Ready, aim, fire — at Google at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee hearing happening right now in Washington, D.C.

It is titled: “The Power of Google: Serving Consumers or Threatening Competition?”

Here we go:

11:04 am: As usual in D.C., the Senators on the committee get to pontificate first.

Oh, joy! (I used to live there and cover Congress stuff for the Washington Post from time to time and I am having bad déjà vu right now.)

A quick cut to Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, who is appearing alone. He looks a little peaked, especially as the pols begin to describe the scary behemoth the search giant is.

And also that it is trying to force users to its other products.

Rut-roh.

11:07 am: Sen. Mike Lee, the Republican from Utah, who is a Google critic, is talking on about the search giant’s power, reading from his testimony in a dullish style.

I thought this dude was a Tea Party firebrand!

“The primary focus should be consumer welfare,” he says, blah, blah, blaaaaaaah.

11:09 am: Now, the subcommittee’s dour chairman, Sen. Herb Kohl from Wisconsin, is introing Schmidt, who is actually being introed by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

She is an Eric fan, obvi, praising his accomplishments at Google. But she also gives props to Jeffrey Katz, CEO of Nextag, who is testifying against Google later. Also, let her add, is the fabulous CEO of Yelp, Jeremy Stoppelman, another anti-Google speaker to come.

“I hope they tango rather than tangle,” says Feinstein inexplicably about those called to testify. Hey, white geeks can’t dance, although wrestling would also be hard for them too.

In any case, gotta love these everybody-loving pols!

11:14 am: Finally, Schmidt, who — of course — starts off invoking the last big tech giant who was here getting spanked by Congress.

Schmidt does not name Microsoft — classy, by which I mean not at all — but is referring to the software giant.

“We get it,” he says about the lessons Google has learned from Microsoft’s own antitrust troubles back in the day.

11:18 am: Schmidt is talking about Google and saying he welcomes the competition.

“Today it’s Google turn in the spotlight,” he says, still not uttering the word “Microsoft,” much as Microsoft execs have often not been able to say Google. “One company’s past [should] not be another company’s future.”

Now, the senators can have at him. Kohl is up first.

11:20 am: The first question is if Google is favoring its own products, via search.

Schmidt harkens back to what he calls early Google lore that it is just trying hard to get consumers stuff quicker.

The need for speed!

“Is really trusting Google to do the right thing sufficient?,” asks Kohl, who quotes former President Ronald Reagan’s famous line: “Trust but verify.”

That gives Schmidt the chance to talk about how quickly Google could lose out to competitors and then is onto how hard it is to do what Google does.

It takes extra-smart smartypants. Trust us, he says, as we are smartier!

11:24 am: Kohl comes back with a damning quote from Google’s famous Marissa Mayer, who apparently has said that the company favors its own products and why not?

Schmidt says he was not there when she allegedly said this, but that its own testing and intuition tells Google if consumers want a Google map or whatever tout de suite!

Kohl repeats the Mayer quote again: “We do all the work for the search page, so we put [a Google Maps link] in first.”

“I will let Marissa speak for herself,” says Schmidt, now too deep in the weeds of her verbal faux pas. Get out, Eric!

11:28 am: Sen. Lee is up, not taking any of this speedy, we-know-best business.

And he has a chart! I love a good chart. It shows Google info always ranks first in listings versus other sites it competes with.

Schmidt has not seen this poll, but thinks it is not accurate.

11:31 am: Let me note that Schmidt’s grey suit is fantastic looking. And right behind him, you can see Google’s top lawyer, the always nattily dressed David Drummond.

Back to the chart!

Lee wants to know why, according to his chart, that Google seems to come up first.

“Either way, you’ve cooked it,” claims Lee.

“Senator, I can assure you we have not cooked anything,” counters Schmidt.

(Note: Google does have an excellent cafeteria in Silicon Valley, complete with organic arugula and Kombucha for all.)

11:33 am: Hoo boy! But Lee’s time has expired, so Schmidt gets a break in the form of New York’s Sen. Charles Schumer.

I like the way he says “ee-no-vation” for innovation.

