At Open Left, Paul Rosenberg is discussing the idea of strong, progressive primary challenges to the crappy Dems who voted for the Stupak or who voted against the health care reform bill. Utah’s Jim Matheson is one such craptacular Democrat. From Democracy for Utah, we get this provocative passage:

Matheson’s amendments were virtual copies of elements of the Senate Healthcare reform bill, and as such were a transparent maneuver to look like he was actually doing something besides following the interests of IHC, who has donated handsomely to the campaign to get their boy Jim re-elected next year. To hear what real constituents think, listen to the podcast of KCPW’s Politics Up Close for Friday Nov. 6. Judi Hilman, executive director of the Utah Health Policy Project, nailed the destructiveness of Matheson’s tactics as anti-Progressive.
Anyone want to join me in a Dump Matheson movement?

Emphasis added.

Here’s my thing:

Matheson has terrible policy judgment. His votes have been consistently and disastrously bad – he voted for the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and against Health Care. He was one of the key players in watering down the stimulus package. He claims to be a fiscal conservative but somehow has managed to support almost every bad fiscal policy he has come across – favoring exactly the kind of budget busting policies that have saddled the US with generations of debt in 8 short years. Matheon’s version of “fiscal conservatism” is so blatantly wrong-headed it’s difficult to take him seriously. His vote on the Stupak Amendment will hurt Utah women. His vote against health care reform will hurt poor and rural Utahns.

The Democratic party doesn’t always get it right, but at the core the Democratic party is about good policy (consider that the Clinton administration effectively ran the government). Jim Matheson’s bad policy judgment is what makes him a bad Democrat. The voters in Utah’s 2nd deserve a good Democrat – someone who believes in fiscal responsibility, in effective government, in responsive and responsible government.

Matheson is an effective fundraiser and has a sizable campaign warchest. If I had to guess, a primary challenger would bring out Matheson’s worst political instincts – I’d guess he would use the primary as an opportunity to bash progressives and other Democrats.

Utah’s 2nd is a tough district for a Democrat. It’s a Republican leaning district. Matheson has survived by milking every advantage he can from his incumbency, including the ability to rake in serious corporate donations.

The biggest risk of challenging Matheson is obvious; the challenger beats him in the primary and loses in the general – handing Matheson’s seat to the Republicans. A secondary risk is the Lieberman scenario – Matheson loses the primary and runs as an independent and wins, which frees him from the necessity of even his current minimal level of party loyalty. He becomes another Lieberman – working with Dems just enough to keep committee assignments but stabbing the party in the back on a regular basis just because he can.

That said, I’m not convinced a primary challenge to Matheson is actually a terrible idea. A populist Democratic challenger could run a non-ideological campaign based on opposition to corporate power and its undue influence in government. The challenger would face some serious obstacles – including a huge fundraising disadvantage but even if we could pull Matheson closer to the political center from his current center right stance, it would be a success.