Matheson says attacks mischaracterize votes

Trailing in the polls and in campaign cash, Republican Bill Dew is now attacking Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, for taking what he says are 10 key stands "against Utah values" — and cites specific roll call votes and dates as supposed proof of such positions.

The trouble is, according to Matheson — who seeks a fifth term in the 2nd Congressional District — Dew mischaracterizes all of those votes. Matheson says most votes cited by Dew are about something totally different from what Dew says, or Dew's descriptions are twisted, or some votes did not even occur (at least not on dates listed by the ads).

So the accuracy of the ads is now an issue, much like the TV ads of both Barack Obama and John McCain are now an issue — perhaps an indication of the presidential hopefuls' truthfulness. Dew even has ads attacking Matheson for attacking Dew for attacking him (one may need to read that a time or two to follow it).

As an example, Matheson's camp says one distortion by Dew contends that Matheson voted against offshore oil drilling through Roll Call Vote No. 391 this year. It was actually a procedural vote leading up to consideration of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, and it ended debate on a rule about the length of debate and extent of amendments for the bill.

A written statement from Matheson's campaign says that claiming he voted against offshore drilling because of that procedural vote is flat wrong. Matheson says that he actually introduced a bill himself calling for off-shore oil drilling and has voted for such drilling in other bills.

Alan Crooks, consultant to Dew, said, however, that Republicans had hoped to propose an (off-topic) amendment to the rail bill that would force the House to consider a GOP bill calling for more oil drilling. He said the procedural vote blocked that amendment (along with any other amendments not allowed in approved rules for debate), so it is fair to consider it as a vote against allowing offshore drilling.

Crooks said drawing such conclusions is fair because Matheson has drawn similar conclusions himself from other procedural votes. For example, Crooks said Matheson has said that procedural votes blocking his attempts to stop automatic pay raises for Congress equates to voting for such raises.

"He can't have it both ways. You can count such procedural votes, or not," as clear stands on issues, Crooks said.