How much bang do you expect for a buck, kid?

N.Y. Times fails to pop McCain's balloon.

The New York Times shot its credibility in the foot with the story about Sen. John McCain and his suspected secret love lobbyist, Vicki Iseman.


McCain clearly gained the upper hand in strategy with this failed attempt at integrity assassination. Several things happened to McCain's advantage. One, the Times is now on notice to be extremely cautious with its reporting practices. They screwed up by focusing the story on the sex angle, rather than the more important lobbyist favor-pandering aspect.


The story, which was most likely leaked by McCain's own cronies, sweeps aside the potential for future negative campaigning by the Democratic survivor, whoever that will be, especially if any such negativity is generated by the Times staff.


Suspicion will loom ominously over any of the iconic paper's reportage that involves McCain's financial and/or sexual exploits. Even if scandals exist in Republican Land, they can't be exposed by the Times for fear the paper will appear to have old score to settle with old guys. It's too late to save face now, though. The editor should have tossed caution to the wind on this one by calling in Jayson Blair. At least then they'd have a scapegoat.


If an actual sex dalliance ever was scandal-sheet worthy, McCain is now clear to brush it aside. Ink has clouded the water. It's inconceivable that he will reach the porn star status that Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton achieved with Monica, but then again, that's not the image McCain wants to project.


The Times put the kibosh on criticism directed at McCain's moral standing, whether perceived or real; essentially creating a GOP martyr. The rush to scoop the New Republic, who tried to scoop the Times, who tried to scoop the New Republic, omitted two basic news imperatives; attributable sourcing and sound editorial judgment.


The next major newspaper to accuse McCain of impropriety had better have 8" x 10" glossies, a YouTube video and/or DNA evidence before committing their publication to the bottom of the proverbial bird cage.


Any accusations of courting financial deal makers (or under-the-sheet-tussles with blonde lobbyists) will be viewed by voters as desperate liberal media mudslinging. Practically every potential voter in dread of negative campaigning will reject future slams against St. John de Arizona.


Most likely, to survive in the elections coverage mix, the Times will now direct its focus on Obama slamming, much as McCain has already announced he will do. What a frightening concept; tag-team headline writing between liberal media and the conservative candidate (Huckabee is only a red herring).


Hillary's recent tirade against Obama for his mailers proved to be a big audience turn-off in Ohio -- and blue collar workers in Ohio take that crap personally. By lambasting the kid from Chicago, who consequently appeared surprised at her verbal meltdown, Hillary all but tossed the "youth-mallows" and the super-duper delegates into Obama's already raging bonfire.


It's merely a matter of months before we hear a loud sizzle and pop in the youth vote. College-age voters don't have the stamina or attention span to survive the months of confusing ads, issues twisting and name calling that lies ahead. They will become desensitized and disenfranchised before summer's end, which ultimately will benefit McCain.


The Times all but guaranteed buku million-dollar investments in the 'Nam vet's war chest. By the time mainstream evaluation of the old soldier melds with the "blogzone" rhetoric of ultracon supporters, McCain will be palming the White House Bible with a loud rendition of "I do solemnly swear...."


It appears I may have to publish one big, fat "I told you so" on Wednesday, Nov. 5.

With Chelsea in the water, whose pond is this?

Chelsea Clinton could be force among college voters

In an all out war to become the leader of the known world, a candidate needs to pull out every available weapon and toss concerns about casualties to the sidelines.

Most candidates have paraded their children on stage, but understandably keep them off limits to the media and the voting public.

What’s funny is that, for the first time since the elections of the last millennium, the youth vote is deemed important. The problem with chasing young voters is that it’s difficult to measure which candidate, er, celebrity they deem important enough to trust.

Barack Obama whipped out the heavy artillery early with endorsements from Oprah Winfrey, Will.i.am and Fall Out Boy.

It’s barely worth noticing that John McCain has pulled a combination of geezer muscle and star power by gaining endorsements from Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone and Tom Selleck. It hardly matters who supports McCain as long as “W” gives him the thumbs up.

But Hillary Clinton counter punched her co-frontrunner with such backers as Barbra Streisand, Magic Johnson, 50 Cent and Jerry Springer.

In a battle for the youth vote, all of the top candidates have courted some pop icon or another.

With Obama holding an edge in the “big-gun friends of Dems” category, it’s obviously time for Hillary to unleash her own firepower — her daughter Chelsea Clinton.

That’s right, Chelsea. The 28-year-old Clinton has been drafted into the ranks of family politics and is saying “aloha” at college campuses in Obama’s backyard in Hawaii.

Of course, this isn’t Chelsea’s first foray into the battle zone. She’s already been on the campaign trail during this rotation, but has been mostly silent. In fact, mom and dad’s former hip ornament has even made national headlines without speaking a word.

MSNBC reporter David Shuster was indefinitely suspended after suggesting that Chelsea was being “pimped out” by her parents. Shuster single-handedly made Chelsea a martyr and elevated her celebrity status with his unkind remarks.

One might think Chelsea isn’t a major force in the battle to get mom elected. Some have been critical that she’s too soft spoken. But this may play well among college students who are sitting on the fence.

