Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
If anyone can find a personal attack here I will give you 100 dollars
what remains interesting is the fact you think the acts by the terrorists alone needed help by the government, let's see we have the worst attack in history lets blow up wtc 7, yeah we needed that
If I attack your opinion that is not a personal attack, you really are too sensitive
Your welcome, good luck
yeah how old are we, you really revert to class when your ideas are questioned, why do you have to make it personal
what remains interesting is the fact you think the acts by the terrorists alone needed help by the government, let's see we have the worst attack in history lets blow up wtc 7, yeah we needed that
friggin mistake bigtime, that is why cheney was hiding yesterday and his surrogates were saying that is not what he meant, big time mistake, the tables are turning on bush
Jurisper sorry if I offended you or anyone over at Raging Bull, enjoy your victory for now, just realize it will not last
Good because I never invested based on this case, bottom line is now the company can't be illegally shorted, next positive news release shorts will be toast
I am allowed to delete posts that I think are lies or rumors, same thing is done on IDCC board, you don't run investorshub, if I think this board is being used to manipulate the price then I can delete and one offense is posting the same thing over and over again
Yes but you have to find out who the remaining companies are
Alert any Raging Bull bashers who post lies will not be tolerated on this board
Until the latest press release has been confirmed it will not be allowed here, for all we know that was created by somebody on raging bull
Sounds like you are the sicko enjoying it, you are just as bad as the Bush administration
Ed you can't talk to those idiots, anyone who thinks we wired the towers to collapse has a major freaking brain malfunction, if that was the case just blow them up, why the need to have planes crash into them, I mean to go into it isn't even worth it, it is like trying to explain them why Santa Claus does not exist
TexansForTruth.Org baby, hahaha, stupid move for Bush to open this fight, the only question is will the media devote as much time to these ads that they did the swift boat ads, I doubt it, but still in the long run this is a net loss for Bush, big mistake getting involved with the swifties and the liar john O'neill
No liar, will the so called liberal media devote as much time for the texans for truth ad that they devoted to the swift boat ads, will the groups leader go on the newshour with jim lehrer, abc stephanopolous show, be mentioned nonstop on cnn, msnbc, and fox for over 2 weeks
I highly doubt it
Rooster take a look at Drudge and now admit how wrong you are
I hear ya on the friends and relatives, I can't tell you how many times I have had to reassure them, I don't recommend to anyone either, not worth all of the questions, sometimes stupid ones
zit is right, if we were to believe her then we believe the swift boat vets, I don't believe her, it is one person who is in a position to not like george bush because she is no longer in the family and there was never proof of bush doing cocaine in the past, right now it is all speculation, and speculation is bs until it is proven
I never believed Cofer Black, he is one of the idiots at the CIA who blew 9/11, and he is full of garbage, first of all if we were really close to getting bin laden, you think we would announce it, hey bin laden we are close to getting you, so you might as well move to a new hideout, give me a break
I am not arguing that, my argument is that they never should have given the warlords control of that battle, and they never should have allowed a ceasefire, it was during the ceasefire that bin laden escaped, at least that is what we are told, no way to know for sure bin laden was there
yes but you present no reason that it would benefit Bush to let bin laden go,none, especially since he was planning on doing iraq right after, it would just help his iraq adventure by saying bin laden is dead, now time to get saddamm
and you were not there, you don't know that they let escape routes open, you have no idea of the terrain, i think not only was it a mistake but it also was to limit casulties we figured we would let the afghans run the show there, and it was a big mistake
yes but in this case it is because of stupidity not some secret plan to let bin laden out, makes no sense to let him go, if bush doesn't get him he might just lose the presidency
One thing is for sure if Kerry wins you will be hiding, you're too much of a chicken hawk to post around here the day after
After years of delay, third-generation (3G) mobile-phone networks are finally being switched on. How will the reality compare with the original vision?