He does an expected plug for New York, of course. Somehow it is No. 1 in tech. Not so much, but brag on, Chuck!

11:38 am: Schumer is still talking about New York and its fab entrepreneurs.

Apparently, he has done a lot of jawboning with start-up dudes (likely over Kombucha) and they think Google is a positive force.

“Google is actually pretty good, we don’t see them as rapacious,” Schumer says the New York nerds tell him.

Is “rapacious” the criteria here?

Schumer is running out of time and has yet to ask a question and now is trying to get Schmidt to test Google’s broadband project in the Hudson Valley.

Now that’s rapacious!

Is there going to be an actual question here?

Yes: Oh please tell us, genius boy, what could Google do better?

Really.

11:42 am: Now, Sen. John Cornyn from Texas is on and asking about the prescription controversy Google was embroiled in recently.

Oops, I missed a bit when someone called me about the CEO mess at Hewlett-Packard I reported on earlier.

Onto Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She is cleverly using an article about the Vikings football team to ask about how Google’s super-secret-sauce algorithm works and how it ranks results.

“Do you think companies should have a lot more certainty in how they are ranked?,” she asks.

11:51 am: Schmidt is not really answering, except to say Google is not perfect.

“We don’t know how to do it with more certainty,” he says, which is odd for a company that is perhaps the most irksomely certain group of geeks ever assembled on the planet.

Klobuchar moves to copyright issues. “There’s a real problem here,” agrees Schmidt.

Yes, and some media companies think Google is the problem and has not done enough to fix the problem.

“It’s difficult,” says Schmidt. Well, isn’t Google smartier?

“We’re under great pressure to resolve this,” he says.

11:55 am: Klobuchar is still worried about the small businesses, but she wants Google to come to Duluth.

Good lord, it’s a shakedown in plain sight. Maybe Google isn’t the scary one here! These pols seem pretty frightening.

Now Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley is saying he will attend some Google event in his state.

Of course!

Grassley makes a wishy-wishy statement, and we get to hear from Iowans on both sides.

Some are apparently concerned that Google is a troublemaker and some aren’t.

Iowans, like a lot of folks, are torn.

“We are happy to be judged,” says Schmidt.

12:00 pm: Now it is time for Sen. Al Franken from Minnesota.

“First let me say, I love Google,” he says.

Otay. I wonder if Franken knows that Google is a giant scary computer.

But, as a citizen of San Francisco, I say he should love whoever he wants!

Franken is also concerned about his love’s behavior and is taken aback by one of Schmidt’s previous answers.

It’s that irksome Marissa Mayer quote again.

When asked if the algo was unbiased, Schmidt apparently was not as sure as shootin’!

Now, it is onto Yelp and the fiery quotes from Stoppelman about how Google nefariously blocks the review site’s content.

Eric “generally” disagrees with Jeremy.

At one point Google tried to buy Yelp, so this is a fraught situation.

Does Franken know about the previous Google-Yelp hookup?

Drama!

Schmidt says it is Yelp’s fault for asking to be removed from the algo. Actually, Yelp only asked Google to stop jacking its fare.

12:11 pm: Oh noz, another pol? This time Sen. Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut.

He is super-smiley, while calling Google a “behemoth.” I like that word a lot and use it for the company often, although I always like to use a qualifier like “thuggish” or “freaky.”

Back to the blabby Blumenthal, who cannot seem to get out a question.

Wait! He asks if Google can suggest some fixes to “avoid government regulation.”

I. Kid. You. Not.

12:21 pm: Kohl is back and giving Google a little more slap-a-doo.

I like the whole Kohl thang of looking over his glasses down at Schmidt.

He asks: Should we trust Google? Should we?

In my opinion: If your mother says she loves you, you should check it.

So, no!

Schmidt assures him: “We make mistakes.”

Lee is then back, asking if Google gives preference to its own products in search?

Exactly the point and a question that is still not answered properly.

12:24 pm: Lee remains troubled by Schmidt’s testimony.

He uses terms like “leverage its natural dominance” and “significant market share to disadvantage” competitors.

