Monday night, as promised, we still have some catch up work to do. So let’s start with those Amazon Taxes, those Internet sales taxes of dubious Constitutionality. Colorado’s got tossed in federal court and Illinois’s didn’t raise any money. Obeying the Constitution counts, folks. Pass a true interstate compact through the Congress first.

Also as promised, there’s the matter of the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act. This is the one where ACU has come out against Jim DeMint, and that caught my attention. I have to side with the bill DeMint is sponsoring. I think ACU simply misunderstood what’s at stake here and had good intentions, but the excessive complexity of the regulations defeated them here.

The bill does not let cable providers become free riders, retransmitting others’ streams for free. It just stops the law from trying to dictate the parameters of the negotiations on retransmissions. I see no harm in that, and potentially much good.

Here we go again. Apparently we’re supposed to be unhappy with the CISPA information sharing bill by Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger because it potentially could be used against copyright infringement. And SOPA is invoked against that. SOPA wasn’t defeated because everyone hates copyright. It was a power grab. Take your anti-copyright anarchy battles home, Reddit kiddies. You and your Anontard buddies.

More cybersecurity still: We cannot and must not have DHS start regulating the Internet. Government can’t even secure itself yet and so has no standing to dictate to others. Information sharing in the private sector, without government gatekeepers, is far more useful for protecting our country’s Internet resources. Further, with the irrationality and secrecy of TSA and its regulations, how can we trust them at all?

Going back to SOPA, Comcast was apparently for it, which doesn’t surprise me. Comcast is an ISP particular vulnerable to Bittorrent users flooding the network with high volume copyright infringement dragging down service for everyone.

Is a problem with tech patents, including software patents, that the system isn’t scaling well? Size, not just speed?

Apparently all the fuss over FCC reform, using white spaces as an excuse to oppose all FCC reform out of the Congress, was resolved with white space use marching on. This could be interesting. We’ll have to watch and see how it works, or whether we just get a tragedy of the commons.

An interesting development in the Do Not Track saga: Radicals and businesses are interpreting them differently, but frankly, the interpretation of the radicals is stupid. There already is a way to not be tracked at all, and not just exclude third parties: Disable cookies, dummies. The radical agenda apparently to be promoted by the FTC is out of touch with the actual technologies involved.

Apparently the FTC folks don’t understand that if you don’t want tracked by, say, Amazon’s recommendations, then you simply shouldn’t log into Amazon all the time.

LightSquared may be on the verge of bankruptcy, but Chuck Grassley is still fighting tenaciously for FCC transparency with respect to LightSquared, and is going to maintain his holds on the new FCC appointees. Go Chuck Go!

Here’s a potentially huge deal in the tech/copyright nexus that I hadn’t heard about at all Google is under concerted attack by a number of copyright holders in a move that potentially risks undermining the whole DMCA safe harbor system. Google has taken many steps to curb copyright infringement on YouTube, but they’re being dogpiled upon anyway by firms going after those deep pockets. If being a rich and popular website that gets taken advantage of by copyright infringers is enough to knock down the Safe Harbor, then it seems to me that the entire Safe Harbor system of the DMCA is at risk. That’s not good, as that was a careful balancing of interests in that bill. We cannot let the scales get tilted one way.

If the Youtube case goes too far, new legislation may be needed, and that’s going to be a big old mess. Especially when the MPAA and RIAA interests will inevitably be comingled with legitimate international concerns of Chinese and other foreign firms ignoring US copyrights

For those of you reading my diaries on the 2012 and 2014 U.S. Senate predictions, you’ll note how I hinted that the entire November 2012 Presidential Elections could come down to a single state like Colorado or Iowa, which are my two best guesses based on this hypothetical electoral map of how I honestly think the election would go if held today.

Don’t just take my word for it. Liberal Democratic loyalist/activist pundits from former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, James Carville, and Joe Trippi have told CNN and Fox News hosts recently they all believe (in separate interviews) that the election “will be close” and that “We aren’t going to see a repeat of 2008.” This hypothetical of my map shows how close it could be.