Get article background
THE biggest ever gamble on the introduction of a new technology; an attempt to maintain growth in a maturing industry; or an industrial-policy fiasco? The introduction of “third-generation” (3G) mobile-phone networks around the world is all these things and more. In 2000, at the height of the dotcom boom, mobile operators around the world, but mainly in Europe, paid a total of €109 billion (then $125 billion) for licences to build and operate 3G networks, which offer higher performance and more capacity than existing second-generation (2G) networks. In part, the mobile operators were victims of their own hype. A report that year from the International Telecommunication Union, the industry's standards body, gives a sense of the high hopes for 3G:
The device will function as a phone, a computer, a television, a pager, a videoconferencing centre, a newspaper, a diary and even a credit card...it will support not only voice communications but also real-time video and full-scale multimedia. It will automatically search the internet for relevant news and information on pre-selected subjects, book your next holiday for you online and download a bedtime story for your child, complete with moving pictures. It will even be able to pay for goods when you shop via wireless electronic funds transfer. In short, the new mobile handset will become the single, indispensable “life tool”, carried everywhere by everyone, just like a wallet or purse is today.
Dotcom mania aside, the industry had concluded that 3G networks would make possible new services to provide growth as its core business, voice telephony, matured. As the proportion of people with mobile phones has increased—it now exceeds 85% in much of the rich world—the average revenue per user (ARPU), a key industry metric, has levelled off. This is because the most valuable subscribers were the first to buy mobile phones; later adopters make fewer calls and spend much less. With subscriber numbers reaching saturation, at least in the rich world, the industry began casting around for new sources of growth, and fancy services such as video and internet access seemed the most promising prospects. Hence the appeal of 3G.
Mobile telecoms
Sep 2nd 2004
Mobile telecommunications
Qualcomm pioneered 3G technologies. Motorola publishes a press release on its partnership with Apple. See also Nokia, Vodafone, 3, KTF, SK, Woosh Wireless and the International Telecommunications Union.
Even so, forking out €109 billion for 3G licences—plus roughly the same again between 2001 and 2007 to build the actual networks, according to predictions from iSuppli, a market-research firm—was an enormous gamble, arguably the biggest in business history. But in many cases operators had no choice. Several European countries held auctions for their 3G licences in which operators bid huge sums: in Britain and Germany, for example, operators ended up paying around €8 billion for each 3G licence. Why? Because with their 2G networks filling up, and with no additional 2G capacity on offer from regulators, operators felt compelled to buy 3G licences to ensure scope for future growth. Andrew Cole of A.T. Kearney, a consultancy, remembers when a client who was taking part in the auction received the order to “win the licence no matter what”. The €109 billion was, in effect, a tax on the right to continue to do business. Few firms were brave enough to refuse to pay up.
So the 3G adventure got off to a bad start in Europe by nearly bankrupting the industry. Since 2000 most operators have written down the value of their 3G licences. Some even handed the licences back to the governments from which they bought them, rather than commit themselves to building expensive new 3G networks within strict time limits. (Reselling the licences was forbidden.) The whole episode is now something the industry would rather forget. “The spectrum auction is a nightmare the operators don't want to remember,” says Mr Cole. “I haven't heard it mentioned in a long time.”
Ready, steady, flop!
The pioneering launch of 3G services at the end of 2001 in Japan and South Korea, the world's two most advanced mobile markets, did little to lighten the mood. In both countries, operators were using 3G technologies different from the W-CDMA standard (which is also known as UMTS) being adopted in Europe. An unproven technology, W-CDMA was plagued by teething troubles: base-stations and handsets from different vendors would not work together reliably, and early handsets were bulky and temperamental. Operators postponed the launch of 3G services from 2002 to 2003 and then to 2004, though a handful chose to launch sometimes shaky 3G services earlier.