Sounds like, um, Microsoft. And then it is back to that niggling Marissa Mayer quote. (Memo to the voluble exec, who apparently never met a microphone she didn’t want to talk into: You might want to take a day off today at the Googleplex.)

Google-luvin’ Franken is back and he is asking about mobile search.

Where Google is dominant again! (Jellllllo, Al, we in Silicon Valley know that one already!)

He asks if all Android devices come pre-loaded with Google products. Schmidt thinks two-thirds come with it, but handset makers can choose.

12:31 pm: Back to all-smiles Blumenthal, who says he has come to no conclusion.

But lo! He is not as silly as he seems and goes into an interesting racetrack analogy about how Google owns the track and now has horses and now those horses are winning.

Hmmmm…

Schmidt disagrees, natch!

He thinks the Internet is the platform and Google is the GPS.

Metaphor contest!

I think Google is a big tasty banana cream pie we can’t stop eating, although we know it’s bad for us.

That or an alien wearing an expensive suit who will soon eat us all.

Franken comes in with a doping horses joke. Remember when he was funny on “Saturday Night Live”?

Me neither.

It goes on without a lot of really good discussion. Klobuchar asks something, but I forget it immediately. My bad!

She has a last question about advertisers and privacy. Softball!

Let me write this for Schmidt before he inevitably spits it out: Of course, Google wants to protect privacy.

12:37 pm: Finally, the second panel of critics. Sadly, I must go to an appointment in Silicon Valley to visit one of its rapacious companies.

Oops, I meant ee-no-vative.

But, no worries, John Paczkowski will take over from here once it gets going again after the break.

12:47 pm: The panel’s back in session. The first critic to take a shot at Google, Thomas Barnett, a lawyer for Expedia.

12:51 pm: Riffing on Schmidt’s earlier “We know, we get it” comment, Barnett argues the opposite.

“Google doesn’t get it,” he says, adding that the company’s ever-expanding market power is troubling.

12:54 pm: Google is a monopoly, Barnett continues, and it has a duty not to abuse that position. He concludes by saying antitrust enforcement can and should play a role in maintaining competition in the markets in which it does business.

12:57 pm: Moving on now to Nextag CEO Katz, who has some tough words for the search giant. “Today Google doesn’t play fair,” he says.

He argues that Google rigs its results to drive consumers to Google Product Search when they search for information to inform their purchases.

1:00 pm: Next: Stoppelman of Yelp, who wonders if it’s even possible to create a company like Yelp today because of Google’s massive market power.

1:04 pm: Google’s outside lawyer, Susan Creighton, takes the mic next. Having trouble with the video stream from the Senate, but as best I can tell she talked broadly about the competitive landscape and reiterated Schmidt’s “competition is just a click away” narrative.

1:08 pm: She concludes by saying government oversight of Google’s search results rankings would put the company at a disadvantage and turn its search service into something akin to a “regulated utility.”

1:09 pm: Interesting. Creighton says she doesn’t believe Google has monopoly power.

1:10 pm: “Each of you right now can test whether or not you like Google’s search results and if you don’t like them it’s free and instantaneous to try someone else.”

1:22 pm: Apologies, the Senate video feed has gone from bad to worse.

1:23 pm: Franken asks Yelp’s Stoppelman and Nextag’s Katz if they could start their companies today given Google’s market power.

Both say that’s unlikely.

1:26 pm: Terse exchange between Franken and Creighton about whether Google paid Apple to be the default search engine on its iOS devices. Lots of back and forth, but Creighton finally concedes that there’s some sort of financial deal between the two companies.

1:39 pm: Sen. Lee asks what Google might do to “level the playing field.” Stoppelman suggests separating search from its other properties. Pipe dream.

1:40 pm: Well, it looks like it may be getting near the end of the session, which is a good thing because we get it to by now.

And that is: Nothing significant is going to get said here.

The election is not the only event with only days to go–a move in face-off Yahoo and Google are in with the Justice Department over their controversial search advertising partnership will have an outcome, sources close to all sides said, before the next President is chosen.

Thus, I predict news either tomorrow or Monday.

Why? Well, campaign news will surely drown out any attention any development might get, of course.

