Archive for category JIm Matheson
Matheson Ducks My Question
Posted by Larry Bergan in Civil liberties Infringement, Corruption, Democracy, Iraq, JIm Matheson, The Constitution, This Blog, congress on June 20, 2010
Did you know Jim Matheson used to hold actual town meetings. I have proof because I recorded one of them on September 1st 2005. It was a pretty good turn out too; I estimate between 150 to 200 people showed up. In retrospect, I think the recording of my question to Matheson is revealing. The recording is not of great quality, but you can hear what was said here:matheson and me.
I hated to even post this because I know congresspeople have to deal with things I could never imagine in relation to the harm, political or otherwise, which could be thrown at somebody who gave the wrong answer to a hot question like this one.
To exclaim that illegal wiretapping or invasion of other countries was planned before 911 is simply something that is not talked about. Period; exclamation point!
I just have a couple of points here.
An inaudible portion of the audio was after I congratulated congressman Matheson for voting against what became known as the “Patriot Act II.” He got more applause for that then anything in the first 30 minutes of the meeting and jokingly said something like: “OK, good day! We’re done here, we’re going home now!” Here’s what makes me angry about this. This was an open meeting in “red state” Utah where Matheson always says he has to vote with his constituents. I’ve always believed that Utahn’s of any stripe never liked the “Patriot Act” and this is the best proof of that I can offer, but here’s the kicker: although Matheson voted against THAT particular bill, shortly after that meeting he voted FOR another bill which included some of the worst provisions of the first one AND eventually voted for the terribly unconstitutional bill called “The Military Commissions Act of 2006.”
Concerning my question which Matheson didn’t and couldn’t answer, he did actually bring up a very good point about the phony “weapons of mass destruction” ploy which got us into the war. What makes me angry about that answer was Matheson’s saying the democrats don’t have any power in congress and gave that as the reason why nothing could be done about it.
Which party has been in power for years now Mr. Matheson? When is the “party of the people” going to let up on pushing the little guy around and get tough on the REAL crimes happening in the “greatest democracy on the face of the earth.”
I say it’s time for a change!
Matheson’s Bad Strategy
Posted by Glenden Brown in Health Care, Human Rights, JIm Matheson on March 10, 2010
I’m sure Jim Matheson figured he could oppose health care reform and immunize himself against Republican attacks and thereby save his seat. In that, he’s made a fundamental miscalculation.
As we’ve seen over the last year, the Republican party – individually and corporately – have no compunctions concerning lying about health care reform. Matheson is going to have to defend the bill whether it passes or not; if it passes, as seems likely, his defense of “I didn’t vote for it” isn’t going to carry much weight with Utah voters. The efforts of Matheson and other Blue Dogs in the House and conservadems in the Senate were largely responsible for the publicly awful process and long delays. All of which has created the impression of a party in chaos struggling to govern; the delay has also guaranteed that people won’t see many of the positive effects of health care reform anytime soon.
The Blue Dogs wanted Republican cover for their votes – to protect themselves on the right. The Blue Dog strategy has generally been to focus their concern to the right – afraid the Republicans will beat them by being more conservative; the Republican-lite strategy is ultimately flawed because it’s difficult to imagine a Democrat actually moving far enough to the right to actually win right wing votes (even the most conservative Dems are to the left of the most liberal Republicans). It sounds like a good strategy but it’s actually flawed. The actual reform proposals that passed are very modest and moderate – close in fact to what Republicans proposed in 1993. Consider the really liberal idea – a national single payer plan – was never debated. Blue Dogs, no doubt, were happy at the time. But they missed a prime opportunity to actually be smart.
Look at it this way: Single payer wasn’t going to happen in 2009 or 2010. Blue Dogs should have insisted single payer be debated; it would have kept the base motivated, and the base would have been able to accept losing on single payer since almost everybody involved knew it was not going to pass this time around. While the single payer debate was going on up front on TV, behind the scenes the Democratic caucus would have been working out details of a bill that Blue Dogs could vote for (and which could have implemented all the Republican proposals they wanted and given everyone the bipartisan points they wanted). The single payer debate would have been show – it would also have been focus of right wing rage. Let’s be honest, from day one, the right was going to pitch and unholy shit-fit and laungh an equally unholy shit storm no matter was proposed. By giving single payer on which to focus their rage, the Blue Dogs would have moved the debate to the left.
