The AP has the story here. Other stories are here and here.

Stevens is most recently know for his involvement in a Department of Justice investigation in which Stevens was convicted of seven counts of lying on Senate financial disclosure statements to hide gifts from friends, including an oil company executive.

However, a judge later overturned Stevens’ conviction on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct and corruption among DoJ attorneys.

The trial and conviction cast enough of a shadow on Stevens that he lost his bid for re-election in 2008, prompting outrage among some Republicans who saw the entire fiasco as dirty politics taken to new lows.

Stevens spent 40 years serving the citizens of Alaska in the Senate, where he was known for his ability to bring millions of federal dollars to Alaska for various projects. One of the projects that caught the most attention was the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” The project was intended to build a $223 Million bridge to Gravina Island from the Alaskan mainland, despite the fact that the population of Gravina Island is only 50 people. That works out to $6.7 Million per inhabitant. That kind of government waste helped to drive the creation of the Tea Party movement.

Sen. Stevens was 86.

That’s essentially how Republicans and Conservative talkers have been described by MediaMatters.org and other liberal bloggers.

But a quick Google search revealed that MediaMatters is being dishonest in its portrayal of Conservatives and Republicans as trying to “falsely accuse Dems of hypocrisy.” In fact, MediaMatters actually expose their own complicity in the promotion of this red herring.

The accusation is that the Right is conflating the terms “reconciliation” and “nuclear option” intentionally in an effort to discredit Democrats for wanting to use the reconciliation process to pass health care reform, which would bypass the regular Conference Committee process. However, MediaMatters shows that Conservatives and Republicans are not alone in making that connection.

Here is video that shows CNN anchor Anderson Cooper describing the Democrat maneuver as “the Nuclear Option.”

“Tonight: Breaking news that could change everything in the White House battle for health care reform. Call it the nuclear option.”

And CNN’s Kiran Chetry, on American Morning, said,

“We’ve heard about the nuclear option before, right? I mean, that was when there was talk about maybe bypassing Democratic concerns when it came to judicial nominees. Well, now, the nuclear option is something that we’re talking about yet again. This time it has to do with Democrats considering going it alone when it comes to health care. We’re live from the White House next hour.”

Let’s take a stroll backward through time.

Sean Hannity was condemned by MediaMatters on Feb. 10, 2010:

“Sean Hannity aired clips of Democratic leaders he falsely claimed were criticizing GOP use of the reconciliation process, and accused them of “hypocrisy” for currently supporting the use of reconciliation to pass healthcare reform. In fact, those Democrats were criticizing a 2005 Republican proposal to change Senate rules that was unrelated to reconciliation, which is a procedure that is part of the Senate rules.”

Then, on August 20, 2009, MediaMatters attacks RNC Chairman Michael Steele:

“Nuclear option” term for reconciliation makes jump from media to RNC chairman Steele”

But, the CNN story appeared on MediaMatters.org the day before, on August 19, 2009:

“Echoing Fox News’ Bill Sammon and Sean Hannity, CNN hosts Anderson Cooper and Kiran Chetry both falsely compared Senate Democrats’ potential use of the reconciliation process to pass health reform legislation to the “nuclear option.” In fact, the term “nuclear option” was coined by then-Republican Sen. Trent Lott in 2005 to refer to a possible Republican attempt to change Senate filibuster rules, while reconciliation is already part of Senate procedure and Republicans have used it repeatedly in the past.”

Finally, MediaMatters blasted Bill Sammon in a story that appeared on June 23, 2009:

“Echoing a reported Republican talking point, on Fox News’ Happening Now, Fox News vice president of news and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon falsely compared the budget reconciliation process some progressives have suggested be used to advance health-care reform legislation to the “nuclear option,” a term referring to the Senate rule change Republicans proposed in 2005 that would have prohibited filibusters of judicial nominations. In fact, there is no comparison between progressives’ proposed use of the budget reconciliation process, which already exists under congressional rules and has been used by Republicans in the past to pass legislation with only a majority of votes in the Senate, and the Republicans’ prior proposal to change Senate rules to require a majority of votes to confirm judicial nominees.”