Yet now, at last, the 3G bandwagon is starting to roll. According to figures from Deutsche Bank, there were 16 commercial 3G networks worldwide at the beginning of the year, and there will be around 60 by the end of the year (see chart 1). Matti Alahuhta, head of strategy at Nokia, the world's largest handset-maker, says the second half of 2004 will be seen as “the starting point for the global acceleration of 3G”. Nokia and other handset-makers have high hopes for the Christmas market. The early, brick-like W-CDMA handsets have given way to much smaller, sleeker models. In Japan and Korea, sales of 3G handsets are booming. Even in America, that wireless laggard, 3G services have been launched in several cities, and the country's largest operators have committed themselves to building 3G networks.
Having swung too far towards pessimism, the industry is now becoming cautiously optimistic about 3G, says Tony Thornley, the president of Qualcomm, the firm that pioneered the technology that underpins all of the various technological flavours of 3G. Qualcomm has announced that it is having trouble meeting demand for W-CDMA radio chips. “As we get very near to seeing these things become a reality, we become more optimistic about what 3G can deliver,” says Peter Bamford of Vodafone, the world's largest mobile operator. So now that it is finally happening, how does the reality of 3G stack up against the original vision?
Less data, more voice
That depends upon whom you ask. Mr Bamford, for example, denies that there has been any downgrading of the original vision. But he is at the most optimistic end of the spectrum, a view reflected in Vodafone's reluctance to write down the value of its 3G licences. Most observers agree that there has been a shift in expectations about how 3G networks will be used, away from video and other data services and towards traditional voice calling.
“Three years ago, everyone was talking about video-telephony,” says Mike Thelander of Signals Research Group, a consultancy. But while video-telephony sounds cool, the evidence from early 3G launches in Japan, South Korea, Britain and Italy is that hardly anybody uses it. Market research suggests that women are particularly reluctant to adopt it, says Mr Cole. Nokia's first mainstream 3G handset, the 7600, does not even support video calling, but nobody seems to mind.
Nor have the high hopes for data services been fulfilled—so far, at least. The idea was to encourage consumers to adopt data services on 2G phones, paving the way for fancier services on 3G phones. But while text-messaging is hugely popular, with over a billion messages sent daily worldwide, other forms of wireless data such as photo messaging, news updates, and music and game downloads have proved much less popular with consumers in most countries—Japan and South Korea are notable exceptions.
Such services “are still embryonic, but are going to be very important,” insists Mr Cole. Today's advanced handsets, he notes, are disrupting many industries simultaneously, including photography, music and gaming. The handset is slowly coming to be seen as “the Swiss Army knife of life services”. But the changes will take years to play out, even though they are happening at breakneck speed. Mr Bamford likens the transformation in mobile phones over the past five years to the evolution of television over the past 40 years, from crude black-and-white to hundreds of digital channels in colour. “To expect customers to snap into this in five minutes is just unrealistic,” he says.
Enthusiasm for data is growing, just not very fast: data services now account for 16.3% of Vodafone's worldwide revenues, for example, up from 15% a year ago. So hopes of a breakthrough in mobile-data usage still persist. At the moment, most optimism surrounds the prospects for music downloads to mobile phones (the most advanced models of which can now double as portable music players). Downloading ringtones is already popular, so downloading entire tracks—something that is only really practical using a 3G network—is the next logical step. Motorola, the world's second-largest handset-maker, has just done a deal with Apple, whose iTunes Music Store dominates the market for legal music downloads. And Nokia has just done a similar deal with LoudEye, another online music store. But it is still too early to tell whether this will turn into a mass market and, if it does, whether it will prove profitable for operators.
Greater emphasis is being placed instead on 3G's ability to deliver cheap voice calls—for as well as being able to support faster data downloads than 2G networks, 3G networks provide vast amounts of voice capacity (typically three times as much as a 2G network) at a lower price (typically a quarter of the cost per minute). As a result, says Bob House, an analyst at Adventis, “operators' sights are now much more firmly trained on displacing voice from fixed networks.”
