"This time, Waxman's giving campaign his all" is the title of a Politico.com article about a threat to the incumbency of Henry Waxman (D-CA). The back story is that Waxman is the Ranking Member (Senior Democrat) on the "powerful" Energy and Commerce Committee. He was elected to Congress in 1974 (that's 38 years ago) and has "never received less than 61 percent of the vote" in his subsequent elections. Clearly Waxman is a firmly entrenched incumbent that has been untouchable for the past 38 years - that is 19 election cycles. However, this year is different.
As a result of the 2010 Census, Waxman's district has been redrawn (CA lost seats from its 50+ seat House delegation.) The take away from this article is not the fact that Waxman actually has to run a campaign this election cycle, but rather how entrenched incumbents act as if their seats belong to them so they can fulfill their own self-serving interests.
Waxman is quoted as saying, "Quite frankly, I haven't had to run a serious campaign in quite a long time." He goes on to say, "In past elections, I spent next to nothing," What did he do with the campaign cash he raised? "Through the years, Waxman has used his deep well of campaign cash almost exclusively to aid fellow Democrats." Why does he help fellow Democrats? He wants to resume his role as Chairman of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. The chairman is the most powerful person on the committee: the Ranking Member plays second fiddle. Waxman knows that his ability to be Chairman is tied directly to his party's winning the majority of seats in the House. Consequently, he wants to support his fellow Democrats.
What were the results of the re-districting? It:
"created a quandary for Waxman who must run for a seat in a district that is nearly 50 percent new to him. His Westside Los Angeles seat was reshaped to include a swath of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, a moderate-to-conservative area where Waxman's brand of bare-knuckled liberal politics isn't in fashion." The botton line: he didn't have to pay any real attention to his constituents until now. He was free to pursue his self-serving interests without any real accountability or consequences.
Perhaps most telling was Waxman's comment about the re-districting, "There was no regard for incumbents." Clearly he feels a sense of entitlement because of his incumbency and that he should have been put in a "safe" district where he could continue his long career in "public service" with no opposition.
Why do entrenched incumbents act the way they do? Look in the mirror. Remember, Waxman "never received less than 61 percent of the vote."
Isenstadt, Alex. "This time, Waxman's giving campaigning his all." July 18,2012. Political.com
The article can be found at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78697.html