Now, no-one can claim that Anderson Cooper is sympathetic to Republicans or Conservatives. He was, after all, 0ne of the first to use the term “teabagging” when talking about the Tea Party movement. The point is that CNN’s use of the term “nuclear option” to describe reconciliation renders the accusations of MediaMatters and others against Republicans and Conservatives meaningless.

Since his election, Huntsman has taken some pretty hard left turns, such as advocating for policies to combat global warming, and vocally supporting same-sex unions.

Now, it appears he is trying to clear his own path to the Presidency by marginalizing conservatives in the Party.

Well, this Utah conservative won’t be supporting him. And, frankly, Barak Obama’s recent decision to send Huntsman to China is the best thing he’s done so far. We’ve got a conservative governor now, who has expressed support for the work of the Patrick Henry Caucus.

It looks like big changes are coming to Utah politics. It’s about time.

That puts Specter a little closer to earning the Democratic nomination for his seat in the next election, and facing the new Republican challenger, Pat Toomey. In an April 24th poll by USA Today, Toomey was leading Specter by 20%.

If the Democrats in Pennsylvania cannot field a candidate able to defeat Specter, Toomey will likely win the election.

Would any of this be happening if we repealed the 17th Amendment?

PLEASE NOTE: THE LOCATION HAS CHANGED

Please join us on April 15, 2009 at the Old Utah County Courthouse of the corner of University Ave. and Center St. in Provo from 5:00 to 7:00 PM.

Scheduled speakers include Third District Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Provo Mayor Lewis Billings. Rep. Chaffetz will be speaking at 5:00 sharp, so please come early. You won’t want to miss anything.

Also, please remember that these protests are not about attacking any specific government official, or impeaching Barak Obama, or anything like that. This is about restoring Constitutional government to America. We are gathering to let our public servants across the country know that we surround them, and that they answer to us, we do not answer to them.

I personally know of individuals who are opposed to these protests who plan to be present to disrupt the activities. Be aware that anything you say to them or do to them will be used to discredit the entire movement, not only on individual blogs, but in the mainstream media as well. Do not engage them. They do not have honorable motives.

I recommend responding to their heckling only with this, from Samuel Adams:

“If ye love [redistributed] wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” (Insert mine)

Please join us as we peaceably remind our public servants that we are a free, sovereign people. Let’s celebrate our Independence early this year.

Other Tea Parties in Utah:

• Salt Lake Tea Party
• Southern Utah Tea Party

This is one example of the appearance of the Teacher. Hugh Hewitt posted the following on his blog. It’s from an anonymous marketing exec, known only by his email address, bearinthewoods84 at gmail.com.

I’ve been thinking a lot over the past couple of weeks about the communications strategies and tactics that are currently being employed in favor of White House and Congressional initiatives, and  against all who oppose them.  I’ve also been thinking a lot about how  discordant the GOP’s response has been.  There are bright spots, to be  sure.  A groundswell of grassroots activism in the form of Tea  Parties.  The Speech.  And growing discussions I’m hearing, especially amongst young voters and moderates who are realizing they’re getting a bit more than they bargained for.  The problem I’m having is that I’m  not hearing a universal emotional truth that resonates across broad  swaths of voters.  I’m hearing wonderfully articulated arguments, and  some good old-fashioned common sense.  I’m just not hearing it boiled down into something that’s easily embraced.  But the more I think, the  more I think a potential unifying mantra is staring us in the face.  At the risk of being presumptuous, I have a suggestion:

The two most powerful words in advertising have always been:  “Free” and “Truth.”

The problem is, once they get turned into marketing language, they sometimes develop twisted meanings.  But, if, in fact, marketers can use the words legitimately, they absolutely should employ them  whenever possible. It’s important to understand that many times, though, the two words conflict.  Yes, something might be “Free,”  but the “Truth” is, in the end, you still have to pay.