A little soft touch might be welcomed after the barrage of harsh negative campaigning we’ve already grown accustomed to in this race.

Chelsea might draw empathy from the college crowds who’ve watched her grow up in her parents’ shadows.

The “aww” factor may resonate among young voters more than celebrity endorsements. Chelsea could bring both weapons to the battle ground, youth and name recognition.

The bridge gets harder to cross

Today, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger confirmed what he's already threatened; cuts in education and health care for the poor.

I consider it a great source of pride to have the leader of our student government treat me and my assistants with disrespect. It lets me know that we’ve touched a sore spot.

We ripped the scab off the wound with our scathing editorial addressing our Associated Students, Inc. silence during the announcement of this current budget crisis at the Cal State University Board of Trustees meeting. Simply put, Cal State Long Beach's ASI was a no show, even though they had the closest proximity.

ASI reps from Chico, Stanislaus, San Diego and other CSUs made the trip and voiced their objections, but our ASI apparently couldn't find its own backyard.

It was their responsibility, not only to their constituents at The Beach, but for students throughout the state. After all, the most controversial item on the agenda was Schwarzenegger’s budget cuts to the CSU and University of California systems.

My assistant editor, Simon Barta, made multiple conscientious attempts to elicit comments from ASI President Mark Andrews. These attempts went ignored. Barta was trying to get the most accurate information available.

What amounts to even less than "no comment" was the best he received from Andrews. I surmised Barta, a fellow student, must not be at the right frat party to be deemed worthy of common courtesy.

I wonder how many other CSULB students Andrews ignores or treats with disrespect. My recent guess is approximately 34,000. If I gambled I'd start an office pool.

Not one returned phone call or e-mail from a student-funded BlackBerry; another situation when ASI felt they owed nothing in the way of explanation to our student body.

Rather than issuing a statement to the Daily Forty-Niner, Andrews chose to publish an opinion piece in the Union newspaper, assailing our editorials supporting community college students and chastising ASI's lack of involvement in the budget emergency.

That’s like a supermarket reader writing to the Penny Saver about an opinion they read in The New York Times. My advice would be to write to the original publication.

To do otherwise means the author's convictions carry an unwieldy stench of cowardice. It reduces his/her commentary to mere back door sniping, but I suppose that's par for the course with this ASI.

As if to validate his middle-school, popularity contest "right to office," Andrews relayed a third-person message to me through Super Fan Jo-Ryan Salazar that I was a “whiner” and the Daily Forty-Niner is nothing more than a “tabloid.”

That’s the typical name calling and childishness we’ve grown accustomed to at our “tabloid” from many in our student government. It seems as if most mumbled when they took their oaths of office.

I claim ownership for being “whiny” on behalf of 35,000-plus students. Our elected leaders aren’t doing it.

If anything screams for student representation (insert whining here), it should be about the 10 percent cuts to the CSU being passed along to students in the form of tuition increases well into the next decade.

The presidents of our university and our student government (insert tabloid-like scandal here) should be leading the charge to protect one of the largest high school graduating classes in California history.

With forced admission caps already in place, large numbers of these high school grads will be deprived of access to our university.

They should be speaking in public for thousands of community college transfer students (insert more whining) who have been busting their humps the past few years to get here, only to be denied when they think their time has finally arrived to cross the university bridge.

Not only is Schwarzenegger’s plan to heap another burden on the backs of public education, it’s a direct violation of the guaranteed growth funding promised in the Higher Education Compact that CSU Chancellor Charles, UC President Dynes and the Educ-Hater illegitimately signed in 2004.

Why wouldn’t our elected representatives take a proactive stand by voicing our concerns? They are ASI, right? I'm also a CSULB student, so "I am ASI," right? Somewhere in the ASI title is “associated” and somewhere else is “students.”

But the part of the political nomenclature our reps are focused on is the “Inc.” Much like the old mafia group, Murder, Inc., our student leaders seem incapable of making important decisions on their own. They simply wait for a contract hit from some capo di tutti capo.

They prefer, it seems, to wait until the university president, the Board of Trustees, or the California State Student Association tells them how to group think. Rather than taking seriously their responsibilities (insert loud guffaw laughter) and spiriting the lead, our ASI takes orders.

ASI will invariably take a retro tail-between-the-legs stance against the tuition increases. They will probably try to appear as leaders (I can't wait to say "I told y'all so") by endorsing or initiating a signature collecting campaign to freeze tuitions, ahem.

The problem is, though, that this student-led initiative has been in the pipeline for several months and is picking up steam while our ASI awaits a command. This despite the fact that Students and Families for Tuition Relief Now posted our "whiny, tabloid" articles on this topic in November.

While our ASI might plan on making a grandiose announcement of their objection to this wallet attack in a week or so, more than 430,000 signatures are needed by mid-April to get the initiative on the ballot.

Consider that need with the availability of approximately 450,000 currently enrolled student signatures in the CSU system, and it becomes a mathematical urgency to start earlier. But our ASI needs to be safely led by their collective noses to represent us.

