We’re having a rather lively discussion of this over at Nevada News and Views – as it does affect everyone, you might want to have a look and put your two cents in.

It’s a close race is Massachusetts… Lot’s of things are happening…

VIDEO: Just posted on YouTube is video of a Martha Coakley staffer shoving a reporter for the Weekly Standard to the ground.

Geesh:

The Obama administration has taken some heat and mockery for using the nebulous and non-economic term of jobs being “saved or created” by the $787 billion stimulus program.

So it’s gotten rid of it.

In a little-noticed December 18, 2009 memo from Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag the Obama administration is changing the way stimulus jobs are counted.

The memo, first noted by ProPublica, says that those receiving stimulus funds no longer have to say whether a job has been saved or created.

“Instead, recipients will more easily and objectively report on jobs funded with Recovery Act dollars,” Orszag wrote.

In other words, if the project is being funded with stimulus dollars – even if the person worked at that company or organization before and will work the same place afterwards – that’s a stimulus job.

We pointed out back on December 21st, 2008 that “saved or created” was just a BS way for Obama to claim whatever he wanted on the jobs front. But now that has worn off – it didn’t help that jobs were “saved or created” in non-existent Congressional districts, ya know? This, then, forced Obama and Co to choose – start telling the truth, or come up with a new lie.

It was inevitable that a new lie would be chosen – telling the truth is simply not the default position of Democrats. Geared towards lying about themselves ever since the elder Bush crushed Dukakis pretty much simply because Dukakis was identified as a liberal, Democrats have raised the art of the Big Lie to proportions never seen before. What they haven’t learned is that while the Big Lie can work for a while, it can’t work forever – and people have had just about enough of it, thanks very much.

November can’t get here fast enough…

UPDATE: All those “shovel ready” projects? Spending on them didn’t help in the least.

Meaning they know darn well it will cost like the dickens and do a lousy job:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 17% believe passage of the legislation will achieve the stated goal of reducing health care costs. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think it will lead to higher costs.

Fifty-two percent (52%) also believe passage of the legislation will lead to a decline in the quality of care.

What I wonder: how purblind of a Obamaton do you have to be to think that it will actually lower costs? I mean, we’re talking some really gullible people – people whom you could convince to loan you money for an “investment” you want to make at Ceasar’s Palace. I’d like to meet some of these people on the theory that a fool and his money are soon parted…

Ok, so I boiled it down – but had he said that, he could have got the interview done faster:

VideoJug asked Southers where the US should prioritize the war on terror, and he offered a few more thoughts than just about alliances:

“Due to connectivity that we have with countries such as Israel, France — countries that are seen by groups, by al Qaeda, as infidels or anti-Islamic — by the true nature of our alliance with them means that we subject to be attacked as well. I do think, however, it deserves to perhaps have some parity with global warming, with education, with the economy, but national security is always going to supercede everything else. I don’t think you can have all of those other entities flourish in a state where the security is not felt to be confident, comfortable, and intact.”

Memo: fake environmentalist causes are not to have parity with people who would murder millions, if they could.

The other day, Mark Steyn asserted that the election of Obama was the most unserious act the American people have ever taken. He’s right. We’ve got utter fools governing us – and we’ve no one to blame for this but ourselves.

UPDATE: And he considers anti-abortion views to be part of domestic terrorism.

The debate was live-tweeted by Hub Politics. It was a great debate to watch… Now we have to help Scott Brown take the momentum from tonight and reach the new goal of raising $1 million today…

Help out Scott Brown by donating now!

No, its not President Obama. Yet.

…Harried by recession and sliding popularity, Mr. Chávez on Friday weakened the bolivar to 4.3 per dollar from 2.15 in a bid to shore up government finances, which have been hit by weaker oil prices, and to stimulate economic growth ahead of key elections….

Yet another socialist. Yet another hero to the American left. Yet another corrupt, crooked tyrant. Its a story which has been told far too many times. You’d think, after a while, our domestic leftists would figure it out, but they never do. While Chavez has put in some cosmetic protections for the poor, the plain fact of the matter is that he’s just stolen half the wealth of Venezuela’s poor – the people he, and other socialists, always claim to be for. And, as with all other socialist regimes, it is the poor who fare worst.