It’s clear the Democrats have embraced the concept of “Free.”  Just  look at all the stuff they’re “giving” away.  I’m reminded of a discussion I had a few years ago with a Canadian friend of mine — and  no, it wasn’t about health care — but it was about some other government program from which he believed he was getting free services.  “The government’s going to pay for it!”  He was ecstatic.  Then I asked him his tax rate.  Although he made less than half of  what I made at the time, his rate was 15 points higher.  A lightbulb went off when he realized that yes, the government was paying for his  service — with his money.  This is the twisted concept of “Free” the  American people are being sold by congress and the president.  But  “Free” is seductive.  And emotional.  And people are almost universally willing to buy it.  The Democrats are, quite literally, banking on it.

But, then, there’s the Truth.  One of the most successful public service campaigns in recent memory has been “The Truth” campaign against smoking.  Just the facts.  Just the truth.  Presented in a raw, yet emotionally arresting way.

When, in times past, Republicans have presented the Truth in an emotionally arresting, and creatively competent way (The Bear in the Woods, The Contract With America) we’ve succeeded.  I’ll even throw in the Swift Boat spots for good measure here, just to make a point.  When we’ve failed, we’ve done one of two things: (A) We’ve failed to  live the Truth, for instance, by becoming big spenders while telling the country we’re not, or by shutting down communication altogether, thus obscuring the Truth; or (B) we’ve failed to articulate the Truth  in a way that is concise and emotionally appealing.  Which is why I frequently liken GOP responses to Liberal banner waving as the communications equivalent of a white paper.

The Truth is powerful on its own.  It can be spoken in short sentences.

The Truth is simple.  The Truth is pure.  The Truth trumps opinion.  And although “Free” is frequently considered the more powerful marketing word, the truth is, the Truth wins head to head. Irrefutable Truth eventually ends every argument.  Emotional Truth eventually wins every heart and mind. There is, right this very moment, a massive opportunity for the Right to not only embrace, but to — in a marketing sense — “own” the concept of, and the very word: Truth.

The Democrats have gone too far down the road, now, of a faux concept of “Free,” and made too many missteps along that road, to be able to own them both.  It’s ours for the taking, and the American people are showing every sign of hunger for exactly that:  The Truth.

To pull it off, though, we must live as we speak.  We can’t call out their pork, and ignore or brush off ours.  We can’t talk around our own mistakes — we have to own up.  Living up to the Truth is difficult, in the best of times.  But even in times like these, it’s never impossible.  I agree with Ann Coulter’s take in Guilty that the Truth infuriates both Democrats and the mainstream media.  Because both have such trouble owning up to it.   The time is now.  Not only  do we have the opportunity to be the voice of Truth, I’ll submit that  we have the duty.  Just imagine how, plainly stated, Truth stands up to what we now know are the Democrats’ versions of the following: Free, Change, Hope, Bipartisanship, Fairness, Transparency….I could go on, but I don’t see the need.

The truth is, our mantra is staring us in the face.  We need to live the concept, so the word has power. But we need to use the word.  Literally, use it, the way the Democrats used the word: “Change.”  With purpose and conviction.  Over and over.    We have the opportunity to give America what it desperately needs and wants the most:  The Truth.  And the best part is, the Truth is on our side.

The message is right on. It’s simple, yet powerful. If incorporated at the National level, the Republicans have a very good chance to roll back the damage done by the Obam administration beginning in 2010. But, as “bear” notes, they have to live it and not just say it.

I am proud to say that my support of Jason Chaffetz puts me squarely in line with the principles of the Caucus, which has also endorsed Jason.

If it is not yet apparent to you how bad things are in Washington, maybe you need to find another source of news and information. The MOM (Move-On Media) is not telling you even half the story, and the part they are telling you is not even half true.