Blue Dogs could have scored easy points by voting against single payer. The dynamic would have shifted from “health care reform or not” to “single payer or reform”. Matheson and the other Blue Dogs could have campaigned on voting against single payer while championing a bill that “saved private insurance.” After watching the right work itself into a predictable frothing at the mouth frenzy over single payer, a more modest and moderate proposal would been an easy sell to the public as the sensible compromise. Imagine the ease with which Blue Dogs could have said, “I had to fight to preserve private insurance that is working for you. What we’ve implemented are sensible proposals to make the system better and stronger without turning it over to a government payer plan.”
Matheson, like many Blue Dogs, has fought hard to water down the health care reform proposals but he’s still going to get lambasted for whatever passes. Saying, “I voted against it” will make him sound foolish. And he hasn’t left himself any space to defend his stance – he’s alienated Democratic activists, pissed off the right, and will appear ineffective to everyone else. He got himself into this mess.
New, Easy-to-Remember Gun Rules for National Parks
Posted by Richard Warnick in Gun Control, JIm Matheson, National Parks, National Politics, This Blog on February 15, 2010
Via the Salt Lake Tribune: On Feb. 22, the long-standing ban on guns in national parks and wildlife refuges will end, thanks to an amendment the Gun Lobby attached last year to a credit-card reform bill. The carrying of firearms in parks and refuges will be subject to a patchwork of state laws.
The Gun Lobby won a victory from a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Democratic president that they couldn’t achieve under a Republican Congress and president. Rep. Jim Matheson voted for the bill.
Bill Wade of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees called the reversal “a politically driven effort to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”
The patchwork of new rules will be far more difficult to enforce than the old rule. Which is ironic, because in debates here on One Utah the advocates of guns-everywhere-all-the-time complained that the old rule was too hard for them to understand and comply with.
Old rule:
- Gun owners entering national parks must unload, take apart, or case their firearms in a way “that will prevent their ready use.”
New rules:
- You can bring a loaded firearm into a national park, except where prohibited by state law. Bows, swords, pellet guns and BB guns are still banned. Automatic weapons are banned.
- A permit is required to carry concealed weapons. Some permits are recognized in multiple states, but many are not. It is the gun owner’s responsibility to know which laws apply.
- Shooting is still against the law in national parks, except hunting with a special permit. Target practice is banned.
- Guns cannot be carried into federal facilities that are part of the National Park System, for example the White House, visitor centers, concessions such as park lodges and restaurants, and administration buildings.
- Guns are prohibited on shuttle buses, ferries or boats within parks, depending on the state.
- Visitors to Death Valley National Park can tote a gun in the Nevada portion of the park, but not on the California side.
- In Yellowstone, armed visitors have to determine whether they are in Wyoming, Montana or Idaho to stay within the law.
- It is illegal in most states to carry a gun while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
- Possession of a firearm by persons under age 18 is illegal in most states. In Utah, you must be 21 to obtain a concealed weapon permit.
Yep, the new rules will be much simpler and easier to understand, as the gun rights people promised!
To sum up, you can carry a loaded firearm (or a concealed weapon with a permit valid for the state you are in) in a national park unless state law says you can’t, and you’re over 18, sober, not on a shuttle bus or a boat, and outside any federal facility. But no shooting, please!
Previous One Utah posts:
The Gun Lobby vs. America (June 17, 2009)
The Gun Lobby Has A Death Grip on Congress ( May 20, 2009)
Rally at Rep. Matheson’s Office Friday
Posted by Richard Warnick in Activist groups, Health Care, JIm Matheson, Liberal, National Politics, Utah Politics on November 12, 2009
Not an exact likeness of Rep. Jim Matheson
It’s time to let Rep. Jim Matheson know what we think of his votes for the poison-pill Stupak Amendment and against the House health insurance reform bill, the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act. We are paying his South Salt Lake district office a visit on Friday, November 13, at 4:30 pm. See the MoveOn.org website for details.
From MoveOn.org:
The House bill isn’t flawless. It includes a compromise version of the public option and an ugly anti-choice amendment. But it’s a huge step forward: it would expand coverage to 96% of Americans, offer more choice through a national public option, and help end Big Insurance’s stranglehold on our health care system.
And the only way we’ll get anything like it through the Senate is if we all come out right now and demand it.
Less than a month ago, conservatives and Big Insurance were gloating that health care reform with a public option was dead. But millions of us showed up and spoke out, and we proved them wrong.
Congressman Matheson voted with the Republicans, in committee and on the House floor, to kill reform. That is not acceptable. What would be a short, pithy message that can fit on a small protest sign?
UPDATE: The rally was well worth going to, KSL was there, but Matheson’s staff closed the office early and fled (see continuation).
UPDATE: The Salt Lake Tribune has a very good article about the rally.
Richard Lafon, a regional coordinator with the liberal MoveOn.org, said the event was one of 133 taking place across the nation.