But, actually, for more obvious reasons: Whoever is elected, the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, Thomas Barnett, will be leaving that post sometime after the Nov. 4 election.

Thus, Barnett and his team are likely–after all this noise–to want to take action of some sort before he becomes, in essence, a lame duck.

Of course, it is ironic that, as the clock counts down the last minutes, a regulator not regarded as a very effective trustbuster and who has taken a mostly hands-off attitude toward meddling with businesses, could launch a lawsuit against the most powerful Internet company in the world.

Or not.

Yahoo (YHOO), Google (GOOG) and the Justice Department are still talking, sources said, trying to come to some accommodation.

So, as we wait for the verdict, here’s a short handicap of options:

1. Google and/or Yahoo walk:

It seems far more likely that Google would do this than Yahoo, given its corporate culture is impatient with moving forward illogically (think Spock and you have the right picture of Google’s mindset).

I would imagine Google execs do not want to accept any caps or changes to the deal at all, and might conclude such restrictions make it not as worthwhile.

Yahoo, of course, cannot walk as easily, depending on the deal for revenue and because it must avoid having to then turn to Microsoft (MSFT) to strike a search ad deal from a very prone position.

Thus, Yahoo has to be pulling out all the stops to make something work.

Then again, if a Justice Department lawsuit is the alternative, walking would be the best option.

Prediction: Even odds.

2. Google and Yahoo accept changes:

Whether it be caps or monitoring or forcing Yahoo to strike a similar deal with Microsoft, this option seems like a bad one for the pair, as it hobbles the deal before it even has a chance to be tested.

Plus, the joy of government regulators breathing down your neck 24/7 is, well, priceless, especially after Google CEO Eric Schmidt told regulators he would move forward with or without them.

While Google has now perhaps permanently put the government on notice that is must be more scrutinized than ever going forward with that unfortunate statement, I would be surprised if Google accepted any substantial changes to the deal.

Prediction: If small adjustments, likely. If more, it would be hard to imagine.

3. The Justice Department files a lawsuit:

Ouch. Bad all around.

First, the Justice Department will have a hard time proving this partnership–which has not launched–is damaging. While it is good to have all those nervous advertisers to point to, it will be an uphill slog of a case.

Second, another lawsuit or fight for slap-happy Google? Oh, dear. It just settled the book scanning lawsuit and is still embroiled in a bigger lawsuit with Viacom (VIA) over YouTube copyright infringement. Enough.

Third, a Justice Department lawsuit for Yahoo should be the proverbial straw that breaks Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang’s rule of the company and would get Yahoo stock to the penny-stock level.

Prediction: I witnessed the Microsoft antitrust trial, while working at the Washington Post and I am here to say to all parties involved: Do not go there.

4. Justice waves the deal on through as is:

Wake up, Eric and Jerry, you’ve been dreaming! Also, in this event, the head of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer would explode.

Prediction: Well, it could happen. Also Ralph Nader could get elected.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

You have to admire the sledgehammer stylings of Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who loves to accuse Microsoft (justifiably, I might add) of bullying lobbying tactics in our nation’s capital, in the latest moves in the regulatory fight over the controversial search advertising outsourcing partnership that Yahoo and Google have struck.

Today, just days before the Justice Department will decide whether to move ahead with a lawsuit to stop the Yahoogle deal from proceeding or let it move forward with some other remedy or tweaking, Schmidt announced that he would be campaigning for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama in the last two weeks of the election.

Schmidt said in an interview that it was a personal endorsement and not from the company, even though many of its top execs are longtime supporters of Obama.

“I’m doing this personally,” he said. “Google is officially neutral.”

Well maybe so, and Schmidt has long been politically active himself.

But I cannot help but be struck by the perfect timing of the announcement, right as government officials under the Bush administration must make a move before the election makes them unable to do so.

(Then again, if Schmidt had endorsed Obama after any move by the government, it probably would have looked worse.)

In any case, it now makes any action by Washington policymakers even more complex.

To begin, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Thomas Barnett (pictured here), who will be leaving that post after the November election, has not been much of a trustbuster, to say the least, taking a mostly hands-off attitude toward business regulation.