By offering large bundles, or “buckets” of minutes as part of their monthly tariffs, operators hope to encourage subscribers to use their mobile phones instead of fixed-line phones, and even to “cut the cord” and get rid of their fixed-line phones altogether—something that is already happening, particularly among young people, in some parts of the world. In America, for example, where large bundles are commonplace, subscribers talk on their phones for 700 minutes per month on average, compared with 100 minutes per month in Europe, where call charges are much higher, notes Mark Heath of Analysys, a consultancy. Since 3G networks offer voice capacity at a quarter of the cost of 2G networks, it ought to be possible for operators to offer larger bundles at a lower price per minute and still make money.
But operators must price their bundles carefully, and distinguish between peak-time and off-peak minutes, to avoid getting caught out. Offering generous bundle deals may, for example, cannibalise revenues from their most valuable customers, who will quickly switch to a better deal. Operators also want to avoid having to spend money adding expensive base-stations to the busiest parts of their networks to handle peak load. And, of course, they want to avoid a price war. Although everyone agrees that the advent of 3G will cause the price of voice calls to fall and margins to decline, operators are in no hurry to cut their prices before they have to.
But there are signs that Hutchison 3G, a new operator that has launched 3G services in several European countries under the “3” brand, is already leading the European market down this path, notes Mr Thelander: in some cases, 3 offers voice calls for a fifth of the price of its rivals. Further pressure on pricing, argues João Baptista of Mercer Management Consulting, will come as fixed-line operators combat the flight of voice traffic to mobile with ultra-low-cost telephony services based on “voice over internet protocol” (VOIP) technology. With price cuts, he says, “someone starts, and then you can't stop it.”
It would be a great irony if, after years of hype about data services, the “killer application” for 3G turned out to be boring old voice calls. In truth, however, nobody talks about killer apps any more. This reflects the realisation that 3G allows operators to offer lots of new services—music downloads, cheap voice calls, wireless broadband access to laptops—but that the appeal of these services will vary widely from one group of customers to another.
“Unlike traditional voice service, the adoption of 3G services is very much customer-segment specific,” says Su-Yen Wong of Mercer. The lesson from Japan and South Korea, she says, is that “certain customer segments are interested in video, but others are not—some go for games, others for traffic updates.” The challenge for 3G operators, she says, is to understand the appeal of different services to different types of customer.
The challenge of segmentation
That will require careful market segmentation. “3G gives you more scope, and segmentation broadly becomes more important,” says Mr Bamford. The example of KTF, a South Korean operator, is instructive. It offers a service called Bigi Kiri to 13-18-year-olds (with unlimited text messaging between subscribers). Na, its brand for 18-25-year-old students, includes free cinema tickets and internet access at 68 universities; and Drama, another brand, caters to women. Other operators in South Korea and Japan do similar things.
The question for operators, says Mr Cole, is whether they can successfully appeal to all segments. At the moment, most operators have bland, generic brands that are intended to appeal to as broad a cross-section of the public as possible. But now they must decide whether to create sub-brands, or partner with other firms who are better able to appeal to specific demographic groups. There are already signs of this happening in many parts of the world as companies set themselves up as “mobile virtual network operators” (MVNOs).
Rather than build its own network, an MVNO teams up with an existing operator, and resells access to the operator's mobile network under its own brand. By far the best example is Virgin Mobile, an MVNO that resells airtime on T-Mobile's network in Britain, and Sprint's in America, to teenagers. The appeal for operators is that MVNOs enable them to reach out more effectively to customers. There has recently been a flurry of activity, with established brands including Tesco, 7-Eleven and MTV setting up as MVNOs.
Much of this activity has been prompted by the growing awareness that MVNOs are likely to have an important role in generating enough voice and data traffic to fill up those expensive new 3G networks. Since 3G phones can deliver graphics, music and video, large media firms, such as Disney, are actively investigating becoming MVNOs. Indeed, media giants might be more effective at driving uptake of data services than mobile operators, which are struggling to transform themselves from boring, technology-driven utilities into sexy consumer brands.
