To remain a powerful contender in 2006, Matheson must repair his relationship with labor. The unions will remember his support on crucial issues: the Free Choice Act (reinforcing collective-bargaining), federal funds for worker retraining, important wage and safety considerations on federal transportation projects, affirmation of union retirement issues. Matheson has the ability to transform the kind words he is receiving from local business leaders into financial support and endorsements (CAFTA countries are Utah's fifth largest growth market).

While Matheson has angered some Democrats over CAFTA, the issue has made him virtually bulletproof against any Republican challenger. The traditional and wearisome claims that he is a Pelosi lackey and subservient to left-wing special-interest organizations will ring hollow. Intelligent Republicans will remember how the Utah Democrat rescued the president. Thus, Bush's ineptitude may have guaranteed Matheson's re-election in 2006.

Webb: A win in politics happens to be 50 percent of the vote, plus one. Far from showing "ineptitude," the CAFTA vote was a nice win for Bush, demonstrating his legislative prowess against tough odds. No question that Bush had a lot at stake, and he showed he can win the close ones and twist some arms when necessary. He defeated the big unions and the usual angry Democratic opposition.

Jim Matheson may be a Democrat, but he's a slippery Democrat. He's smart enough to know that his future depends a whole lot more on Utah Republican voters than on union bosses. It was a tough vote for him, because the labor bosses were serious about punishing Democrats who strayed. He's in the union dog house, but the unions are in disarray and, in the end, where are they going to go?

It is true that the vote gives Matheson a nice symbol to point to when he's accused of talking like a conservative in Utah but following his liberal party leadership like a lemming in Washington when the chips are down and they really need his vote.

He can legitimately say he stood up to organized labor and his party leadership. Among 14 Democratic defectors, Matheson was particularly singled out by union chiefs for special wrath as one of three frontline Democrats (those considered most vulnerable) who had been feted at a $300,000 union fund-raiser just before the vote.

Matheson's labor money may dry up, but what is bad for Matheson in Washington is often good for him in Utah. He was able to demonstrate his independence and willingness to part ways with Democratic leadership. Branding him as a closet liberal is now more difficult. Matheson walks the political tightrope rather adroitly.

Utah Republicans so far have not come up with a solid candidate to oppose Matheson in 2006, and time is running short. Matheson isn't invincible, but he is entrenched to the point that he can be defeated only by the ideal candidate under near-perfect circumstances.