“As you all know, the public option has been declared dead so many tmes,” Lafon said. “But here we are again and the public option is still alive.”
When the final legislation does come up, Lafon said he hopes Matheson reconsiders and votes for “real health care reform.”
Should Matheson face a primary challenge?
Posted by Glenden Brown in Activist groups, Democracy, JIm Matheson, Liberal, Party Politics, This Blog on November 8, 2009
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.
Jim Matheson Betrays Utah’s Women
Posted by Glenden Brown in Bigotry, Health Care, JIm Matheson on November 8, 2009
Why exactly did voters in my district vote for a Democrat if we keep getting votes that would make a Republican proud?
Oh yeah! Jim Matheson is a really crappy Democrat.
Yesterday, Matheson added his support to the Stupak Amendment. Let’s go to Ezra Klein to explain what that means.
First, what does the amendment do:
The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.
Sounds innocuous right? Wrong. It’s a giant “screw you” to you women who aren’t rich.
That means most will be ineligible for abortion coverage. The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate “abortion plans” is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.
And Jim Matheson thinks this is a good idea.
Rep. Matheson Phoning It In Tomorrow
Posted by Richard Warnick in Democracy, Democrats, Health Care, JIm Matheson, National Politics, This Blog, Utah Politics on September 15, 2009
UPDATE: This was Congressman Matheson’s 17th telephone town hall of 2009. He started out with a brief statement that health care “is an exceptionally complicated issue with a lot of moving parts,” and saying he’s worried that costs are growing faster than inflation. His other big concern right now is the possibility that Governor Herbert and the legislature might approve the importation of foreign nuclear waste into Utah.
I did my due diligence as a constituent, but of course the calls were screened and I was not given the opportunity to ask my question (see below). Rep. Matheson did take 13 questions: nine about health care reform, and one each on energy policy, nuclear waste, the American Recovery and Reconstruction Act (aka stimulus), and the National Debt.
Most of the callers were big fans of Matheson and said so up front. Then they tossed nerf-ball questions such as: “Why is health care being pushed through when polls show the majority of people are against it?” That’s not what the polls say, but Matheson proudly said he voted against H.R. 3200 in committee in the hope of stalling reform, and that he supports the co-op plan of Senator Max Baucus. Someone else came out in favor of denying health insurance for pre-existing conditions because of the free-rider problem of people trying to get covered after they need help.
The last question was polite but pointed, and came from a lady who said she had ended up paying over $100,000 to have an appendix removed. Why not support a public option? Matheson replied that the public option “is clearly part of the debate,” but he’s afraid of a “one-size-fits-all national plan” when the needs of each state are different.
My screened-out question, which I gave to moderator Alyson Heyrend ahead of time:
“As you know, the right of habeas corpus is guaranteed by the Constitution. Congress suspended habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act. Do you think we can restore habeas corpus?”
I’m guessing the answer is no, habeas corpus is gone forever along with the Fourth Amendment and whatever pieces of the Constitution they decide to shred next. But I wish Matheson could muster the courage to say it, even on the phone.
We Need to Make Jim Matheson Do the Right Thing
Posted by Glenden Brown in Health Care, JIm Matheson, This Blog on August 7, 2009
I’m openly and frankly a critic of Jim Matheson. It’s fair to say I want him to be FDR when he’s well . . . Jim Matheson. Matheson styles himself a Blue Dog Democrat. The Blue Dogs claim to favor fiscal responsibility:
The Coalition has been particularly active on fiscal issues, relentlessly pursuing a balanced budget and then protecting that achievement from politically popular “raids” on the budget. Past Coalition budgets have won the endorsement of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition and multiple newspaper and magazine editorials. As one column pointed out, the Blue Dogs have proven that “common sense, conservative economics and compassion aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.”
The Blue Dogs have had no real world effect on the US budget. In the Bush year’s, they voted for tax cuts but not budget cuts. In 2009, they’ve largely allied themselves with Republicans to weaken the stimulus and water down health care reform in the name of “fiscal conservatism.” Blue Dog fiscal conservatism is remarkable for its inconsistent application. At the same time, the Blue Dogs walk a fine line. They represent conservative districts. If they dare mention tax increases as part of a sane budget process, they are likely to be crucified by voters. Most of them, however, also have a core of dedicated and loyal Dems in their districts who volunteer on their campaigns, who advocate locally for progressive policies.
