rty. Cynthia McKinney has been nominated by the Green Party. Chuck Baldwin has been nominated by the Constitution Party.  Ralph Nader is running as independent. Alan Keyes is also running as independent. There are also many other Presidential hopefuls. Who knows if the third-party vote will play a big-roll in this election. Looking back at the Presidential Election of 1992 Ross Perot ran for president  and he $57 million of his own money spent on the campaign got him nineteen percent of the vote, the highest percentage for a third party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt.THE CANDIDATESGene AmondsonChuck BaldwinBob BarrRóger CaleroCharles JayAlan KeyesGloria La RivaJohn MccainFrank McEnultyCynthia McKinneyBrian MooreRalph NaderBarack ObamaTed Weill
I’ve never agreed with his politics, but I’ve always appreciated how Christian singer Michael W. Smith gives back to the community via his Rocketown teen club and other charitable efforts. To my knowledge he’s always kept his politics out of his charitable work, so this surprised and disappointed me:  Fox News’ resident bomb-thrower will be in town for the Rally for Rocketown, a fundraiser for Michael W. Smith’s teen outreach center. Loved by conservatives, loathed by liberals, Hannity is sure to be at his incendiary best, especially since the event coincides with the Obama-McCain debate at Belmont.The talk-show host will speak and take questions from the audience. Bonus round for the financially blessed: “Table hosts and sponsors will be invited to meet Hannity and have a photo during a private VIP reception prior to the luncheon,” according to the announcement. Smith and “special guests” will also perform.  Ick. I don’t see the point of holding a fundraiser for a non-profit by featuring a divisive, controversial, partisan character like Sean Hannity. Way to bring the community together for your cause .... or not. Hannity lies about liberals regularly , has used his show to spread character smears against Barack Obama, John Kerry and other prominent Democrats (whatever happened to that 9th commandment?), and his book was on the reading list of Knoxville church shooter Jim Adkisson. By its fruits, indeed.This is the guy you’re trotting out to raise money for a Christian teen outreach center? No thanks. Count me out.Sorry Smitty, you've just gone down a notch in my estimation.
  As you might expect, there’s some news floating around in cyberspace today, so for you, dear readers, I have compiled a roundup:Hillary Clinton’s name will be placed on the nomination at the DNC in Denver. Now, Obama’s okay with this (because he’s a perfect gentleman, duh), but it just doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. Sure, it is nice to “honor” Clinton’s campaign and all of her hard work, but might it be better to present a united front and “honor” the actual presumptive nominee? [Washington Post]“According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain’s haul.” Make your own conclusions, kids. [A bunch of other sources via Wonkette]Streetcars are taking over the country, which is great, because they are good for the environment and make more people move downtown. Downtown Denver already has a free mall ride along 16th Street, and it’s basically a streetcar, and it’s pretty cool. Plus, it feeds my laziness. (Although I do still prefer pedicabs.) [NYTimes]Jared Polis, an openly gay Boulder-ite, won the Democratic primary in Colorado to fill Representative Mark Udall’s Congress seat. “If Mr. Polis is elected to replace [Udall] in November, he would become the third openly gay or lesbian member of Congress.” Hooray for Colorado! You go, Jared! [NYTimes]Last week, some crazo (who calls himself “Mr. Unstable”) took a bath in the utility sink at Burger King. To celebrate his birthday. I’m all for, er, cleanliness, but I tend to put a slightly different spin on the whole birthday celebration thing. Anyway, today the crazo apologized.  Luckily, as I’ve mentioned before, I prefer Wendy’s. [AOL]Apparently the latest trend in eating disorders is “pregorexia,” in which women diet and exercise so much while pregnant that they actually put their baby’s health at risk. Seriously, people?! When I’m pregnant, you can expect to find me immobile on a couch eating as much Ben & Jerry’s and bacon as I can get my hands on. [AOL]In other news, I’ve become addicted to Craigslist furniture sales. Just thought you should know. [Posted by Mallory]
  Maybe you all should keep in mind that Obama has had some stern words for Russia as well, completely and bewilderingly ignoring the fact that Georgia started the aggression.Looks like both Obama and McCain want to continue the U.S. policy of blindly supporting those that have been named “allies”.