The answer is to simply stop listening to them. Turn off the TV; there’s very little of value on TV and a lot of indoctrination going on, even in the everyday sitcoms and drama series. You want news and information? Try talk radio. Yes, they are biased to one side of the political spectrum, but they will be the first to tell you that up front, unlike the MOM which pretends to be unbiased but isn’t. The broadcasters of Talk radio aren’t hiding things from you and aren’t twisting events to suit their worldview.

Most people I know, that listen to talk radio, are the most informed people I have come across. They take the news events that are described by the radio talkers and distill out the basic principles on their own. The more time they listen to talk radio, the more apt they are to being open to discussion on a host of issues.

What is truly ironic is that the proxies of the MOM almost always criticize listeners of talk radio as being stupid, uneducated, or brainwashed. Of course, the people who listen exclusively to MOM sources are never described in such condecending and patronizing terms. That, of itself, is proof that what I’m telling you is true.

So back to the orginal point, I would encourage you to watch the presentation of the Independence Caucus on their website. Find out what the MOM has not been telling you about the current situation. And join us!

There are a lot of people excited right now. The folks at Townhall.com were “ecstatic.” Glenn Beck described the choice as “brilliant.” Even Karl Rove had many good things to say about the decision.

I had looked at Sarah Palin for only a moment, and then dismissed her a the choice because of her background. First, she’s from Alaska. Second, she has made some enemies among fellow Alaska Republicans trying to root out the corruption. Third, her husband works for an oil company. Fourth, she’s from Alaska.

I though she would never see the light of day in today’s Republican party. But then I remembered that John McCain has a habit of sticking it to the party. This time, it looks like it was in the right direction.

We don’t yet know a lot about Gov. Palin, and so Barak Obama’s first shot was to criticize her “lack of experience.” I know I didn’t hear that right.

Experience? She has more executive experience than Barak Obama, Joe Biden, and John McCain combined. Who is Baby Boy Obama to talk about experience?

First, Barak Obama has been all but confirmed as both President of the United States and the American Messiah by both American Democrats and the European Union, even despite his inability to say “merci beaucoup” correctly. Given several of his statements and the paternal advice he freely gives, it appears he has already accepted the title. Now he hopes the American people will elect him President, too!

Then Nancy Pelosi declared that she had “a world to save,” which precluded her from allowing a vote to come to the floor on drilling for oil in places where it is currently prohibited. Madame Speaker Pelosi realizes that your addiction to oil has clouded your vision concerning the fate of our planet, and has righteously intervened on your behalf. It’s not really disenfranchisement if it’s for a good cause.

Utah is not to be neglected by the Democratic elite. Bennion Spencer, running as the Democratic candidate in opposition to Jason Chaffetz, recently all but announced that he had obtained the endorsement of none other than Jesus Christ, himself.

Spencer: Jesus would vote for me!

Fearing that perhaps the word endorsement was too strong, Mr. Spencer has since backed away from his earlier claim to a more moderate position. According to Mr. Spencer, the Lord merely supports the same causes as he does, pointing to the Bible as evidence.

Jason Chaffetz’s position on immigration is impractical and intolerant, according to Mr. Bennion. We just don’t have the resources to round up 12 million illegal immigrants. I may not have heard Jason say we should round up all 12 million, but I’m sure that if Bennion says so, it must be true. After all, he wouldn’t lie if Jesus was really voting for him.

And, of course, Jesus would express tolerance for people who openly break the law. After all, they are different from us, so we should be tolerant. We should treat them differently than regular people who break the law because they come from Mexico; they might not even know what a law is.

We can trust Bennion Spencer to know the will of the Lord on the immigration issue. After all, he’s spent years shaping his political views around his religious faith. He’s so sure that he’s in tune that he’s made a new bumper sticker: “God is my running-mate.”

Mr. Spencer acknowledges that Christians think for themselves, and should vote according to their understanding of the issues. But we all know that when the Lord or one of his anointed speaks, the thinking has been done. So don’t trouble your soul with too much worrying about the elections this November. God has it all under control.