Colorado is the key?

Republicans and presisely Mitt Romney would be wise to focus on Colorado in particular.

Why Colorado? They just have 9 Electoral Votes.

Why not?

• Lets look first at their Presidential history: 8 of the past 10 Presidential Elections the Rocky Mountain State has voted for the Republican.

• Next, there are some positive signs for the GOP,  following the new re-districting, mainly in CO CD-02.

• 4 of Colorado’s 7 U.S. Representatives are Republican. While this may not seem like much, two came in the 2010 wave and this delegation is considered “young” and “new” by incumbancy standards across the board with the longest tenured Representative being a Democrat in the 1st district that only goes back to 1997.

• True, their Governor may be a liberal (and frankly a wierd) Democrat, and both their U.S. Senators may be Democrats, but Colorado has had a long history of splitting their Senate seats between party, so I don’t see this trend continuing much longer.

• Colorado’s state legislature is split with Republicans just re-taking the House with a 6 seat gain in 2010, compare that to Nevada where the state House and Senate are under Democratic control, given their Governor Brian Sandoval, is a young, upcoming conservative and probable future Senator someday (if that happens, you heard it here first).

We aren’t talking a hopelessly lost state like California or tree-hugging, eco-freak Washington or Oregon. We are talking a good, sensible, mountain-West state with decent, All-American, 2nd Amendment people that could very well swing.

But why Colorado of all states, you still ask.

Not only do I know several people personally that have relocated to Colorado over the years, none of which would be considered overtly liberal (giving me hope), but if you look at the map and do the math, if we capture this state, we could capture the entire election.

Consider that under my map above:

Obama could still win heavily-Hispanic Nevada (6 Electoral votes) and New Mexico (5 Electoral votes) along with progressive Iowa (6 electoral votes) that launched Obam’s campaign in 2008 and re-itterated it in November by going blue, and still lose the Presidency.

But what about Iowa?

Because Iowa legalized gay marriage (although the three justices that overturned the state law have since been thrown out), and because they voted for Obama and launched his campaign, I see them trending blue and therefore would take my chances on Colorado.

Now, if Romney and Republicans are smart, they will not put all their eggs in Colorado’s basket because the last thing you want is a few undecided states left on the board, all of which have to fall a certain way, and if they don’t, Obama gets re-elected.

No, it would be better to try and be competative in all states since you never know what could happen, nor which one could tip the scales back in our favor ala 2000 or 2004. All I am saying is my personal guess is Colorado and if that happens, you heard it here first and I will be happy to explain my theory on air when the time is right.

No Margin for Error under “Colorado plan”

Under my plan, Romney would have to sweep the South as in, win all 13 former states of the Confederacy (Missouri and Kentucky had stars reserved but split alliances, I know). This would of course include New South North Carolina and annoyingly progressive Virginia with their DC Northern Virginia suburbs. This would also include the ever diverse and Southern-in-geography-only (South of Jacksonville): Florida.

If ceding Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico to the Democrats and Obama, under this scenario, Romney and the Republicans would also have to win Ohio and Indiana (and take the rest of the usual states with no surprises).

If he does that, he’s got it.

Romney would end up becoming our 45th President with 276 Electoral Votes to 262 for Obama. Otherwise, as I have it now, Obama squeaks by with 271 Electoral Votes to 267 for Romney.

 But why not New Mexico? Nevada?

Those of you may wonder why not these two states?

Not only does Nevada have Heathen arm-pit Las Vegas, but their new House seat in NV CD-O4 is projected to go to the Democrats albeit in a close race. Additionally, there is no guarantee Dean Heller will hold on to his Senate seat in a race against carpetbagger-New Yorker Shelley Berkley who moved to the state 45 years ago yet never could drop her native (ugly) Brooklyn accent.

Finally, with the way unions bailed out Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2010 after seemingly losing his seat in a landslide, and the ever growing number of Democratic Hispanics, I basically have no hopes for this state anymore at least outside of that Senate race and the two “safe” Republican House seats.

