2012 Republican National Convention names Google ‘Official Social Platform and Live Stream Provider’

The 2012 Republican National Convention today announced that Google has been named the “Official Social Platform and Live Stream Provider” of the Republican presidential nominating convention to be held Aug. 27-30 in Tampa.

As a convention partner, Google will provide a range of technology support and services, including streaming high-quality, live video of convention events and programs.

“Google and YouTube are transforming the political process, providing voters an unprecedented degree of participation and, for the very first time, giving every American who has access to a computer, tablet, video gaming system, interactive television, or video-enabled smart-phone an exclusive backstage pass to the podium of a national political convention,” said convention CEO William Harris, in the press release.

Using a host of new technologies and communications platforms including “Google+ Hangouts” (a new multi-party videoconferencing feature), convention organizers hope to provide voters a virtual front-row seat to convention proceedings and activities.

“Having Google as a partner ensures the most engaging convention experience in history,” added Harris. “Our goal is to bring the convention to you, no matter where you are or which device you use.”

“We are excited to work with the Republican National Convention to help break down traditional barriers and empower voters. By incorporating our tools and technology, we are offering a behind the scenes look at the convention process and allowing voters, delegates and viewers to shape the conversation,” said Susan Molinari, Google’s Vice President of Public Policy, in the press release.

Source: 2011-12 Committee on Arrangements for the 2012 Republican National Convention

[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]

Related articles:
Why Mac users should avoid Facebook – April 11, 2012
Study finds link between number of Facebook friends and ‘socially disruptive’ narcissism – April 10, 2012
Could Google+ ever have been anything but a failure? – March 27, 2012
James Whittaker: Why I left Google – March 14, 2012
Google+ to boost features, integrate Google Apps accounts, add pseudonyms soon – October 20, 2011
Google+ social network now open to public – September 20, 2011
Google+ may pass Twitter with one-fifth of U.S. adults online – August 9, 2011
Free Google+ for iPhone app debuts in Apple App Store – July 19, 2011


    1. A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, but
      her father was a staunch Republican. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to high
      taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked how she was doing in school.
      She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA, but it was really tough. She had to study all the time and never had time to go
      out and party. She didn’t have time for a boyfriend and didn’t really have many college friends because of spending all
      her time studying. On top of that, the part-time job her father insisted she keep left absolutely no time for anything else.
      He asked, ‘How is your friend Mary?’ She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied,
      but was very popular on campus, didn’t have a job, and went to all the parties. She was always complaining about not
      having any money, but didn’t want to work. Why, she often didn’t show up for classes because she was hung over.
      Dad then asked his daughter why she didn’t go to the Dean’s office and request that 1.0 be taken off her 4.0 and given
      it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a respectable 3.0 GPA. Then, she could also give
      her friend half the money she’d earned from her job so that her friend would no longer be broke. The daughter angrily
      fired back, ‘That wouldn’t be fair. I worked really hard for my grades and money, and Mary just loafs. Why should her
      laziness and irresponsibility be rewarded with half of what I’ve worked for?’ The father slowly smiled and said,
      ‘Welcome to the Republican Party’.”

            1. Actually Socialist would be a more accurate description of me. Communism is an economic theory I have never gotten behind.

              So this “story” isn’t simplistic to you? I guess being stupid, it would be complicated to you.

      1. Spoken like a true partisan hack.

        Since when was either of the two political parties in the USA more capitalist _in action_ than the other? You seem taken by rhetoric, but have offered no facts to back up anything. Does either party have a solution to why US schoolchildren underperform their peers in MORE socialistic and communistic schools? No. Because in the US, parents have the freedom to let their fatass kids waste their lives on the brain-paralyzing internets and “social media” and boob tube.

        Republican rhetoric like this “parable” tosses up plenty of straw men, but voting records show that the GOP enacts as much or more corporate welfare, market manipulating regulation, protectionism, and market manipulating tax loopholes than the dumbocrats. Both parties pander to their funders to ensure re-election, regardless of what impact their corruption has on the nation. There is no difference. Vote both parties out.

        1. Yep. Both parties suck. If you’ve bought into the Republicans or the Democrats, you’re a dupe, and your gullibility is a major factor in our representative government having been stolen from “we the people.”

          In America, we get the government we deserve, and our fascination with “bread and circuses” has led to the hijacking of our country by powerful corporations and the very rich.

            1. @ Reality – do you really think that you’ll sway other people to your OPINION by calling them morons? Do you honestly believe that juvenile posts completely void of verifiable facts or valid references reinforces your position in any way? Why don’t you ponder that while the adults get on with their lives.

            2. Why don’t you ponder the destruction and misery Liberal-Tard-Demo-Commies are wreaking on the US society and the world.

              Socialism is an abysmal failure. You idiot!