The Blue Dogs, though, seem afflicted with a frustrating form of political cowardice. They have a unique position from which to advocate for good government policies and most of them have failed to do so. Jason at Side Track gets it right:
With health care, Matheson had a choice. He could run from it with a “no,” or he could spend time, money and energy in a fight to educate and sway the opinion of his constituents, in the long run benefiting not only the reform debate, but (assuming the reform plan is as popular a year or two from now as it’s potential implies… especially for rural residents in Matheson’s own district) but also boosting the image of the Utah State Democratic Party and future candidates. Instead, Matheson chose to not only cast a quiet “no” vote, which would have given him all the cover he needed, but in addition appear on Fox News — twice! — perpetuating myths and fallacies straight out of Frank Luntz’s talking point playbook for the wingnuts. It was not a necessity for him to do so. Opposing the plan is one thing. Feeding the flames of Cavuto’s Wingnuttia is another matter entirely, and that is exactly what Matheson chose to do.
Matheson’s actions are those of a politician who has apparently decided to not be a leader. There’s a story about Paul Wellstone. He voted for some measure in Congress he knew was not popular in his state. He knew the voters of Minnesota would be upset with him for his vote. Rather than shy away from the controversy, Wellstone faced it honestly; he went back to Minnesota and he stood before his constituents and explained why he voted as he did, and how he believed his vote was good for America and good for Minnesota. Wellstone demonstrated an important value: If you stand on your principles and your honestly engage your constituents, if you take the time and effort to educate people and sway them, you can make a difference. Matheson has failed Utah with his opposition to health care reform; his efforts to weaken the public option have hurt Utahns.
Isak Dinesen once commented that when you see a flock of geese in the sky, it’s easy to think the bird at the head is leading, but what if in fact it is being chase by all the others. Those of us who are tired of Matheson’s endlessly dull milquetoast persona, need to chase him across the sky. If we must become a flock of angry Utah Geese, so be it. He ran for office – if he doesn’t want to lead, he needs to get out. If he wants to lead, he needs to start doing it. And he’s not going to lead unless we make him.
Call the Congressman and tell him you want real reform and you want a robust public option to create real competition in the health insurance industry.
Toll-Free Number 1 (877) 677-9743
Matheson Betrays His Constituents but Protects Insurance Companies; We have to change his mind!
Posted by Glenden Brown in 2008 Election, Elections, Health Care, JIm Matheson on August 4, 2009
Jim Matheson is rapidly becoming one of the least effective members of Congress. A dedicated turncoat Blue Dog Democrat, Matheson – like most Blue Dogs – is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America.
From Open Secrets, for his 2008 campaign the top contributors were all PACS:
National Venture Capital Assn $$12,500
Pfizer Inc $10,252
American Academy of Ophthalmology $10,000
American Assn of Orthopaedic Surgeons $10,000
American Bankers Assn $10,000
His top contributors by industry?
Health Professionals
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
Oil & Gas
Securities & Investment
Public Sector Unions
To give you an idea: Health Professionals contributed $183,000 to Matheson and the Pharmaceutical/Health Products industry contributed $117,000 – for a combined $300,000 from the health care industry (HMOs and Hospitals contributed another $51,000 – making the health care industry by far the largest contributed to Matheson’s re-election). By contrast, the Public Sector Unions contributed just under $58,000. The Oil and Gas and Securities & Investment PACS contributed $183,000 combined. Of the nearly $1.8 Matheson raised, PACS contributed $1.4 Million.
Matheson’s opposition to a vibrant, public option or a single payer reform is firmly rooted in the golden rule – he has the gold makes the rules and Matheson is not about to bite the hand the funds his re-election campaigns.
If you believe in real reform, make your voice heard, contact Matheson’s office and let them know. Be polite, direct and respectful. Tell them you are a constituent (if you are not a constituent of Matheson’s, call your own Representative! Here’s a site to find their contact info.)
Tell whoever answers the phone that you are a concerned constituent, give your name and if they ask, your city and address, then say you want to ask the Congressman to support a vital and strong public option for Health Insurance Reform, one that will compete against private health insurance and help bring costs down; tell them you would also like the Congressman to support HR 676 – the Single Payer bill introduced by John Conyers but his support of a strong public option is also acceptable.
BE POLITE. Be quick. Don’t take twenty minutes of the staffer’s time; don’t expect a major discussion.
When you’re done with that, follow up with an email.
You can go here to send a message via his website. You can call toll free: 1 (877) 677-9743.
Here’s his DC office:
2434 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone – (202) 225-3011
Fax – (202) 225-5638
His Salt Lake Office:
240 East Morris Avenue #235
South Salt Lake, UT 84115
Phone – (801) 486-1236
Fax – (801) 486-1417
St. George:
321 North Mall Dr., #E101B
St. George, UT 84790
Phone – (435) 627-0880
Fax – (435) 627-1473
Price/Eastern Utah:
Carbon County Courthouse
120 East Main Street
Price, UT 84501
Phone – (435) 636-3722
Fax – (435) 613-1834
Get to work people! We only have our crappy health care system to lose.