That in turn, suggests Mr Baptista, poses a long-term question for 3G operators: are they primarily network operators, or providers of services to consumers? No doubt some operators, with strong brands, will be able to hold their own against the likes of Disney. But second-tier operators might choose to focus on running a wholesale business, selling network capacity to others.
The calculations being made about the prospects for 3G are further complicated by the fact that the technology is still evolving, making new services possible. As things stand, the W-CDMA technology being adopted in much of the world has a maximum data-transfer rate of 384 kilobits per second. The rival 3G technology, called CDMA2000-1xEV-DO, which is already deployed in South Korea, Japan and parts of America, can deliver higher speeds of up to 2.4 megabits per second. In markets (such as Japan and America) where the two technologies compete side by side, W-CDMA operators are anxiously waiting for an upgraded version of the technology, called HSDPA, which will be faster still and will make its debut in Japan next year.
Faster, better, sooner?
Never mind what all those letters stand for: the point is that as its speed and efficiency improves, 3G technology may, in some markets, start to compete with fixed broadband connections. Other, more obscure flavours of 3G technology, such as TDD-CDMA (again, never mind) and CDMA450 can also be used in this way. In New Zealand, Woosh Wireless is offering wireless broadband service using TDD-CDMA, while backers of CDMA450 point to its unusually long range, which makes it ideal for providing broadband in rural areas, as well as telephony. This opens up yet another new market for 3G operators.
3G is evolving in other ways, too. In 2003, SK, South Korea's leading mobile operator, launched a video-on-demand service over its 3G network. Subscribers paid a monthly fee of 20,000 won ($17) for access, and could then have movies beamed to their phones (while commuting, for example) for 1,000 won each. The service proved so popular that the 3G network could not cope, and SK had to raise its prices dramatically, causing demand to collapse. But evidently video does appeal to 3G subscribers, provided it is cheap enough. So SK has now developed a hybrid satellite-cellular system. New handsets, to be launched this month, will have built-in satellite-TV receivers, offering 11 video and 25 audio channels. Meanwhile, both of the main 3G standards are being updated to allow for more efficient video broadcasts to handsets. Again, this could open new markets for 3G operators.
All of this makes it very difficult to answer the question of whether 3G will succeed, for 3G is a range of technologies that makes possible all kinds of new services. In Europe, 3G's main impact may simply be cheaper voice calls; in America, 3G may have most appeal to road warriors who want broadband access wherever they are; in the developing world, 3G could help to extend telephony and internet access into rural areas; and in South Korea and Japan, 3G might even—shock, horror—live up to the original lofty vision for the technology. The switching on of 3G networks around the world is not the end of the saga; the story continues to unfold.
OPINION / WORLD / BUSINESS / FINANCE & EC
Poll Findings by right wing Rasmussen reports, which even though it is to the right, I find this poll pretty on target, that is why I subscribe to it, while not as good as Zogby, generally pretty correct
Differences Between Polls
Full Week Tracking Update
Sept 2 Bush + 2.8
August 26 Bush + 0.3
August 19 Kerry + 1.2
August 12 Kerry + 2.8
August 5 Kerry + 1.9
RasmussenReports.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 6, 2004--We have been flooded with e-mails asking (in varying tones of politeness) why our poll results seem different from those released by Time and Newsweek.
There are two basic explanations, one involving our polling data and one involving the newsmagazines. For those who need to know the answer before the explanation, the bottom line is that the President is ahead by 4 to 5 points at this time. That's a significant improvement over the past few weeks, but not a double digit lead.
Our current poll (showing the President ahead by just over a point) includes a Saturday sample that is way out of synch with all the days before it and with the Sunday data that followed. In fact, Saturday's one-day sample showed a big day for Kerry while all the days surrounding it showed a decent lead for the President.
It seems likely that Saturday reflects a rogue sample (especially since it was over a holiday weekend). But, it remains in our 3-day rolling average for one more day (Tuesday's report). If we drop the Saturday sample from our data, Bush is currently ahead by about 4 percentage points in the Rasmussen Reports Tracking Poll.
