Santorum beats Romney in Iowa

Remember how in the Iowa caucus, Romney managed to just squeak by with just 8 votes over Santorum. Did that seem really, really close to anyone else? Was anyone else just a little suspicious, having lived though such events as the Bush/Gore/Florida fiasco, that there might be some margin of error in the counting?

Well, there has been a retally and turns out Romney lost, and not by 8 votes. Santorum actually surpassed Romney by four-times that amount with 34 votes. However, Iowa GOP is calling the race a tie, because votes from eight of Iowa's 1,774 precincts could not be officially certified.

What I find interesting about this whole turn of events is that with the first count no one even mentioned the word "tie." There was discussion over Romney winning by such a small margin, but it was very clear in everyone's mind that Romney had ultimately won Iowa. Now that it in fact turns out Romney was not the winning, the vote is considered a "tie."

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, and there has DEFINITELY been no evidence discovered of any conspiring having taken place, nor am I suggesting there is. But it seems very clear to me that the powers that be within the GOP are interested in tilting the favor in Romney's direction. I think they realize now that with the Tea Party they've created a golem-like beast that they cannot control and so have no interest in a Santorum or, God-save-them, a Paul. Gingrich has a lot of enemies within the GOP for his antics and Perry, who will likely be leaving the race later today, can barely string a coherent thought together. Romney is their only option. An option they taken begrudgingly, but an option they take.

Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super Pac

I think it can be pretty well agreed that this current presidential primary has tilted away from the traditional prestige of our government process and in occasion come to resemble the absurdity of a VH1 "celebrity" reality show. Over the past six months we've trotted out a parade of circus acts for voter approval. They are lifted up and adored only to quickly be tossed aside when we finally realize upon closer examination what nut-jobs they really are.

Well, in a most perfect, satirical demonstration of this silliness, comedian Stephen Colbert announced last Thursday, after learning a poll of South Carolina voters ranked him higher than then-candidate John Huntsman and consulting "with [his] money," that he would be forming an “exploratory committee for president of the United States of South Carolina.”

Now in order for him to do this, Colbert would legally have to give up control of Super Pac, American's for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, which he has used since last summer as a way of giving audience members an inside look into the process and ultimately mocking the lack of regulation concerned. Because candidates and their staff are not allowed to "coordinate" with Super Pacs, Colbert managed to circumvent this rule by handing over control to his close friend and business partner, Jon Stewart.

Turns out it is actually quite common for candidates to have close personal and business ties with the heads of their Super Pacs. Romney's Super Pac, Restore our future, was starting by his Charles Spies, his lawyer during the 2008 presidential bid. Gingrich's Super Pac, Winning our Future, is headed by former Gingrich staffer, Becky Burkett. Perry's Super Pac, Making Us Great Again, was started by Governor Perry's chief of staff, Mike Toomey. Mr. Toomey also co-owns a resort island with Perry's current chief campaign strategist, Dave Carney.

So since Stewart has been endowed with the limitless funds of this Super Pac, he is then able to use that money to advocate on behalf of Colbert's candidacy and fire attacks at rival candidates. On Monday, Stewart kicked it off, purchase five prime time slots on South Carolina's top news stations for an ad attacking Romney's former career with the private equity firm, Bain Capital.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Colbert Super PAC Ad - Attack in B Minor for Strings
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Now the Colbert campaign did hit bit of a snag. Because South Carolina has a locked ballot - meaning the names are set and no write-ins are allowed, and Colbert had missed the state's filing deadline, there was no way to get Colbert's name on the ballot. BUT, because it is a locked ballot, that means that names of candidates no longer in the running will still be printed. In response, Colbert told audience members that in his view a vote for former-candidate Herman Cain, whom Colbert had endorsed on the show earlier in the season, was a vote for Stephen Colbert.

So on Tuesday, Stewart's Super Pac ran a new ad in South Carolina explaining the strategy.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Colbert Super PAC Ad - Not Abel
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Now critics have pointed out that since Colbert's show announcing the new strategy was not broadcasted until late Tuesday night after the ads premiered but was taped before the ads premiered, that Colbert could not have publicly expressed this idea a concerned citizen, as Gingrich demonstrated was allowed. Instead Colbert and Stewart must have privately "coordinated" over the strategy.

However, here too is a loophole. If Stewart had been the one to originate the idea and communicated to Colbert of his plans, this legally would not be "coordination." As long as Colbert does not explicitly express an approval or disapproval of Stewart's plans, it is not legally "coordination."

Internet Blacked Out

Check it out:

The logo for Google ... BLACKED OUT!

The entire, English content of Wikipedia ... BLACKED OUT!

So why are these and other internet sites totting this blackout out of content? It is all part of an organized protest against two bills of anti-piracy legislation that moving through the Congress. Critics claim that the bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act, are an affront to free speech on the internet and are concerned that many websites will be unfairly blacklisted by regulators for reports of alleged, but unproven, copyright infringements.