Along those lines, add New Mexico to the mix which actually increased its state Democratic Senate majority in 2010 and already had a Democratic state Senate majority and this state is obviously trending bluer thanks to immigration. New Mexico, barring some unforseen Governor Martinez “Queen-making”-political pull, is a lost cause for Republicans electorally, at least at the moment.

Conclusion: yes it could come down to a single state like 2000, only this time with Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, or Colorado, but given the above facts, go with Colorado, and hope for the best.

In a future diary, I’ll write how a Romney-VP Gov. Chris Christie ticket, given Christie could swing New Jersey red, could mean Republicans don’t have to win Ohio to get the White House if they follow the above “Colorado plan”.

 (But more likely would mean they don’t need NV, NM, CO, IA, or even precariously lavender-turning AZ if you can believe it, matematically).

The political scene is packed with pundits and predictors who despite being wrong most of the time don’t pause their endless flow of predictions across the media waves, which unfortunately influence the votes of many Americans who tune in to the news for a couple of minutes a day and form their decision based on their meaningless gibberish.

An overwhelming majority of these pundits have pounced upon Rick Santorum as incapable of going forward immediately after his stunning Iowa victory. Did their declarations come after having foretold the Santorum victory for months and weeks prior to the Iowa caucus? Quite the contrary; these political pundits actually foretold Santorum would come in somewhere towards the bottom and would drop out right after Iowa. Despite the results having been the polar opposite of their punditry, they continued to spew their worthless predictions.

Overblown egos had led to bold-faced demands to Santorum he should drop out of the race in the hope it would boost Newt’s campaign, despite no proof that such action would yield their wished-for results. To their utter disappointment Senator Santorum hadn’t accepted their lovely advice and just look at the mess they have now landed in, face-down! Rick Santorum has won Minnesota and Missouri with landslide victories!

In Missouri, Santorum won with 55.2% while Romney came in a full thirty points behind Rick at 25.3%. In Minnesota, a state Romney won in 2008, with 88% precincts counted, Santorum won with 45%, Paul came in a distant second with 27.1% while Romney squeaked in at third with merely 16.9% of the votes. To top off the night-turned-morning, Santorum surprised everyone with an unexpected sweep in Colorado, another state Romney had won in 2008 and which he was expected to win once again. Santorum won with 40.2% while Romney received 34.9%. His victory in Colorado has brought the total states he’s won to four out of eight, while Romney won three and Newt won one.

Who is Rick Santorum?

Rick Santorum grew up near the coal mines in Pennsylvania where his grandfather was a miner and understands the struggles of the everyday American. He served in the Congress for a total of 16 years, first two terms in the House and then twelve years as a Senator. As a freshman Congressman, Santorum was shocked at the level of corruption amongst both parties specifically in relation to the housing market, and together with six other Congressman, brought the information out to the public. They were dubbed the “Gang of Seven” for their courage, honesty, and refusal to let matters continue to slide downhill.

Rick Santorum is the only one, of the candidates left standing, who can and does provide a clear contrast to Barack Obama on all the major issues.

He has never bought into the nonsense named Global Warming. Despite having hailed from a liberal state, he opposed overbearing government regulation and intervention which were deemed crucial to the safety of the planet based on those bogus facts. He has also opposed government bailouts including TARP from the very beginning, and not simply when campaigning as a Tea Party Conservative. During the 1990’s, when many conservatives including Newt and Romney championed for health care mandates, Rick Santorum had stood up in Congress and denounced the concept of government mandates, arguing for the rights of each individual to make their own decisions.

Santorum is also the only candidate who has never wavered on family values no matter who the audience was or what was at stake. He had his very name disgraced because of his strong conservative social views and risked his career defending the lives of the unborn. One can actually credit his fearless defense of conservatism for causing his loss in 2006 since the Democrat’s turned their entire arsenal at him precisely because of his constant outspoken championship of conservatism. Yet, he hasn’t backed down or regretted taking a stand for conservatism. Quite the contrary, he continues to do so with his head held high.

