It actually boiled down to one question: What are details of the "horsetrade" behind the Obama White House favoring a Republican for U.S. Attorney for Utah?

Obama's folks apparently snubbed the suggestions for U.S. Attorney of Blue Dog Democrat Rep. Jim Matheson and instead are backing Sen. Orrin Hatch's boy Scott Burns—a Republican operative and former Iron County Attorney. As Willams phrased it:

"Right and left come together to ask Barack Obama and Orrin Hatch, 'What's the deal?'"

Claudia Wright said the stonewalling on the deal's details puts the lie to the transparency that Obama promised his supporters:

"We need to take a look at how this came to be and what it means to us. We need to know why our public officials have copped to this deal. Was there a quid pro quo? Obviously horses were traded--we just don't know which horses."

Crenshaw says that while he's delighted with the choice of Burns for U.S. Attorney for Utah, the deal smacks of the kind of politics that disgusts the tea party movement:

"There was a deal cut... as citizens of United States and citizens of Utah, we have a right to know what the deal was."

Interestingly, only Debakis took the time to email the pertinent players and ask them directly what was behind the choice -- but "None of them answered me." Crenshaw and Wright called on the news media to put pressure on Utah's political leadership to get an answer.

Though I would love to know the details of the White House's deal with the devil, I think it's only one of a thousand unsavory trades that politicians make every session. Do most people really want to know what's in their McRib?

After fielding a few cynical questions after the press conference, Wright apologized:

"Sorry to sound naive, but somebody's got to ask the questions."

Actually, some reporters have been asking, but not getting much in the way of answers.

Still, it's good thing that Wright is continuing to dog Matheson because his Republican opponent Morgan Philpot certainly isn't.