John Hawkins over at Right Wing News is live-blogging.

Senator Sam Brownback of the Joint Economic Committee released a few reports regarding the debate about economic stimulus. One of these reports, A Primer on Economic Recessions, according to the email release, “while forecasters have concluded that downside risks to economic growth have been rising, most forecasters (including the Federal Reserve, the Congressional Budget Office, and private forecasters) are not forecasting a recession for the U.S. economy.”

Of course, there are a number of indications of an economic slowdown, so clearly economic stimulus is needed… For more information go here.

If you watched the Democrats debate on Monday, you’d have seen Barack Obama gave a weak defense of his connections to Tony Rezko.

BLITZER: I’m going to go to Suzanne Malveaux in a second, but I just want to give you a chance, Senator Obama, if you want to respond. Senator Clinton made a serious allegation that you worked for a slumlord. And I wonder if you want to respond.

OBAMA: I’m happy to respond. Here’s what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with [Tony Rezko] to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That’s what she’s referring to.

Obama would like people to believe that this is the full extent of his connection to Tony Rezko… but it’s not.

The Chicago Sun-Times gives us 8 things you should know about the connections between the two, and of course you can check out our file on Obama at No Agenda.

As recent history has shown, when you give tax cuts to the people who create jobs, it stimulates the economy. Tax relief is good thing, but unfortunately, according to an AP story this morning, a deal has been reached over the issue of tax rebates for economic stimulus which includes give rebates to those who weren’t paying taxes… in other words: welfare.

Democratic and Republican congressional leaders reached a tentative deal Thursday on tax rebates of $300 to $1,200 per family and business tax cuts to jolt the slumping economy.

Congressional officials close to the negotiations said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio reached agreement in principle in a telephone call Thursday morning.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the two wanted key members of their parties to sign off on the accord before any announcement.

The accord came as the White House said Thursday an agreement was imminent.

Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes

Tax relief should go to those who pay taxes. While I understand that if we want any kind of tax relief and economic stimulus that we’re going to have to make some compromises with Democrats who care more about giving handouts than fixing the economy, but let’s face it, if a recession is on the horizon (and that’s debatable) we should look at what kind of tax relief has worked in the past… The Bush tax cuts that targeted job creators worked very well…

Picture this:

Two studies… the conclusion of the first is supportive of the war in Iraq while the conclusion of the second is the opposite. When the first study comes out, liberals topple over each other looking to see who funded the study, tell us we need to “consider the source” in order to determine any biases. But when the second study comes out, they treat it as gospel and find ways to argue that where the money comes from is irrelevant. In other words, liberals don’t want you to “consider the source” if the study supports their position.

That pretty much sums up what is happening with the latest Soros-funded study that claims to document all the so-called “lies” that we were told leading up to the war in Iraq.

It doesn’t take long to find the flaws in the study, and there’s the whole other argument about all the information that contradicts their assertion that statements were lies. But, that doesn’t matter to morons like Keith Olbermann, who I saw on MSNBC moments ago practically in ecstasies over this bogus study.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Thanks to Matt, I was able to take a look at the “study”. Its just a rehash of the usual litany of liberal/left lies about what happened 2001-2003. Future generations will marvel at all this – how millions of people believed a series of lies which accused an honest man – President Bush – of lying.

It never ceases to amaze me what the Associated Press considers to be newsworthy. They’ve recently reported about a study “by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.”

Who are the two so-called nonprofit organizations? The Center for Public Integrity, and the Fund for Independence in Journalism. And guess what? They’re funded by none other than George Soros. Imagine that.

As bad as it was that the Associated Press thought this was news, the actual “data” for the study is laughable. It might as well have been Media Matters who put the study out.

More at Right Voices.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Does anyone have a link to the actual study? I’ve been trying to find it over at their website with no luck…

UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: Yes, Mark… here’s the link.

Inevitable for sure… but still shocking, considering all the hype leading up to his entering the race.

Republican Fred Thompson, the actor-politician who attracted more attention as a potential presidential candidate than as a real one, quit the race for the White House on Tuesday after a string of poor finishes in early primary and caucus states.

“Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort,” the former Tennessee senator said in a brief statement.

Thompson’s fate was sealed last Saturday in the South Carolina primary, when he finished third in a state that he had said he needed to win.

In the statement, Thompson did not say whether he would endorse any of his former rivals. He was one of a handful of members of Congress who supported Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2000 in his unsuccessful race against George W. Bush for the party nomination.

Reaction later.

UPDATE: So, what’s my reaction? I’m not sure what to think. I never understood the Fred Fever that boiled in the months leading up to his officially throwing his hat in. But he dominated in our online straw poll, and most bloggers I knew were all for him. I said some months ago that Fred Thompson’s best day happened before he got in the race, and that appears to be the case. While his message may have resonated, his performance otherwise was lacking. The big question now is whom will his supporters turn to now? There’s no simple answer. Thompson came into the race as an alternative to the original slate of candidates… I’m not sure if Thompson’s support was really about Thompson himself or if it was about a desperate desire to find anoint someone as the next Reagan.

Who will this help? Some are saying it will help Huckabee, but I’m not so sure. If it does, than that should be a concern for Rudy Giuliani, who is banking his entire candidacy on Florida and is in 3rd place with 19%, according to the latest Rasmussen poll, with Huckabee at 13%.

The fact is, it is a different race now than it was last fall. Thompson supporters may be more open to the original top tier candidates than they were. I guess we’ll find out soon who is really helped by Thompson’s departure.

Those may not have been her exact words, but that’s pretty much what she said just a few minutes ago during the Democrats’ debate.

UPDATE, 9:59 PM: Barack Obama just said he would not hesitate to strike against anyone who would do us harm… Sounds like he supports preemptive strikes.

In the end, I have to say, this was a very nasty debate… Aside from the Democrats’ lack of common sense, it was clear that they were not holding back punches tonight. Edwards wasn’t kissing up to Obama tonight. And the attacks from all three were just brutal. I’ve never seen the Republicans get that nasty. Hillary even played the Rezko card on Obama.

Ahhh, it’s very touching to see the so-called “first black president” catching up on his sleep during a Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial service at Harlem’s Covenant Avenue Baptist Church.

A Republican can’t go within a block of a church without liberals making a stink about the so-called “separation of church and state.” Liberal pundits will go on TV criticizing, railing against evangelicals and the Religious Right…

So, why is it that Barack Obama can go to an Atlanta church (MLK Jr.’s church) and make a political speech, and I’m not seeing anyone making the same criticisms? Is it okay to embrace and to reach out to churchgoers if you’re a Democrat who supports gay “marriage” and abortion?