That's still a smaller lead than shown by Time and Newsweek. Those polls appear to have the mirror image problem of a Los Angeles Times poll in June reportedly showing Kerry with a huge lead. That LA Times survey included too many Democrats in their sample. Today, it seems likely that Time and Newsweek included too many Republicans.
Time reports that Republicans will vote for Bush by an 89% to 9% margin; Democrats for Kerry by an 80% to 9% margin; and, unaffiliated voters for Bush 43% to 39%.
Four years ago, 35% of voters were Republicans, 39% were Democrats, and the rest were unaffiliated. If you apply those percentages to the Time internals, you find Bush up by about 3 percentage points. If you do the same with the Newsweek internal numbers, you find Bush with a six point lead. Those results are very close to the Rasmussen Reports data (excluding the Saturday sample).
All of this leads me to conclude that the President is currently ahead by 4 or 5 percentage points.
For those who say turnout might be different this time, I agree. It might be different. One of our great challenges between now and Election Day is to figure out how much (if at all) the turnout will change from historic norms. Partisans from both sides seem convinced that there are special circumstance that will increase turnout for their team. Others speculate that their may be a smaller number of unaffiliated voters since events of the past four years have caused people to take sides.
Whatever the turnout differences may be, they will not be big enough to match the implications of the Time and Newsweek polls.
As always, it's useful to use common sense when reviewing poll data. If a poll suggests that 10 or 20 percent of Americans are changing their mind on a regular basis, it should be viewed with caution. Most of the time, you will find that the partisan mix of the polling sample is changing more than the actual perceptions of voters.
Yesterday, we released a brief assessment of the Bush Bounce. Based upon our 7-day Tracking data (less susceptible to one-day rogue samples), it appears that the President has gained more than five points over a three week period of time. Given the Swift Boat issue and the Republican National Convention, that seems to be a reasonable measure of the shift.
During the Republican Convention week, the President's numbers improved across the board. He took the lead in the 16-Battleground States, his Job Approval ratings went up to their highest levels in six months, and the number saying the country is moving in the right direction increased to its highest level of the year.
Supplemental data is available
Kitty Kelley is a notorious liar, I wouldn't put much stock into that book or anything she says, she is a trash whore who likes to beat up on dead celebrities who can't defend themselves, she usually writes outrageous claims with little or no proof, that book is like unfit for command, a smear job
Sounds like a nice urban legend
Bush Campaign to Pick Baker as Debate Negotiator
Wed Sep 1, 2004 02:12 PM ET
Printer Friendly / Email Article / Reprints / RSS
Top News
Weakened Frances Takes Second Jab at Florida
Former President Clinton's Heart Surgery a Success
Car Bomb Near Rebel Iraqi City Kills 7 U.S. Marines
MORE
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's re-election campaign this week will appoint Bush family confidant James Baker to negotiate the details of campaign debates between Bush and Democrat John Kerry, Republican officials said on Wednesday.
The selection of Baker, who was Bush's lead representative in the Florida recount battle in 2000, came amid indications that Bush only wanted to agree to two debates with Kerry rather than three as proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Proceeding without formal agreement from the Bush campaign, the commission set debates beginning Sept. 30 in Coral Gables, Florida, with a second slated for Oct. 8 in St. Louis and a third Oct. 13 in Tempe, Arizona. A vice presidential debate between incumbent Dick Cheney and Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, was set for Oct. 5 in Cleveland, Ohio.
Republican officials said the Bush campaign would name Baker this week. Baker, a longtime friend and adviser to Bush's father, former President Bush, has served as White House chief of staff, treasury secretary and secretary of state.
Kerry's campaign has already designated Washington power broker Vernon Jordan as its lead debate negotiator.
Republicans expected the Bush campaign to push for two presidential debates and a vice presidential debate.
"Two debates are sufficient and will not dominate the entire fall schedule. Three debates would have a tendency to be a little overbearing on your campaign strategy and tactics," said Republican strategist Scott Reed.
