Next week, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) will become the longest-serving House member in history, but that doesn't mean his home state won't continue to lose power in Congress.
Dingell and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) are the two longest-serving House members in the chamber today but their powers as committee chairmen aren't likely to last for more than a few terms with each man in his eighties. In addition, Michigan is poised to lose a House seat after the 2010 census. This coming triple whammy for the Wolverine State in the House will greatly diminish its power.
Michigan may not even have to wait until next year to see its
power slip in the House, though. Last month Dingell was voted down as
chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where he helped
protect Detroit automakers. In 2007, an effort led by Nancy Pelosi to
create a select committee on global warming was portrayed by Dingell as
an infringement on his energy and commerce committee's
responsibilities.
Conyers could face heat from Congress and
the press over ethics issues now that his wife, Detroit City
Councilwoman Monica Conyers, is under federal investigation for
allegedly taking bribes from a company in exchange for a vote to give
them a city contract to haul sewage sludge. Rep. Conyers has not been
implicated in this investigation, but he did accept responsibility for
possibly violating ethics rules by asking staffers to work on his
wife's campaign in 2007.
Michigan will probably not see its
Senate influence diminish soon, even though Sen. Carl Levin (D) will be
75 this year and 81 when he'll decide to run for a seventh term in
2016. It wouldn't be unusual for another octogenarian to be in the
Senate, but nor would retirement. Debbie Stabenow, 59, skated to
victory for her second term in 2006.
Michigan's loss of clout
would be beneficial to the state's Republican Party, which would like
to see an open-seat race in Dingell's suburban Detroit district and a
potentially the chance to capture one senate seat that it hasn't held
since 2000.
"Michigan's loss of clout would be beneficial to the state's Republican Party, which would like to see an open-seat race in Dingell's suburban Detroit district"
I find this statement very curious, since the Michigan Republicans redistricted the seat after the last census to squeeze as many Democrats as possible into the district and force a primary between Dingell and then-Rep. Lynn Rivers. I can't imagine they have any interest in the district. Having recently lost two incumbents in MI, I would imagine they would focus on winning back those seats. What is the basis for the remarks?