Correcting the Record

For your readers who care about accuracy, I wish to set the record straight on a number of factual errors in this posting. I have had a career at General Motors for thirty years, but I do not lobby for the company and have not done so during my 27 year marriage to John Dingell. I made this decision at the outset that this would not be a career path I would pursue. I worked for GM before I met my husband and I have stayed here so no one could ever say I was hired because of who I married.

The rest of the article reflects the cynicism that plagues Washington today and quite frankly reflects what I believe: that some in this town would rather pontificate than get any real work done. I have often commented to my friends that because I am married to a politician, I feel like I am suppose to have no brain and I mostly refrain from talking or commenting on any environmental or energy issue because it can somehow be misconstrued. However, this posting is filled with mistakes, leaves me no choice but to say what I believe before I disappear again into the silent spouse role.

It was unexpected when I was asked to comment on global warming at dinner this week at the Clinton Global Initiative, and I again observed that I am used to not talking about this subject. Nonetheless, I said I thought we are at a crossroads, and that America must be at the forefront of change. The time is now to enact legislation that would begin to address these problems. I also said that I thought there were people who claimed they wanted things to happen, but spent more time causing problems and putting up roadblocks than working toward real solutions. I also said that we must have real action in this Congress and there are people in the room that could navigate the naysayers and make it happen. In addition, I commented while I don't talk about CAFE, it needs to be addressed and acted upon because it has become too easy to focus exclusively on CAFE at the expense of so many other issues that require real and urgent action now and could achieve meaningful progress toward reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gases.

The solutions to these issues are complex and multi-faceted and there are far better minds than mine to figure out how you get there, but let me be very clear on where I am as an American citizen who cares about this country, the world and the future: the time is now to act. To do nothing is unacceptable and yet there are people on both sides who would choose that option. I hope that those who really care will work together to get something done now that begins the path to permanent and real change that will result in a cleaner environment, energy independence and a healthy economy.

And, since I won't allow myself to pontificate on this subject again for a long time, let me also say I deeply resent those that take cheap shots at my husband (and believe me I don't always agree with him on a number of subjects) but his love of the environment and his long history of action and not just words shows his commitment to this issue. He wrote most of the major pieces of original environmental legislation when it was not popular, particularly in his own home town, and was the original author of CAFE legislation. I have learned that my impatience and drive for immediate action sometimes doesn't result in the outcome I would have hoped; but rather it is the person who has been building consensus among multiple stakeholders for a long time who may actually be one of the few people who can actually get something done now.

Comments

[Chorazin]

Debbie Dingell is a GM heiress, of the Fisher line. Her job titles seem to change by the month. Other than lobbying, nobody is sure what she does for a living. Mostly, she sits on the boards of directors for various organizations, and is active in party politics.

She has been observed many times talking to members of Congress about issues currently on the floor. She is frequently seen in the actual lobby of the House, just outside the members' entrance -- the good old fashioned meaning of the word "lobbyist".

According to press reports, Debbie Insley Dingell was certainly a lobbyist at the time she met her husband (who is 26 years older) in her early '20s, when she had not yet graduated from college.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,975177-2,00.html

According to the Village Voice, "Perhaps the best known in D.C. is Debbie Dingell.... She long has represented General Motors in D.C."

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0550,mondo1,70933,6.html

According to The Hill, as "an influential lobbyist in her own right", she has attended committee meetings in place of her boss (who is/was a registered lobbyist), and has been implicated in the Abramoff scandal.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/abramoff-report-reveals-ties-to-gop-democratic-members-2006-10-03.html

According to the New York Times, "While Ms. Dingell advises General Motors on lobbying strategy in her role as executive director of community and government relations, she is not currently a registered lobbyist."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/politics/19spouse.html

Googling quickly finds multiple instances of Ms. Dingell's "correcting" the press about her lobbying status. But most of the folks in the capital recognize what walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

[Debbie Dingell - Huffpost Blogger]

This is the duck "quacking in"...to correct the record as I do when I need to ...and your posting gives evidence to the reason why....mistruths live in the internet world forever...which is why I always correct the misinformation out there on my career....and I do not lobby for GM and have not since I married my husband.

The most important inaccuracy is that I have never been tied to the Abramoff investigation and bend over backwards from all ethical perspectives to be careful. I am well aware it is not only the truth, but perceptions that become reality.

Titles...more bloggers and media have created, given, and used a variety of titles for me which as we discussed live in the internet world forever. I have headed the GM Foundation for years and have risen to various senior positions inside the Public Affairs organization (including business planning)in my 30 year career (which hopefully any well-motivated employee would).

And I know I have to let this go...but I will tell you this I work hard and have for years arrive at work between 5 and 6 am, work seven days a week, rarely take vacations and am proud of the significant contributions to my company, my community and various organizations. People may say many things, but I have not heard the accusation that I don't work hard.