Bush advisers have attempted to lower expectations for Bush in the televised face-offs, describing Kerry as a skilled debater. They used a similar tactic in 2000 and Bush was seen as the winner of debates with Democrat Al Gore.
Baker may join Bush team, help with debates
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
PRESIDENTIAL RACE
COMPLETE COVERAGE:
• 2004 Republican Convention
LATEST:
Bush, Kerry ads archive
ISSUES:
• Debate dates
• Issues: Where candidates for president stand.
VIDEO:
Latest AP video campaign roundup
MAJOR CANDIDATES:
• President Bush (R)
• Sen. John Kerry (D)
• Ralph Nader (I)
INTERACTIVE:
• GOP convention
• How delegates are chosen
• In the running
CHRONICLE REPORTS:
• Election Central
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Video and audio courtesy The Associated Press. (Free Real Player required)
Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III will likely join President Bush's campaign to help negotiate rules and formats for debates with Democrat John Kerry, sources said Tuesday.
Baker, a Houston lawyer and honorary chairman of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice, played a key role in helping Bush win a legal battle over recounted votes in Florida during the 2000 election.
The Commission on Presidential Debates has proposed holding three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate, but the Bush team has not committed to the plan.
Kerry, Bush camps prepare to negotiate on debates
By Karen Branch-Brioso
Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau
08/31/2004
Advertisement
NEW YORK - The presidential debate dance is about to begin.
Long ago, the Commission on Presidential Debates chose the University of Miami, Washington University in St. Louis and Arizona State University to play host to the 2004 presidential debates. But only now, as the last presidential nominating convention winds to a close, are the candidates themselves launching negotiations on the pesky details.
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accepted the bipartisan group's debate terms in mid-July. But President George W. Bush's campaign team has taken the coy route this week - just as it did four years ago, and as President Bill Clinton did four years before that.
Bush campaign communications director Nicolle Devenish made it clear Monday that details aren't final.
The commission "has done an excellent job rolling out its proposal," she told reporters, saying the campaign will name a debate-negotiating team after the convention ends here Thursday. "The reality now is that both sides will sit down and negotiate, and then we'll go out and have strong debates."
But how many? And where?
Asked Tuesday about the impact of the debates on the battleground states that host them, Bush senior campaign strategist Matthew Dowd said: "I don't think it will have an effect that's different in Missouri or in Florida - wherever the debates end up - than it would nationally."
Washington University political science professor Jim Davis, who teaches a course on the presidency, said the debate dance is a time-honored tradition.
"Challengers are always quicker to accept debates, because they have more to gain," Davis said. "The incumbent has more to lose. . . . He and his managers are probably not all that comfortable with three debates, because in a debate, you risk putting your foot in your mouth. And, if he can get away with two instead of three, or one instead of two, he will."
Someone is already trying, according to an anonymous source cited by CNN.com Tuesday that said "Republicans would push for just two Bush-Kerry forums."
Talk like that gets Steve Givens nervous. He heads the debate steering committee at Washington University, which hosted presidential debates in 1992 and 2000 as well. So the risk is a familiar one.
"We know this is politics and there's nothing certain about that. We know that's part of the deal," said Givens. The deal cost each host university $750,000 for the commission's costs, and Washington University will kick in an extra $500,000 or so to prepare the site. Givens said $600,000 of that is underwritten by four sponsors: A.G. Edwards, Bank of America, BJC Healthcare and Emerson Electric.
"It's such a great event to be a part of that we think it's worth the risk. There's nothing we can do but continue to work and prepare as if it's going to happen on October 8th."
Washington University did the same in 1996, when it was tapped to be the site for one of the debates between President Bill Clinton and GOP challenger Robert Dole. But Clinton dropped St. Louis from the debate plan just days before it was scheduled to take place. Instead of the three debates set by the commission, Clinton and Dole faced off just twice.