Rep. Matheson Representing 0.9 Percent of Utahns
Posted by Richard Warnick in Bush Failures, Health Care, JIm Matheson, National Politics, Tax Policy, This Blog, Utah Politics on July 17, 2009
Rep. Jim Matheson, along with other Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is threatening to kill health care reform.
Of course, Matheson claims to be all in favor of health care reform, he’s just opposed to paying for it. The House version, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act,” contains a small surtax (starting in 2011) on the wealthiest Americans to help bring about affordable universal care. My congressman, who voted for both of Bush’s budget-busting tax cuts for the rich, says it’s too much to ask.
From Think Progress:
Remember, the surtax would constitute a 1 percent tax on households making between $350,000 and $500,000 per year, a 1.5 percent tax on those making $500,000 to $1 million, and a 5.4 percent tax on those making more than $1 million. It would have no impact on 98.7 percent of Americans.
How many Utahns are wealthy enough to have to pay the proposed surtax? Just 0.9 percent. That’s who Rep. Matheson is representing. Meanwhile, Families USA estimates that 25 percent of Utahns are in families that will spend more than 10 percent of their pre-tax family income on health care in 2009. Unless they are forced into medical bankruptcy.
According to Common Cause, since 2000 Rep. Matheson has accepted $764,204 in contributions from the for-profit health care industry.
UPDATE: Obstructionist Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) says that the House surtax is “class warfare.” Nelson is part of a group of six senators trying to strangle health care reform– while claiming to support it.
Salt Lake Tribune Punishes Matheson for “Politically Expedient” Vote
Posted by Cliff Lyon in Energy, Environment, Global Warming, JIm Matheson, Utah Politics on May 22, 2009
Matheson is SUCH a chicken shit. Please show your support at PeacefulUprising.org
Matheson vote – Salt Lake Tribune
Vital energy bill deserves support
.Utah Rep. Jim Matheson was in a position he never wanted to be: He held a pivotal vote on the House Energy and Commerce Committee as it debated, and passed, a bill to promote clean energy and limit emissions of greenhouse gases. He had to step forward and be counted, do more than give lip service to concerns over global warming and a desire to encourage clean-energy technology and conservation.
But Matheson, with a foot in each camp as always, squandered this opportunity to stand up on these all-important issues and join Congress members seeking solutions. Along with only two other Democrats, he voted no.
Since Republicans on the committee were aligned against the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (only one voted for it), and all the more traditional Democrats supported it, that supposedly left political hybrids like Matheson holding the aces. And Matheson cast his with the GOP.
The act passed 33-25, so this vital bill will move forward to other committees and to the full House without Matheson’s support. That’s good for the country and, ironically, good for Matheson politically. But disappointing for Utah.
Matheson represents a district with heavily Republican pockets that depend on coal mining and coal-fired power plants where many believe global warming is either a hoax or overblown. By contrast, he claims to embrace climate science and says our dependence on oil must end.
Thursday he faced a day of reckoning. And he picked political expediency over science.
This legislation represents a policy shift from fossil fuel development to renewable energy. Utahns who care about air quality, the looming crisis of global warming, energy independence and Utah’s long-term economic health would like to know we have one congressman who shares these concerns. But Matheson chose instead to place coal, oil and gas interests ahead of his constituents’ and fear of change ahead of faith in American ingenuity.
Matheson says the target for reducing emissions (a 17 percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020) is too “aggressive” and new technology may not be developed in time. We disagree. On the contrary, the target, a result of a committee compromise, may not be aggressive enough to mitigate global warming. We agree with him that electrical transmission systems must be updated and corn-based ethanol should be dumped. But these are not reasons enough to vote against the bill.
In the end, Matheson, yet again hedging his bets, failed Utah and the country.
Purple Utah: The Matheson Dilemna
Posted by Glenden Brown in Democracy, Democrats, JIm Matheson, Party Politics, This Blog on November 13, 2008
A long and complex post.
When the Republicans in the State Legislature redistricted and did their best to make sure a Democrat couldn’t win in Utah-2, the assumption (made by many commentators and watchers and apparently Jim Matheson) was that he needed to run to the right to keep his seat.
As a result, Matheson, who in first term seemed relatively progressive, remade himself into a Blue Dog Democrat – and has been consistently conservative since then. Matheson has run not as a centrist but as a conservative. And while he keeps winning re-election, he may have miscalculated.
killed
wounded
Recent Comments