For the rest, while I cannot correct the record on every wrong point....I turned my husband down 13 times before accepting the first date...for a myriad of reasons...and I had already launched my career. We still disagree on a number of subjects but have a love affair that was meant to be...thank God I finally said yes....d2

[Potomacker]

Ms. Dingell. I tried to follow the logic of your essay but I am as baffled other posters. You claim that you are not speaking on behalf of GM even though you might have a tiny of sympathy for their position after working there for 30 years. Longer than your marriage to your husband whom you then claim to defend and not because of your marriage to him do you claim any advantages although it is precisely because that you are married to him that you are here posting an essay on this forum.
I'll grant you the possibility that you are not speaking on behalf of the auto industry or GM. I hate baseless cynicism, too, even though I suspect that most people who say that they hate cynicism don't know clearly what it means.
You sorta talk about CAFE standards as though they aren't the main issue in reducing global warming, which you think is something that must be done immediately. But you proceed to ignore one aspect of CAFE standards that somebody, not you of course, might want people to ignore if they were working as an auto industry lobbyist.
Raising CAFE standards just might have saved the auto industry from itself. Instead of buying domestic, fuel efficient autos, or even an electric car, the ultimate flexfuel vehicle, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSBykAngDpY) Americans are buying more imports and domestically made imports every year.
And yes, I am a cynic when somebody can feign surprise about being asked to speak at the Clinton Global Initiative. Why do you think you got an invitation, Mrs. John Dingell? And why do you think you have an opportunity to post your essay on the Huffington Post about why the rest of us should be less cynical and instead wag our fingers along with you at those who would dare take cheap shots at the good congressman whose biggest donors since 1989 are GM and FMC.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allcontrib.asp?cid=N00001783

[sarikarkus]

The author may be right. The Dust-to-Dust report (do a web search for it) claims that fuel economy is just the most visible factor in the life of a motor vehicle that affects global warming, but it only comprises a fraction of the energy consumed in a vehicle"s lifetime. The report claims that other factors, such as lifetime Repair and maintenance, accident repair, design and development, manufacturing, administrative support, transportation to retail, recylables, and non-recyclables also play a large role in a vehicle"s energy consumption, and consequently, in its contribution to global warming. Furthermore, the data in another report (virtualcenter.org) entitled "Livestock"s Long Shadow" states, with regard to climate change, "The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measures in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher percentage than transport."

[realitytrumpsbull]

Sounds like more global horsecrap to me, maybe you'd care to comment on why General Motors,
a maker of cars and trucks, took a side track
into real estate? What was THAT all about?
I think Toyota deserves to eat your lunch,
frankly...I like the GM line, have owned
several cars by GM companies, but, why is
everything 25-35k? Can't you people put a truck
on the curb that people can afford, like say,
12k for a bare-bones manual-everything 5-speed overdrive 2WD pickup that'll at least do a good
job of pretending to get 20-22MPG loaded? Don't
even get crazy, just make it a 1/2 ton with
that E85 engine, but strip it to the BONE.
Sure, it's going retro, and you don't have a
satellite-guided Teledyne water pik built into
the visor, but that's what it's about, getting
back to basics, practical, inexpensive
easily maintainable transportation. Can
you do that, or is GM just Century 21 in drag,
these days?

[Halsey]

Debbie,

I don't get it...what exactly are you trying to say? I mean..you tried to (I think) tell us that you care about the environment, etc..but took such a circuitious route..I needed a road map.

We don't need CAFE....we can just buy Toyotas...let Detroit dig it's own grave...sorry..harsh, but true..the technology's been around for years...
I'm a democrat..but dont' believe in legislating fuel standards..just tax the hell out of huge vehicles..get RID of the tax credit on "small trucks"..what a boondoggle that was...your local, wealthy trust fund baby gets a tax break for driving a Hummer...fix that one...(or get your husband to)...

You seem like a nice woman...just don't let the "heat" keep you out of the environmental kitchen..okay?

[maddogbitesback]

The war in Iraq is a distraction from the war on the environment. To make the required changes now Americans need to realize that going green saves money and lives. It is ridiculous to have business as usual when in fact large sections of Manhattan will be submerged by the rising oceans.

America should lead the world in environmental issues because it is ethical it should because it actually can create all the technology to make the world cheaper to live in and healthier and wealthier.

To think that America will have spent at least a trillion dollars on a war over oil is madness. That same money would have set America far ahead in the new technologies required to be green. Instead of a lagging and sagging economy there would be one of expansion. The world would be eager to buy the environmental technology invented and developed in America by Americans. Instead the Republicans and Bush in particular, bow to the 19th century fuel - coal and oil. In the mean time Europe is forging ahead with renewables. And forging ahead economically.

To win the war in Iraq and lose the war on the environment is to lose everything.

For those who say - without coal or cutting old growth forest or drilling in the arctic for a pittance of oil is to fail too understand that nobody makes buggies anymore. People are dieing because of backward business practices and the belief that a bigger car means a bigger person. Legislation is required to stop the madness - stop the war in Iraq and spend money on environmental things. Interestingly states and even cities and towns are taking steps on their own so there is a desire. But who can match the money of the coal lobby or the oil lobby.