Many political pundits have suggested the only way Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain can win the election is if we have another tragic event like 9/11.

A similar metaphor could probably be applied to our current ASI leadership, which is likely saving their group announcement to “lead” us against tuition increases in anticipation of upcoming spring elections — or spring re-elections for some. With crisis comes opportunity.

It’s in the best interest of students at CSULB to reject any false springtime campaign claim that so-and-so led the way in a fight to freeze tuitions. That would be like them professing they put the fragrance in spring flowers. Waiting for permission to be an activist is following, not leading.

When Andrews and ASI finally take a position, it will be that of reactionary, self-serving spectators; not as true leaders. Pity.

A train wreck in the making

The Democratic Party better watch its proverbial ass in the next few months. The ongoing fight for delegates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama might hurt both of their chances to occupy the throne.

As many youth engage in their first presidential election (an estimated 17 percent of Cal State Long Beach students voted on Super Tuesday), this voting block leans toward a Democrat. An atmosphere of confusion is needed to draw youth away from the donkey ticket.

With the Republican nod going to John McCain -- due to Mitt Romney’s hastened exit from the race -- President Bush all but told conservatives the campaign focus will be on the war in Iraq. The ultimate conservative goal is to maintain defense spending and investment in the war on terrorism.

The McCain endorsement will piss off the ultra-conservative evangelical backers for Mike Huckabee. Bush’s recommendation is already reverberating in the ranks of neo-con youth voters who will be left to choose between a lesser of two evils; a Democrat or a rebel.

Many to the religious right don’t approve of McCain’s perceived wishy-washiness on Roe v. Wade, which sways the conservative ideology in many southern states to Huckabee’s camp.

Two strategies are implied with Bush’s early backing of McCain. The first is to present a clear-cut candidate so they can focus on campaign strategies earlier. The fact is, Republicans are in trouble and they need the extra time to circle the wagons on key issues.

Secondly, by announcing an ultimate candidate early, the elephants can kick back and watch the donkeys tear each other apart. As Obama and Clinton rip into each other, Republicans will cut and paste selected miscues in their presentations to be used against them at a later debate.

Even though we got an early jump on the election procedure, time is still of the essence. To mount formidable slash and burn attacks, Republicans need this added time element to let the donkeys make asses of themselves.

By allowing the Democrats the extended opportunity to implode, the Republicans stand their best chance of throwing either juggernaut off the tracks.

Directing 'little people' from slanted windows

When acts of power become acts of abuse

It's disturbing when people in high places turn on those with little or no voice. This is the case with the campus e-mail sent Monday by President F. King Alexander about Proposition 92, the community college initiative.

I'm not as troubled that Alexander opines on an issue as I am in the spin he put on it at the Associated Students, Inc. Senate two days later.

What bothers me intensively is the manipulative nature in which he set about sending a mixed message to our community.

The original letter was sort of ambiguous as far as where he stands on Proposition 92. It appeared more like an informational message.

But he declared openly at the Senate meeting that he was not taking a stance as president of a university, but as a teacher and parent.

This public admonition is contrary to the original Monday mailing and more strongly-worded follow-up e-mail he sent on Friday. In the latter e-mail, he takes a clear stand, not as a professor or parent, but as the university president.

Much like all other measures being confused on T.V., he lists an influential list of opponents to 92. At a glance, they even seem credible. With a deeper reflection, though, they are overt in their mass paranoia of being cut off at the knees.

This is a selfish, self-serving approach and is a clear abuse of power. I perceive it as cow-towing to the whims of the CSU Board of Trustees, which I believe Alexander hopes to lead when Chancellor Charles Reed retires.

Ambition can blind judgment.

Tens of thousands of transfer students from community colleges strive each year to reach the university level to earn a higher degree. But Alexander feeds into the Educ-Hater's plan to divide higher education's once-unified lobby coalition.

In backing this assault on community colleges by advocating a "no" vote on 92, Alexander is essentially feeding transfer students to the wolves in Sacramento.

This is irresponsible as a president, as an educator, as a civic leader, and more significantly, as a parent. Current and future public university hopefuls are being dumped on and our own president is driving the truck.

Certainly, his children won't be deprived of educational opportunities. He has their backs. But what about minorities and low-income students who rely on lower-division academics to realize their hopes and dreams?

If his own children were dependent on attending community college to reach the higher plateau, his message would be differently toned. He would be eating his young with his manipulative abuse of position but, because they're not on the equity menu, the rest of our youth are edible.

Muscle can outweigh values

Young people from CSULB voting in their first election will take him at his authoritative word and vote "no" on 92. Faculty and administrators will deem his message as a threat to job security and vote against this important measure. This is fear and loathe to civic responsibility.

I spent many years at Long Beach City College trying to make it to the university system because it was the only way I could make afford basking at The Beach. My sons also must attend community colleges to knock off their lower division coursework, in hopes that they too will grab a more significant parchment.

Apparently, the view from a slanted window in an ivory tower or penthouse office is different that the one down here on the streets, where community college is the only viable and affordable escape from poverty that doesn't require firearms and chicanery.