In short, Rick Santorum is a proud representative of the conservative viewpoint on all major issues we wish to challenge Barack Obama including Obama’s trademark legislations – Obamacare, government bailouts, government takeovers, and Cap & Trade. Santorum also provides a clear contrast to Obama’s endless choking environmental regulation, stifling energy policies including the denial for the Keystone Pipeline, first-class insulter of our allies and apologist to our enemies.

This is the case, and would be so, even if he wouldn’t have won with landslide victories this night. His victories, though, highlight the strong positives he brings to the table, since he focused throughout his campaign strictly on substance and the issues.

It just so happens to be that Rick Santorum is also the only candidate currently in this race who is a conservative and has remained staunchly loyal to conservatism during his representation of the purple/blue state of Pennsylvania. We can therefore be confident with a President Santorum that he won’t engage in any rash moves which will contradict conservative principles even if he will come under extreme pressure and badmouthing of the Democrats. He’s already been there and remained rock strong in defense of conservative values.

Obama’s entire three years has been an endless play of pitting poor against rich, ethnic groups against one another and so forth. With Rick Santorum on the Republican ballot, his fight against the rich will fall flat, for Obama’s income exceeds that of Rick Santorum’s. Additionally, Santorum’s amazing ability to unite with average blue-collar hardworking Americans, as he’s proven repeatedly in liberal Pennsylvania, will help him carry the crucial swing-states one must win in a presidential election. He’s won Iowa in the primary and can carry it in the general, and is polling best against Obama in the important swing-state Ohio. He is also the only one on the Republican side who can make Pennsylvania turn red again after having gone blue in every election since 1988. He is also polling extremely well in many other crucial swing states.

Yes, Santorum has lost his reelection in 2006 in Pennsylvania, but he has also won two statewide elections, in 1994 and 2000, despite PA having gone blue in every presidential contest since 1988. Santorum’s strong support for Bush’s War on Terror was a major cause for his loss, for anti-war protests were reaching its peak. Additionally, his constant defense of conservatism in general, has made him a

There’s still a long road ahead, although a clear shift has taken place this night. Santorum ran on a conservative platform and has shown that conservatism is quite popular amongst Americans across all spectrums. He has also proven capable of winning the heartland of America including swing states which are crucial in the general election. We may still look back at this night as the turning point in the primary in more ways than just one.

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on Twitter.

Newt Gingrich has been strutting across town with an over-sized ego ever since his rise in the polls in December. He had declared himself the definite winner of  the GOP primary and the only one who can defeat Obama before the primaries had even begun! Despite having come in fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich and his team have demanded conservatives to unite around his campaign since he was the only one who could beat Romney and Obama. This was prior to having won a single victory!

Here’s the question for Newt Gingrich; if he would truly want to promote conservatism, why hasn’t he acted upon his words after the first two states had voted, in which he came in below Santorum?

Hot Air has done a great job highlight the hollowness and falsehood of Gingrich for pretending to seek a united front for the sake of conservatism when he’s obviously demanding it solely to benefit himself:

Oddly, Gingrich didn’t appear as principled on the subject of conservative consolidation when Santorum won Iowa and Gingrich finished fourth, nor when Santorum narrowly edged Gingrich for fourth place in New Hampshire.  If he was concerned about a conservative sacrificing to make sure a conservative alternative had the strength to beat Mitt Romney at that time, Gingrich didn’t pull a muscle leaping out of his chair to volunteer.  Needless to say, neither has Santorum, who told Gingrich in response to run his own campaign.

After his desperately-needed victory in South Carolina, Newt sharply increased his descending tone to Rick Santorum despite Santorum having also won an equal number of states so far; 1. He then floated into Florida after his South Carolina victory promising a “final knockout.” We now know how that turned out, and who was the recipient of a “knockout.”