According to the L.A. Times, Hillary Clinton has submitted her name for nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver later this month.  Said candidate Barack Obama:  “I am convinced that honoring Sen. Clinton’s historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong, united fashion.”  After making said statement, Obama immediately called for double security and demanded that any known staffers of the Clinton campaign, including the ex-contender herself to be monitored at all times.  Lord knows we don’t want another one of these fiascoes happening.Also, according to this week’s issue of Rolling Stone, the Clintonistas have already snapped up the internet domain Hillary2012.com  .  I think we know who she’s voting for come November…
“…I believe McCain will be a better Commander-in-Chief than Obama, who also opposes gay marriage. If we have an experienced, seasoned person defending the country in this dangerous age, we will be able to argue about the gay agenda later.” (quote & image from The Bilerico Project)  I would disagree with Crutchley, if McCain is elected it’s debatable that there will be a chance to argue the gay agenda at a later date. I’m of the mind that every step forward in the search for equal rights for all citizens of this country is a good step, even if it is baby steps. Obama might not support gay marriage which is the hot button topic right now, but he is much more supportive of the queer community overall than is McCain. Honestly, can you imagine another four years of the failed policies of the current administration both at home and abroad? You are fooling yourself if you think McCain’s presidency will be different than Bush’s in any significant factor.Regardless of either candidates stance on queer equality we have to look at the bigger picture. Support for McCain is support for continuing war and aggression around the world. Support for McCain is support for taking away a woman’s right to reproductive freedom. Support for McCain is support for the rich, white, male upper class at the expense of the rest of this country. Support for McCain is support for a Supreme Court that is so conservative that no queer equality will be achieved for a generation and women’s rights will be decimated.Cancel that Manhunt account today guys - they’re not the only hookup site out there. Give gay.com, adam4adam.com and Craig’s List a shot to start with, I’m sure there are others that I don’t know of out there.
 By JASON FURMAN and AUSTAN GOOLSBEE  August 14, 2008; Page A13 Even as Barack Obama proposes fiscally responsible tax reform to strengthen our economy and restore the balance that has been lost in recent years, we hear the familiar protests and distortions from the guardians of the broken status quo. Many of these very same critics made many of these same overheated predictions in previous elections. They said President Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan would wreck the economy. Eight years and 23 million new jobs later, the economy proved them wrong. Now they are making the same claims about Sen. Obama's tax plan, which has even lower taxes than prevailed in the 1990s -- including lower taxes on middle-class families, lower taxes for capital gains, and lower taxes for dividends.  Overall, Sen. Obama's middle-class tax cuts are larger than his partial rollbacks for families earning over $250,000, making the proposal as a whole a net tax cut and reducing revenues to less than 18.2% of GDP -- the level of taxes that prevailed under President Reagan. Both candidates for president have proposed tax plans. But they are starkly different in their approaches and their economic impact. Sen. Obama is focused on cutting taxes for middle-class families and small businesses, and investing in key areas like health, innovation and education. He would do this while cutting unnecessary spending, paying for his proposals and bringing down the budget deficit. In contrast, John McCain offers what would essentially be a third Bush term, with his economic speeches outlining $3.4 trillion of tax cuts over 10 years beyond what President Bush has already proposed and geared even more to high-income earners. The McCain plan would lead to deficits the likes of which we have never seen in this country. It would take money from the middle class and from future generations so that the wealthy can live better today. Sen. Obama believes a focus on the middle class is appropriate in the wake of the first economic expansion on record where the typical family's income fell by almost $1,000. The Obama plan would cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples. In addition, Sen. Obama is proposing tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth. The Obama plan would dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class filers to do their own taxes in less than five minutes and not have to hire an accountant. Sen. Obama also recognizes that small businesses are the engine of job growth in the economy. That is why he is proposing additional tax cuts, including a tax credit for small businesses that provide health care, and the elimination of capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups. The vast majority of small businesses would face lower taxes under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan. In addition, Sen. Obama supports reforming corporate taxes in a manner that would help create jobs in America and simplify the tax code by eliminating distortions and special preferences. Sen. Obama believes that responsible candidates must put forward specific ideas of how they would pay for their proposals. That is why he would repeal a portion of the tax cuts passed in the last eight years for families making over $250,000. But to be clear: He would leave their tax rates at or below where they were in the 1990s. - The top two income-tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36% and 39.6% (including the exemption and deduction phase-outs). All other brackets would remain as they are today. - The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986. - The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate. This rate would be 39% lower than the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut and would be lower than all but five of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends. - The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7% of estates, and retained at a 45% rate for estates valued at over $7 million per couple. This would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84% relative to 2000. Overall, in an Obama administration, the top 1% of households -- people with an average income of $1.6 million per year -- would see their average federal income and payroll tax rate increase from 21% today to 24%, less than the 25% these households would have paid under the tax laws of the late 1990s. Sen. Obama believes that one of the principal problems facing the economy today is the lack of discretionary income for middle-class wage earners. That's why his plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000 -- not income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend or payroll taxes. In contrast, Sen. McCain's tax plan largely leaves the middle class behind. His one and only middle-class tax cut -- a slow phase-in of a bigger dependent exemption -- wo