The trouble for us is that the Federal Reserve has been printing money like mad and using it to buy bonds and worthless assets from banks. Each dollar the Fed creates out of thin air is essentially a dollar stolen from the people – because each dollar in hand (and representing actual work to earn it) now becomes worth that much less. Will this kick in to massive inflation? So far, no – but only because the world is in such a deep economic down spin that the inflationary effects have been muted. But our money has been stolen, and eventually it’ll have to balance out somewhere.

For nearly a century now we’ve tried to funny-money and usury our way to riches. Well, it hasn’t worked. All its done is pile up a mountain of debt, benefited financial sharks (like the left’s other hero, George Soros) and screwed the average person out of their wealth. Its time to bring an end to this – before Obama takes a cue from Chavez, and picks our pockets.

Today, you can help prevent government-run health care by donating to Scott Brown’s Senate campaign.

Polls show the race is in a dead heat… If you didn’t think a Republican could win in Massachusetts, think again.

Donate. Donate. Donate.

UPDATE: Today’s moneybomb has already brought in $800,000+!!! The original goal of $500,000 was exceeded early this afternoon…

Can you help us bring it to $1 million?

UPDATE: Desperation in the Coakley campaign… brings in Obama to raise money…

If you needed more proof that Al Sharpton’s defense of Harry Reid was bogus, here’s another juicy bit. When Mitt Romney was running for president, he was attacked by Al Sharpton. Not for making any racist statements like Harry Reid did, but for his Mormon beliefs, and their alleged racist history.

Why, might you ask? If you don’t remember, Sharpton felt compelled to put Romney on the defensive on Mormonism, and referred to it as “denomination based on racism.”

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and civil rights activist Al Sharpton traded angry, racially charged accusations yesterday, with Romney alleging that Sharpton had uttered “bigoted” comments about Mormonism.

On the campaign trail in Iowa, Romney was asked about Sharpton’s comment during a debate Monday that “those of us who believe in God” will defeat Romney. The former Massachusetts governor told reporters that such a comment “shows that bigotry still exists in some corners.”

Sharpton angrily denied Romney’s charge in a telephone interview yesterday, and he accused Romney of stoking a verbal war with him to gain support among conservatives.

Sharpton said his comments have been taken out of their original context — a debate about religion with journalist Christopher Hitchens, who Sharpton said had suggested that Mormonism once advocated segregation.

“Attacking me, not Hitchens, shows [Romney] is playing politics,” Sharpton said. “What is bigoted about asking . . . about a denomination based on racism?”

Sharpton called on Romney to address whether the Mormon Church ever supported segregation. “He needs to clarify the truth or non-truth of what I was presented,” Sharpton said.

So, Sharpton put Romney on the defensive on race because of his church, not because of anything Romney himself said or did.

Quite a different attitude from today when dealing with a Mormon, who actually made racist statements, who happens to be a Democrat.

Sharpton obviously believes the Mormon church is racist, or at least conveniently claimed as much when Romney was running for president. But, Harry Reid, a Mormon and Senate Majority Leader, was defended despite his offensive remarks. Do I really have to ask why Mitt Romney is practically branded a racist for being a Mormon, but Reid isn’t, despite some racist comments?

Is the truth so distorted by political allegiances that one man’s reputation can be blemished, while another man’s strongly defended?

The real irony here is that the Democratic Party is the party of slavery and segregation, while the Republican Party is the party of emancipation and civil rights.

I’d love to know from Sharpton if he thinks all Mormons are racists because of their faith, or just the Republican ones?

Lots to talk about – most notably the upcoming election in Massachusetts. How idiotic the AGW people look these days. How cool it will be when the Chargers win the Super Bowl. But, anything you like. Have at it.

UPDATE: Have a look at the way the left is turning a pornographic performer in to a hero. Pity the poor girl for being such a fool.

UPDATE II: Climategate update.