Newt though hasn’t acknowledged his own weaknesses which have led to his loss. Instead, he upped the heat against Santorum an additional notch higher and blamed Santorum for his own failure! Additionally, Newt couldn’t bring himself to congratulate Romney in his concession speech(repeating from actions in Iowa) while pretended Santorum was now out of the picture, although he couldn’t be any further than the truth.

“It is now clear that this will be a two-person race between the conservative leader, Newt Gingrich, and the Massachusetts moderate, and the voters of Florida made that clear,” Gingrich said following his landslide loss in Florida. Gingrich ignored the fact that the other two candidates in the race – Ron Paul and Rick Santorum – chose not to run aggressive campaigns in the state.

Newt has also failed to recognize that while he has come out ahead of Santorum in Florida, Santorum came out ahead of Newt in New Hampshire. They’ve thus both won one state and come out higher than each other in one other state. Coming out stronger than Santorum in Florida has made Newt equal, not greater than, Santorum.

Although Newt is desperate for Santorum to back out of the race and for Santorum supporters to throw their support behind his campaign, neither of the above will happen in the near future, and his repeated aggressive requests for both won’t change the facts.

Firstly, Santorum has never made winning Florida a goal, as Newt had, since it’s a winner-take-all and knew he won’t win. Instead, he’s focusing on the upcoming elections where he’s polling extremely well. He’s already been to several states in the last few days and he’s got a full schedule today in Colorado.

Secondly, the claims that Santorum’s broke it utterly false; the Santorum campaign confirms it raised $4.2M in January and unlike the Newt campaign, has no debt. Additionally,  Foster Freiss is supporting Santorum and plans on giving him significant help moving forward. “I believe Rick Santorum will become one of the front-runners very soon,” Foster Friess, a major donor to the Red White and Blue Fund, said during his interview with Bloomberg Television.

Furthermore, a new PPP poll had been released yesterday, and the results are quite astounding. Although Newt pretends that if Santorum backs out then Newt has got the nomination in his pocket, the results are pretty shaky. If Gigrich himself backs out though, the nomination does seem to go pretty strongly for Santorum. Santorum polls far  stronger against Romney in a two man race than does Newt solely against Romney. The reason this is so, is because Santorum is the second choice for an overwhelming majority of Newt supporters (and also for Romney supporters) while the reverse is not the case.

Here’s the info directly from the PPP poll.

In Missouri, held a week from today, Santorum has a 63-21 favorability spread to Gingrich’s 52-32, Romney’s 46-36, and Paul’s 28-57.  On the actual primary ballot, for which Gingrich did not qualify, Santorum leads with 45% to Romney’s 34% and Paul’s 13%.  In the caucus, in which Gingrich can compete, Santorum falls to second at 28% behind the former speaker’s 30% and ahead of Romney’s 24% and Paul’s 11%.   Head-to-head, Gingrich would defeat Romney in the state, 43-42, but Santorum would, 50-37. That is because Santorum’s supporters only go for Gingrich by eight points over Romney, but Gingrich’s vote for Santorum by 28 points. In Ohio, which will be held on Super Tuesday (March 6th), Santorum’s favorability rating is 59-24, compared to Romney’s and Gingrich’s 47-37 and Paul’s 31-52.  The primary is a three-way race between Gingrich (26%), Romney (25%), and Santorum (22%), with Paul at 11%.  Gingrich would top Romney, 42-39, but Santorum would, 45-38.

In other words, here’s how the two different two-man races would look like:

-In Missouri Santorum leads Romney 50-37 and in Ohio Santorum leads 45-38.

-In Missouri Gingrich leads Romney 43-42 and in Ohio Gingrich leads 42-39.

And remember that Gingrich isn’t even on the ballot in Missouri.

Can anyone remind me again which candidate is demanding the other to bow out of the race and which one says that everyone has a right to run?

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on Twitter.

