Bounce an entrenched incumbent?

How does Jan Schakowsky, who has occupied her seat in the U.S. Congress since 1999, feel about bouncing entrenched incumbents?

Judging from an endorsement she made in 2007, she doesn't have a problem with it at all.

Three years ago, Ald. Bernard M. Stone (50th) was embroiled in a very close, hotly contested race to keep his City Council seat that he had held since 1973. Stone was 80 at the time, and his challenger, Naisy Dolar, was in her mid-30's. In the final two weeks of the runoff election race, Schakowsky threw her support and political capital behind the young challenger. Unfortunately for Dolar, it was too late, and she lost by six points in a race that had accusations of fraud on Stone's part. At his victory party, a triumphant Stone crowed, "Jan Schakowsky, you will never be boss of this ward!"

So Schakowsky thought Stone had been in office long enough. After 34 years (now 37), I would certainly concur. Is 12 years in the U.S. House long enough? Schakowsky turns 66 on May 26. She could retire and spend time with her grandchildren, but she soldiers on. When is long enough? For her predecessor, Rep. Sidney R. Yates, it was 50 years. I certainly hope we won't need to wait that long for Jan to head home. This election year features Jan's first serious opposition to her re-election, which is usually a formality for her. Joel Pollack is challenging her seat. At 66, is she up to the challenge? We'll see.

Can Joel send Jan packing?

It's tough, as a constituent, being represented by an entrenched incumbent in Congress. The incumbent typically builds up a huge war chest from supporters and lobbying groups who depend on his or her votes to keep them in business. In Illinois' 9th District, two of our three representatives on Capitol Hill have been there way too long: U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.), first elected in 1996, re-elected in 2008 to his third term; and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D.-Ill.), first elected in 1998, running for re-election to her seventh term.

Seven terms, Jan? Really?

Trying to bounce an entrenched incumbent from her congressional seat is next to impossible. After a census, the district is gerrymandered to favor her. When Illinois reduced the size of the 9th District following the 2000 census, Rep. Schakowsky was able to keep her core support of lakefront liberals by keeping Lake Shore Drive (down to Diversey) in her district. Those voters really should be in the 5th, like their neighbors to the west. The incumbent enjoys widespread name recognition of everyone who voted in the last decade. In the 9th, it gets worse: since 1948, the district has had just two different representatives in Congress*--the sainted Sidney Yates, and now Jan Schakowsky. Thousands of liberals have pulled the same lever their entire lives, voting for just two different liberal Democrats like themselves.

People who would like a chance at the seat usually don't bother. Jan typically runs unchallenged or receives token opposition, like from that guy in 2006 who refused to accept campaign contributions. (I'm tempted to use the word "idiot" to describe him. He wasn't stupid, but obviously had no interest in people taking him seriously.)

This year is different. This year Jan will be up against Joel Pollack, a young man (Niles North '95) who is running to win. In order to send Jan into happy retirement--to spend more time with her grandchildren--Joel needs to convince a healthy number of Jan's liberal Democratic faithful to stay home or vote Republican for the first time ever.

How is Joel going to manage a miracle on that scale? I don't know. No one else ever has. It's like trying to beat a computer at tic-tac-toe, a game a computer can easily master. (Whether Big Blue completely mastered chess is debatable.) I can think of a couple of issues that Jan should address head-on and has not needed to or been asked to:

1. The finance-related felonies (bank fraud and tax evasion) for which Jan's husband, Robert Creamer, went to prison. Is it really possible Rep. Schakowsky had no knowledge of his crimes? If not, what did she know and when did she know it?

2. How has the 9th District improved since Jan was sworn in as its congresswoman 11 years ago? What has she done to develop and bring jobs to the district? I'm no fan of congressional earmarking, but in this race she is going to boast of her experience and seniority. Is her seniority really worth anything? And how is her experience helping her constituents?

3. Is there a connection between Jan and ACORN, the disgraced left-wing community group that recently had its federal funding yanked in the wake of an embarrassing scandal?

4. Is the health care plan Rep. Schakowsky so strongly supports going to hurt wealthy and not-so-wealthy seniors?

If Joel can make seniors in the district nervous about #4 ("Keep government hands off my Medicare!"), he can seriously cut into Jan's base. Can Jan fight off a serious candidate for the first time in her congressional career? Or can Massachusetts happen here? She will try to scare her base, saying Joel will "try to take away your Social Security and Medicare." Will she get away with it?

*in 1960, Yates ran for Senate and lost. The district had another congressman for one term. Yates ran for his seat in 1962 and won it back.

District 9 (spoilers)

District 9
Tri-Star (Sony)
Opened Aug. 9
1:53

District 9 is notable for being shot almost entirely on location in Johannesburg, a first for a major motion picture release. My South African friends were surprised and impressed, and one pointed out to me how the Republic was a pariah among the nations for decades due to its apartheid system. All the actors were South African--either Afrikaners or black South Africans. Sharlto Copley stars as Wikus ven der Merwe, a friendly, low-key employee of a large, private company, MNU (Multi-National United) that operates the District 9 slum. Wikus reminded me of William H. Macy's character in Fargo because both have powerful, wealthy fathers-in-law who see their sons-in-law as weak. Wikus' physical transformation reminded me of Jeff Goldblum in The Fly.

The eviction procedure that set the plot in motion was a military-style operation, and that's why I found Wikus' poor preparation so troubling. He should have been wearing full body armor and should have left alien contact to the soldiers who accompanied him. The aliens have the strength to project a human 20 feet in the air, and they're just wearing bulletproof vests? Come on. Instead, walking around unprotected and inadvertently spraying the fluid canister is what got him into trouble. He pointed out he didn't know what the canister was except that it was alien; he should have bagged it and tagged it without trying to operate it.

Also, the door-to-door notice could have been accomplished with bilingual leaflets dropped from the air, but I suppose that is beside the point.

The movie didn't make Nigerians look very good, did it? Prostitutes and slum profiteers.

Did the movie suggest that the aliens' planet was dying when they arrived? I missed that part. A slave ship's arrival over Los Angeles in 1988's Alien Nation set the scene for the humanoid aliens in that film living among us. It was unclear whether the District 9 residents would have been permitted to leave District 9 to go home if given the chance.

I'm glad I did not see the trailer until after I saw the film because it really gave away a lot.

District 9 opens Aug. 14

Non-humans create an overcrowding problem on the blue planet a few years from now. www.d-9.com