Not that Ezra is the worst perpetrator of this, but I am really sick of seeing Dingell painted as a boogeyman all over the liberal world. I'm a former constituent, and the man is a solid solid Democrat, including on many environmental issues. He nearly lost his seat for supporting the Civil Rights Act, he supports single payer health care, and he authored the Clean Water Act - the first major environmental legislation. And if I had to pick a single word to describe him it would be "pragmatic." Yes, he cares about the future of the automakers -- I would be angry if he didn't given how many of his constituents they employ. But you can believe that he knows which way the wind is blowing now. I strongly believe he would have done the right thing. I see it as such an insult to him and his constituents that Lieberman can keep his committee after practically calling Obama a terrorist and this solid, hard-working, decent, team-player Democrat gets the shaft.

...I think it's illuminating to note that the stocks of the Big Three automakers tumbled following John Dingell's ejection from the Energy and Commerce chairmanship.

Yep. Stocks look to the future and Dikngell's loss makes their prospects look worse.

You might note that the stock market in general has done nothing but nosedive since it learned Obama would be president soon.
His promise to raise income tax, payroll taxes and capital gains tax shook the market. Many are simply getting out now. Their reasoning is why should they stay and give half of it away when Obama keeps his promise?

El Viajero,

The market was plummeting well before Obama became President-elect, and the actual economic news has gotten worse, which is most likely the driver of the market decline. Tying it to Obama's election is credibility straining at best, but good luck with that.

Speaking of credibility straining market reading, does Ezra think that the likely defeat of the bailout announced today might have more to do with the fall of the Big Three's stocks than Waxman taking over? Just maybe?

Ezra -- actually, they're (barely) up for the day. Ford and GM stocks were down in the morning, but both staged a fierce rally between noon and 1 pm.

The committee vote was seriously overshadowed by the rumor and then the debunking of a deal on the bailout. Then later in the day, everything tanked.

You should really stick with your practice of frowning on this kind of commentary :-)

Tying it to Obama's election is credibility straining at best....

Yeah, markets don't care who's president or how high corporate taxes will go.

What *was* I thinking??

Not to repeat Brian Doyle's point but always always always be skeptical of what mainstream journalists report about the market and what is moving it. Surowiecki has been doing a decent job of documenting this. And yea, the much bigger story today is that they are notably closer to bankruptcy, and not as a result of some committee chairmanship but because they won't get our tax dollars to subsidize their heroic entrepreneurship.

Yeah... um, no: wrong wrong and wrong: the big three are suffering because they will likely go bankrupt, and the furor in the last day or so is over the private jets the CEOs took to the hearings, not Dingell. No one, except Gore-ish environmental lefties, really cares about Waxman over Dingell. And that's another reason to suspect, as I do, that we're dismissing a bailout for all the wrong reasons.

ElV, the market only reacts to new information. Prospects of a Democratic victory have been more or less certain for many months. The new information that has been percolating into the market since July of '07 has been the depth of the bond crisis and the depth of the coming recession.

You cannot possibly be so stupid as to think that the markets are being driven by a reaction to the predicted-well-in-advance Obama victory. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're just saying that because (a) you were specifically instructed to say things by the bevy of right-wing radio hacks and bloggers you listen to/read, and (b) because you think it will piss off liberals and make them defensive. (a) is a symptom of the moral stupidity that has befallen the Republican voters, of late, and (b) is a mistaken belief-- all be do in response to your ravings is realize that you are a complete and utter idiot.

Gimme a break from pundits who fake doing their homework. Ford & GM have been sitting around 10% of their year ago price for a couple of weeks now. So Ezra is trying to tell us that what happened over the past year is the result of a change in the Senate leadership today?

Besides, their stocks did not plummet but are up slightly for the day

El Viajero wrote, Yeah, markets don't care who's president or how high corporate taxes will go.

What *was* I thinking??

I am no fan of trying to tie particular events to changes in the stock market. A correlation does not a causation make. It is cute to see people rationalize the stock market as if it were a person, though.

You seem interested in correlations however, so how about this?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=244728

Democrats are way better for the stock market. It isn't even close. Maybe the data has some sort of liberal bias?

Should have timed his departure to coincide with an industry bailout.

The markets being perfect and everything why isn't there an El V mutual fund that buys stock according to tax exposure? This is obviously a key indicator of financial success. For some reason the invisible hand has never picked up this dog turd!

mi expat -- amen. Dingell has been a liberal hero for decades, probably the single strongest force for expansions of public health insurance programs for, oh, 20 years -- yes, more effective than Ted Kennedy -- and he's treated by liberal bloggers as if he's Joe Lieberman. It's insulting and flat ignorant.

Beat him up for emissions policy if you must, but recognize that you're dealing with a genuine liberal hero here.

First, on the auto stocks, they opened down yesterday and at one point rallied when there was a rumor that a deal had been reached on a bailout. Then Pelosi threw cold water on that and they went down again. But actually if you look at a chart of their price action over the day, they both Ford and GM traded up yesterday. Sorry, but there is no way you can look at intraday charts and come to the conclusion that they ouster of Dingell hurt them.
Second, on the idea that the possibility of Obama raising corporate taxes is the cause of the current severe market decline, this is ludicrous. And to those who propose it I would ask, where have you been the last year? What is driving the sale of stock is the fear of insolvency--both for individual companies and the system as a whole. Lehman did not go bankrupt because of fear that democratics would change the tax structure. Ford did not trade near a buck yesterday morning for fear that its profits (profits???) would be overly taxed. Come down to earth, fellows.

Also, Ira, just to bring another aspect of reality to this discussion, the "stocks of the big three" did NOT "trade down yesterday." Chrylser was sold by Daimler Benz to a private partnerships and does not trade. Only Ford and GM still are publically traded companies.

When did Ezra get a degree from the Larry Kudlow School of Market Analysis?