One of the few things that most of us have agreed upon during this Presidential election cycle is the need to continue to improve Congress. We know that even if the best conservative candidate is elected he’ll need a solid conservative Congress to accomplish real reforms. And if we end up with a re-elected Obama, we’ll still need a solid conservative Congress to thwart his continued attempts to move us further down the road to European socialism.

To that end, I’d like to introduce to you a candidate for Colorado’s second district. But before I do, I’d like set the stage. Even though Colorado did not gain or lose seats, we still went through the process of redrawing the boundaries. Unfortunately what that means here is for the Democrat-controlled Legislature to do nothing and force the courts to do it. In the end, the congressional boundary changes weren’t as bad as they could’ve been. Scott Tipton in CO-3 will probably have an easier time with his re-election. Cory Gardner in CO-4 is set. So is Doug Lamborn in CO-5. The big loser could be Mike Coffman in CO-6. This was the goal of the Democrats. I still think Coffman has a decent chance to keep his seat. He did well in statewide elections, and is still popular in the state.

This diary is not about any of those districts. It is about Colorado’s 2nd congressional district, currently held by Jared Polis. The district contains all of The People’s Republic of Boulder™. It has always been a Democrat stronghold, but now with the addition of Larimer County (where I live), it has moved quite a bit towards the center. This presents and opportunity for Republicans to gain this seat later this year.

Kevin Lundberg currently represents the 15th Senate district in Colorado. Originally appointed in 2009 to fill the remaining two years in that district, he previously represented the 49th House district since 2002. He was re-elected in 2010 to another 4-year term. Kevin has won several awards, including Taxpayer Champion and Taxpayer Guardian from the Colorado Union of Taxpayers. For those of you that are now aware, we take tax control seriously in Colorado.

Kevin’s legislative accomplishments include:

* HB07-1208 and SB08-246, It took two bills get this done, eliminating legal prohibitions on generous gas and prescription drug programs – previous to the bills Colorado law prevented private businesses from offering any discounts “below cost.”

* HB04-1262 requiring clear signage identifying “red light” camera systems. These are the cameras at intersections that can automatically send traffic tickets. My bill let everyone know where the cameras are set up.

* Authorized people to copy and distribute Colorado statutes. Before the bill citizens were required by law to ask for permission from the Capitol to copy or distribute any state law.

* SB03-139, requiring jurisdictions to publicly disclose financial information before a bond election.

* HB04-1263 was a bill concerning the removal of the requirement under Colorado law for submission of a social security number on an application for a license issued by the Division of Wildlife (hunting and fishing licenses).

* SJR10-026 established the Sgt. Justin Bauer Memorial Highway

* HB0-1413 modifying the direct file laws for juveniles

* HB0-1259 conforming the annexation act of 1965 to the state constitution

Jared Polis has been a reliable vote for Barack Obama. When Lundberg was asked, Why run against Jared Polis, he states:

Votesmart.org lists 92 votes that Rep. Polis cast on the House Floor in 2011. 80% of the votes were either no, or did not vote. Among his no votes for 2011, which I would have supported are:

H.R. 2 – Repealing the Federal Health Care bill
H.R. 2021 – Cory Gardner’s bill providing timely processing of off-shore oil permits
H.R. 471 – Creating school vouchers for D.C. Schools
H.R. 1076 – Doug Lamborn’s bill cutting off Federal funds for NPR
H. amendment 95 – Prohibiting Federal funding for Planned Parenthood
H.R. 1633 – Limiting regulation of farm dust
H.R. 2560 – Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011

Kevin Lundberg currently has an exploratory committee to see if there is sufficient support to help him try to unseat Polis. He’s looking for 1500 people to sign up in support of his candidacy. I’ve already signed up to support him, and strongly encourage those of you inside and outside of Colorado to do that same. Let’s get that number to 1500 so Kevin will run. He is looking to make a decision by tomorrow (Jan 6th), so please don’t delay.

I know Kevin, and I’ve followed his efforts on behalf of Coloradans. He would be a great asset to the U.S. House of Representatives. Let’s send him to Washington to represent the consituents of the newly drawn 2nd district.