Janet Brown, executive director for the commission that has produced the presidential debates since 1988, spoke hopefully of the chances of keeping the schedule for three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate, set for Case Western Reserve University in Ohio.
"There is a very considered rationale for the number, schedule, format and location of the '04 debates and I'm confident that the campaign will understand that," Brown said.
Looking purely at electoral votes, Missouri, with 11, would seem to have a leg up on Arizona, with 10. Florida has 27. They are all battleground states, as is Ohio, the site chosen for the vice presidential debate, with 20 electoral votes.
Then, again, if it comes down to a tussle in debate negotiations, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is a member of Kerry's debate negotiating team.
Open Debates, a nonprofit group that has heavily criticized the Commission on Presidential Debates for rules that usually lead to the exclusion of third-party candidates, is hoping that the commission's influence - and schedule - will change.
"At the end of the day, the two campaigns sit down and say what they want," said Chris Shaw, organizing director of Open Debates. "And we don't think a Commission on Presidential Debates will stand up to the candidates and say that, in the interests of voter education, we want this."
For now, at least, the traditional process is about to begin, as the two major-party candidates prepare to put their negotiating teams together to decide the fate of the commission's schedule. And Washington University's place in the schedule.
Jon Sawyer of the Post-Dispatch Washington bureau contributed to this report.
Reporter Karen Branch-Brioso
E-mail: kbranch@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 202-298-6880
NEW CNN POLL shows Bush 48 Kerry 47 among registered voters, Bush 52 Kerry 45 among likely voters
Now if you want to go with the likely voters Bush has already lost 4 points off of that bounce, don't forget margin of error is 4 points and don't forget polling done on labor day weekend is traditionally shaky
This is a dead even race, check zogby, american research group among others
How much longer do you want to make a fool of yourself, do you want more links, the presidential commission on debates sets those dates but the candidates have to agree to them, you just don't get it, if you want to keep making a fool of yourself you will keep calling me wrong, do you want more links
You must not have a lot of business experience, if you can't see that it had to do with negotiations that broke down then you need to go back to business 101 class
Yeah like the one I posted about Lucent that turned out to be true, stick to your one sentence postings of nothingness
Rooster come on, when I am sure of something you can bet it is true, Ken Mehlman, Bush's communication director or whatever his title is was on Stephanapolous show and said we will negotiate we have agreed to nothing, that schedule is set up by the commission on debates and has nothing to do with the candidates, if you want me to find it I can provide a link
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/special_packages/election2004/9547384.htm
Sorry buddy another Poll has Bush ahead by just 2 points, and this is another respected poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
the newsweek and time poll are all media hype, it would have you believe that a polarized country suddenly went from even to 11 plus Bush because of a convention, no freaking way
Nope, Bush campaign will not agree to anything yet
it would help if you responded to my posts, almost missed this one, I wouldn't say that is the only way, 2 months is a lifetime in a presidential campaign, there are many ways to inch up in the polls, don't forget any campaign but especially this one is a slave to outside events
i just can't wait to see bush in the debates where he doesn't have his advisor whispering in his ear, this time it will be different, no al gore there to agree with him 100 times
only problem is bush has not agreed to any debates yet, will see if the wimp will do 3 debates
obviously you don't understand context, he was indicting the way the war was prosecuted by the generals when he said he participated in free fire zones, and he never was aligned with jane fonda after her hanoi hilton episode if it all, but surely the truth does not matter to you
Well you are right about that, it was a bad campaign month for Kerry, it is now or never to illustrate something clear on iraq
8 years of a bubble, that is why are you are a hypocrite, at least I can compliment Republicans, that is why independent voters don't listen to Rush or Savage, by the way did you see that Allan Ginsberg's recently released letters from Savage contain love letters to Ginsberg and a letter where Savage admits to homosexual sex, seems like Michael Weiner, his real name, just might be a gay bashing closet homo
anyway I laugh about the dark period of John Kerry, so if terrorists attack, he is going to run away, please, no president in the future will run from an attack, because they know they will be toast if they do