But, in taking a long look at the deal in the first place, a partnership that does not actually need Justice Department approval to move forward, and hiring an outside counsel too, Barnett has also put himself out on a limb.

Thus, he is likely not to pat Yahoo (YHOO) and Google (GOOG) on the back and wish them good luck in their exciting endeavor.

That’s especially true given that a wide range of advertisers has expressed worries about the deal, which they say will lift online search ad prices and create a dangerous duopoly, along with public interest groups that have called the deal dangerous. Plus, there are also the many other special interest groups, all jacked up by Microsoft’s lobbying.

(It still surprises me up that some reports find it shocking that Microsoft is being aggressive here–helloooooo–Google would do exactly the same if the tables were turned.)

Google and Yahoo are arguing that the deal is nonexclusive, does not violate antitrust laws and that prices will not rise since they are determined by auction.

Still, sources close to all parties–Yahoo, Google and Microsoft (MSFT)–said the decision from government regulators, expected as early as this Wednesday, could still go a number of ways.

Under one scenario, the government could file a lawsuit and ask for an injunction to stop the deal from starting at all.

This move would be the most drastic of all. And, more to the point, it is hardest to prove, because there is no actual damage yet to point to as a result of the deal, even if the pair do control upward of 80 percent of the search market.

Under a second, the Justice Department could file a lawsuit opposing the deal, but not ask that it be stopped.

That means that the Yahoo and Google deal could go forward with implementation, even with the suit hanging over its head. It is a move that would provide a lot of data to determine the true impact of the No. 1 and No. 2 search players being in business together.

Under a third scenario, regulators could give Google and Yahoo tacit approval for the deal, with certain new rules about caps or monitoring that are agreed to in advance.

This option is the most complicated, since it is hard to determine what is dangerous and what is not in the fast-moving world of search. Will the Justice Department have a monitor sitting cluelessly next to Yahoo and Google engineers as they fiddle with the algorithm?

Still some sort of new rules to the deal are expected, if Justice takes a pass on a lawsuit.

“They are not going to hold a parade for us, and it is obvious they are interested in putting appropriate guardrails in place,” said one source close to Yahoo and Google. “But they might just say, ‘Go ahead, but we are watching you very carefully.’”

Under a fourth scenario, which Google is pushing for strongly, the Justice Department could simply pass on taking any action at all.

In that case, which seems unlikely, it is not without possibility that some advertisers or even Microsoft could go to court to seek their own injunctions, although that would be extreme.

Microsoft could also ask, given that the Yahoogle deal is nonexclusive, to make a similar deal with Yahoo. If it is rejected, the software giant could use that as proof that it is not.

But what is perhaps most interesting is that Yahoo and Google have not completely agreed as to how to handle this difficult process.

Yahoo, which has only recently become more active in lobbying for the deal, has been more willing to allow the government to set parameters in order to get regulatory blessing.

The company has also been quietly telling advertisers worried about it there are moves to come–Yahoo execs are obviously referring to a possible merger deal with Time Warner over its AOL unit–that mean that advertisers should be less scared of Yahoo becoming a satellite of Google.

Google, as is typical for it, has been more aggressive in its stance, holding out for less–if any–tweaking of the original Yahoogle deal.

Even its partner Yahoo thinks the powerful Internet giant has had a tin ear in this regard so far, with Yahoo execs cringing when Schmidt was widely quoted as saying that the deal would move forward with or without Justice Department approval.

The statement by Schmidt, in which he also added, “time is money in our business,” made him seem a bit arrogant about the role policymakers have.

Obviously, Schmidt misspoke, which all neophyte politicians tend to do now and again.

Today, he was much more circumspect, although he still managed to get a dig–or was it a warning?–in.

“My sense is, the Justice Department makes judgments on these issues independent of politics,” Schmidt said, priming the pump perfectly. “It would be unfair to Justice to imply [that supporting Sen. Obama] would make a difference.”

Yes, that would be completely unfair.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Yesterday, BoomTown took a rather strong stand against Google and its recent aggressive efforts to defend its outsourcing deal to sell some of Yahoo’s search advertising.