            3. @ reality –

              first, there is no such thing as pure capitalism, just as there is no such thing as pure socialism. all modern economies are mixed markets. The US society, from day 1, has relied on “socialist” structures such as militia (groups which come together to serve the common good, in this case defense). Instead of spouting off incendiary language, why don’t you offer specific examples of how your world is destroyed and what specifically you would change to solve it. And no, the replacement of any one government official is not an answer. That is part of the natural process that we established, and the functioning of democratic systems like those in the US and other first-world nations proves that “Socialism” isn’t wreaking destruction on the planet. Most, if not all, of the people you incorrectly label “socialist” were publicly elected. Why in the world do you have a problem with other nations pursuing socialistic mechanisms to operate their economy? Their inefficiency makes them less competitive against the USA. The only way you would lose as an American is if YOU invested in liberal-tard-demo-commie companies!!! So go cry to your momma if your liberty and fiscal condition aren’t as good or BETTER than when Bush bankrupted the nation with multiple simultaneous OPTIONAL foreign wars. YOU sir, not me, are the idiot who offers no facts to back up your overheated rhetorical fluff.

        1. … second. There’s only two groups you could be talking about, there. The NoPublicans and Apple. The first group doesn’t dive a gnat’s fart about social benefits and the second is fine about social benefits as long as they get a hefty cut of the proceeds. As the “commies” at the very least claim to be “not-for-profit”, I’d have to say neither of these groups qualifies.
          True, the NoPublicans want to rule the world with a Radical Right-Wing Theocracy – sounds a lot like the leaders of Iran, IMHO – and the Apple folk seem intent on burying California in money. Thank the Lord none of the three has achieved their objectives. Yet.
          So … don’t you go calling folk “commies”. Even Christ was only a socialist, and look at the twisting hate His words provoke these days.

          1. Hold On,

            You have thing completely mixed up. Republicans give far more to all charities than any Demo-Turd ever has or would.

            The Republican altruists want people to live and let live. Something completely foreign to the liar, NAZI, RACIST, DemoSCUM. But you already knew that.

            1. @ you with little dignity:

              Did you not realize that Gates and Buffett are die-hard democrats who have pledged to give away the vast majority of their wealth to non-political causes? that fact alone refutes your lie. I’d be more circumspect about your comments since you clearly know nothing of which you write.

            2. They are die – hard commies and won’t give up their wealth until they are dead.

              Also Buffett is a liar and a sham with his Buffett rule. He owes a huge sum of money in unpaid taxes as well you LEMMING!

    1. The Democrats will now select Facebook as their official blah blah blah

      Not that one is any better than the other. (Party or tech company – take your pick.)

    1. Okay, I’ll enter fray. I’m not a Republican, but I’m damn sure not voting for that PoS to endure his sorry a$$ for another four years. I’d like to know, what other companies were in the running AND who did the Dems choose?

      Applesmack, as living proof, sorry to say, I see your father’ s Condumb didn’t work.

    1. The only gay issue that I’m aware of that the Republicans as a party are interested is in preserving marriage between a man and a woman. Obama also shares this same view.

      1. Actually, the GOP is against employment and housing anti-discrimination polices (ENDA), open military service (despite the over turn of DADT), and, in most cases, any civil union protections.

        1. Really? I’ve been a Republican my whole life and just now learned that I oppose all these things?

          Actually, if you knew anything about the party you’d know that while most of us want to define marriage as between a man and a woman, most of us also want he federal government to stop telling us what to think or believe.

          Just like the contraception mandate once the government decides what’s right to believe they’ll force it on you. Why not leave all of these decisions up to the states? Last time I read my copy of the Constitution marriage wasn’t in it, but the first amendment was.

          1. Really not meaning to start a debate, especially since you seem like a reasonable person. While individual Republicans many not subscribe to all that the party stands for, the GOP is undeniably anti-gay. It’s true that marriage isn’t mentioned in the Constitution — at all. So by that argument, and any modicum of Libertarianism, same-sex marriage should be legal.

            Regardless, Apple rules, which is why I come to this site. (But seriously…all those anti Obama Ads are really annoying…)

            1. The trouble with the “marriage isn’t mentioned in the Constitution” argument is that there aren’t that many things mentioned in the Constitution. It’s the same as the fundamentalist Christian “if it’s not in the Bible, it can’t be true” argument. There are things not mentioned in the Constitution because they were common knowledge and agreement at the time the Constitution was written. But the Constitution has strayed far from its original purpose of keeping the Federal government out of the business of the private citizen and, true to Machiavelli’s principles, now the Federal government believes that it MUST rule over everything.

            2. Argelius, Whatever Republicans stand for it’s light years better than what the Demo-NAZIS stand for.

              Democrats are pure evil and are out to destroy the US.

            3. You don’t have to agree with anything other people do in their lives. You just have to learn to keep your nose out and let them get on with it, as you would expect them to do in return. As has already been said by many a commentator, if you’re against same-sex marriage don’t marry someone of the same sex. It’s that easy.

            4. Marty, if it bothers you that much just look the other way. Change the channel as they say. Unless you live in the Village or The Castro you aren’t going to see gay people wherever you look, so it’s pretty easy to zone out.

            5. That’s what we do, but why do gays feel they have to broadcast their lifestyles everywhere and anywhere. Just be gay and less forceful in your face about it. It should be a private matter. The same goes for heterosexual PDA.

