Media reaction to Waxman-Dingell?

Just prior to the vote on Joe Lieberman's Homeland Security chairmanship, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza followed with a story that drew considerable notice for this quote:

Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question."

It was a calculated statement, of course, and one that's as likely to have come from "one Senate Democratic aide" who works for Lieberman as anyone else. But what's interesting here was the credence the theory seemed to have among Conventional Wisdom watchers.

And it's plausible enough on its face, though I'd argue that the fact that a bunch of bloggers drove the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee to publicly announce its intention to hold a formal vote isn't exactly something to sneeze at. We fought, we lost. It happens. But our fights never used to culminate in votes of the Senate Democratic Caucus before.

The story made me curious, though, about whether we'd see similar reaction in the traditional media about the results of the other marquee committee leadership contest of the new Congress, the Waxman-Dingell match-up for the chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee. There's been no shortage of coverage of the issue itself. And, of course, everyone covered the results. But where are the stories claiming that the defeat of the conservative wing of the House Democratic Caucus and their Blue Dog ringleaders represents a "foiling" of the right? That the Blue Dogs "can rant and rage, but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes? That their influence is in question?

I did find one such article, in The Hill, under the headline, "Waxman's takeover signals a shift to the left":

Centrists and adherents to the seniority system were left fuming that Dingell was unseated. Some said the political and personal wounds won’t quickly heal, especially as Dingell remains on the Energy and Commerce dais as "chairman emeritus."

"I think it was highly inappropriate. There was no obvious reason to make this change," said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), a Dingell whip and an ally on the measured approach to climate change. Another centrist Dingell supporter called the vote "an outrage."

Even a Republican, fellow Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, criticized Democrats for ousting Dingell. He noted that it came on the same day that a bailout for automakers collapsed in Congress.

[...]

Particularly upset were the conservative Blue Dog Democrats. One member said they were "in orbit — they think it’s a California takeover."

But I'm still looking to see if the national traditional media is going to make the same pronouncement, particularly about the Blue Dogs. All the telltale signs are there: inappropriate; outrage; upset; "in orbit"; fears of a "takeover." The sorts of things that could be expected to unleash a flood of traditional media tut-tutting about blogs and the unwashed masses they represent if it had in fact been the unwashed masses reacting in this way, win or lose. But instead it was a bunch of supposedly staid and dignified dudes in suits. Just as outraged and upset -- and just as surely defeated -- but somehow not subject to description as unhinged or marginalized.

Of course, the biggest difference is that at the end of the day, those guys are in Congress and we're not. But a loss is a loss is a loss. And whether it gets reported or not (though I'd prefer that it did), the fact that the Blue Dogs couldn't scare their colleagues into backing off of an agenda of change has to be counted as a good thing. Here's to many more votes just like it.