Given that the pair have a more than 80 percent combined market share in the search business, I and many others–advertisers, publishers and state and federal regulators–are a bit nervous about further concentration of market power in one set of hands, even if they are such Googley hands.

But in the interest of fairness and because I like to argue with myself–combined with some insights from some smart people I have kibitzed with on the issue–here is a counterpoint with three key reasons why Google and Yahoo might hold firm in launching the partnership, which sources said is likely to start on Oct. 9.

1.) The Justice Department is not actually serious about taking on Google.

While it is true that the government has hired seasoned litigator Sandy Litvack–the former antitrust chief in the Jimmy Carter administration–to consider whether it has a case against the controversial partnership, the move by the DOJ’s antitrust unit might be more political coverage than anything else.

Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Thomas Barnett (pictured here), who will likely be leaving that post after the November election, has not been much of a trustbuster, to say the least, taking a mostly hands-off attitude toward business regulation.

Thus, he might be making the move to placate intense lobbying by Microsoft (MSFT) and to look like the DOJ’s antitrust unit can act.

Interestingly, Barnett had, according to a New York Times piece last year, “urged state prosecutors to reject a confidential antitrust complaint filed by Google that is tied to a consent decree that monitors Microsoft’s behavior. Google has accused Microsoft of designing its latest operating system, Vista, to discourage the use of Google’s desktop search program.”

And even more interesting, Barnett previously worked for a law firm that repped Microsoft on antitrust issues (although Barnett did not work on Microsoft cases).

2.) The Justice Department will lose if it decides to make a case against Google.

Let’s be clear–Google (GOOG) has done nothing wrong yet, because the Yahoo deal has not yet begun.

Well, except that it has been scarily successful in its primary business of search.

Google has argued that such success is no crime and that the deal would have strong user benefits.

The company has also argued that working with Yahoo (YHOO) will not raise online ad prices, part of Google’s basic argument that its auction-style business model where advertisers set the price makes that impossible.

But what its critics are essentially asserting is that, because of its dominance, Google should simply not be allowed to strike a partnership with the second largest player, Yahoo.

Fears include that rise in online ad prices, a Google control over the market that would make it impossible for others to compete and an increased ability to dictate terms to customers.

But, Google argues, that’s all speculative and unknowable until the partnership with Yahoo launches.

Thus, there’s not a whole lot for the Justice Department to hang a case on, in contrast to its case against Microsoft, which landed in court because of bullying behavior that actually took place before the case was waged.

So why should Google run away, when there is no tangible proof of abuse?

Better still, if the DOJ did take Google on and Google won, the Justice Department would be hard-pressed to come at Google again for a good long time.

3.) If Google caves and walks away, it damages Yahoo and makes for a bad precedent.

It is not likely that Google wants to make an enemy of Yahoo, because even in its weakened state, Yahoo is a better to have as a friend than as a foe.

And taking away an expected $800 million Yahoo estimates it will make in added revenue on the deal is not any way to treat a friend.

In addition, one could argue that walking away now is premature. As Google’s power grows, there will never be a better chance for it to win its arguments.

And if Google gives in to DOJ pressure now, essentially admitting it is too powerful, it might have to concede one thing after the next in the future–from distribution deals to acquisitions to whatever it might try to do.

Finally, while I still believe Google should not be in business with Yahoo, I think it is indeed going to stick to its typically stubborn guns, launch on Oct. 9 and then make tweaks that regulators might request based on how the partnership goes.

But, in order to do that most smoothly, it might be a good idea for Google execs to stop making so much noise defending themselves and to resist the urge to attack Microsoft so loudly.

It might even take a clue from the unusually quiet Yahoo, from whom not a peep has been heard on the issue.

Google could do with some of that self-control.

Because that famous line from “Hamlet” certainly applies: The search giant doth protest too much, methinks.

(By the way, besides a press conference by CEO Eric Schmidt this week on the Yahoogle deal, here are two Google posts defending the deal on its public policy blog. One is by Google Chief Economist Hal Varian and another by U.S. ad head Tim Armstrong.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.