            6. Kelly, all a gay guy has to do is mention his partner in response to a question about what he did at the weekend and some people will accuse him of “broadcasting his lifestyle”, accusations by the same people that will happily drone on about their wife and kids for a year and a day without any sense of irony.

              See it from a gay persons point of view and the one’s “broadcasting” aren’t the gay folks.

            7. No Dave H, That isn’t what I’m talking about. No one cares when it’s done that way.

              It’s when Gay is forced on everyone and their children 24/7 throughout society when people start getting annoyed with it.

              If you’re happy and gay then great for you.

            8. Nobody does that Kelly. Some people, obviously you amongst them, get that impression because gay people are outside of your perception of what society’s background noise is about so you notice them more. That’s all it is. For every person who says “I’m gay” there are a hundred who talk about their straight relationships without you even registering that they’re doing it. Guys talk about girls they picked up at a bar, girls talk about which boy celeb they fancy, all of it goes on constantly daily. When a guy talks about a guy he picked up at a bar in exactly the same way or a girl talks about a girl celeb they fancy they are behaving exactly as their straight counterparts do. That’s not forcing anything onto anyone, it’s just people being people.

        1. That’s correct. Repubs think that if you don’t have money, you should just die. They think “let the poor suffer, we’ll just build higher fences around our mansions.”

          1. It’s strange how Republicans worry about unborn babies dying but not about unfortunate adults. If US “freedoms” mean madmen running into schools with guns and people becoming so horrendously fat that they have to ride around in buggys, then I’m quite happy to lose a bit of freedom.

        2. Isn’t that what many wealthy do, leach off of society? After all, where do you think they got their money? Isn’t it by inadvertently exploiting harder-working lower-paid Americans who didn’t have the same opportunities, education and family circumstances as them?

          Sam Wall is the exception, not the rule.

          1. That’s what a brain-dead-commie would think.

            They got that way through hard work and in the process provided millions of people with JOBS you idiot.

            How would you like it to happen. Be lazy and beg for scraps from Maobamamidagene??

    1. Perhaps selfish would be a better word than evil? From the European perspective, right wing politics in the US are much more extreme. The ideas that women shouldn’t be able to choose for themselves whether to have an abortion based on their own beliefs rather than mine, your or the government, or the idea that if I lose my job I shouldn’t have access to health care and support from the money I’ve already paid in tax are just not really debated in Europe, it is generally accepted that we have a social responsibility towards the less fortunate (who you view as lazy). Of course not living in the US, I couldn’t really care less what happens over the pond but as for geoglobal politics and foreign policy, the thought of that Mitt Romney guy being in charge of one of the world’s superpowers and starting wars against Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc is quite frightening! Having that idiot Bush in charge did immeasurable damage for the US overseas. You pick some very odd people to lead you!

      1. Having Bush in charge made some Europeans angry because.
        1. He started a war with Afganistan after we were attacked with thousands of our people murdered by a known person who was being sheltered there.
        2. We started a war in Iraq.

        Europeans meanwhile have caused immeasurable harm in every part of the world through practices of conquering, plundering, enslaving and pillaging every single continent. Only having let some of the enslaved.. I’m sorry “colonized” populations go very recently. Never taking any real responsibility for the aftermath of your colonization and theft from these many countries and the futures of millions of people.

        Look at the mess you guys made of Africa. And much of the state of the middle easy including Iran and Iraq can be traced to the policies and actions of your continent.

        Europe being self righteous about US foreign policy is a sick joke.

        1. Reason 1) is false. The following nations contributed troops to the war in Afghanistan:
          United States
          United Kingdom

          1. buzzy, many other countries were sympathetic to the U.S. position with respect to Afghanistan after 9/11, and some of them did contribute a few troops. But the U.S. did start the war. Unlike the Iraq war, however, we had reasonable justification to consider a military response in Afghanistan. So Reason #1 is not false – it did make some Europeans angry even though a number of European governments supported the U.S.

            1. Give some actual examples of expressions of anger and disagreement about what Bush organized post 9/11 in Afghanistan.
              If you adjust troop commitment size for total population, the numbers are reasonable.
              In the context of T’moon’s argument, 1) above is in fact, not a supportable statement.

          2. And it is worth noting that only one country other than the U.S. sent more than about 5000 troops to Afghanistan – GB – which sent nearly 10,000.. The U.S. sent around 90,000. So this was clearly a U.S. war, even though it had international support. And you may recall what happened to Tony in GB.

            1. Bliar’s problem was nothing to do with Iraq, more that the people of the UK slowly came round to seeing him for the complete sham he is.

              It’s a shame people in the US haven’t yet woken up to the lying shitbag, but we have to live in hope.

            2. Doesn’t seem that way from your historical posts Dave H. But hey maybe you’ve turned over a new leaf.

              So you’re no longer a socialist and now a freedom loving, capitalist? I hope so.

    2. Both parties redistribute wealth.
      The Democratic Party espouses policies that tend to redistribute wealth in the interest of helping the poor, elderly, disabled and otherwise needy maintain some level of dignity in life.
      The Republican Party espouses policies that rob the public of the commonwealth and hand it over to the very wealthy/connected- a.k.a. Economic Darwinism.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.