats on the panel to retain his position.

Dingell backers tried to put a positive spin on the outcome of Wednesday’s vote, arguing that the Steering Committee does not reflect the diversity of the broader Caucus.

“It was a strong vote and better than a lot of us had expected,” Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) said in a conference call.