I was really nervous about this one - but Kerry really won it. Even the coverage on Fox News showed that Kerry was the clear winner. Bush supporters are clearly depressed and Kerry supporters are clearly elated.
Kerry was no Clinton - or even a Reagan for that matter. But - as I saw on democratic underground.com - Bush looked like a toad sucking lemons.
I can't help to think that the undecided voters are swinging towards Kerry - and that Kerry will win the real test of who won the debate - who gains in the polls.
It was real clear that Kerry kicked his butt all over the stage.
Posted by: Edd at September 30, 2004 08:55 PMIt seemed that both of them disagreed on some facts. I think Kerry said that bush was taking money away from something(i forget what now), but bush said that he increased it by 35%. So who was right?
Also i am wondering, how much in contracts did Halliburton get?
Posted by: BumontheRun at September 30, 2004 09:08 PMHe was talking about spending on homeland defense, but what Kerry was talking about was nuclear proliferation. There was a plan that had been enacted in 1991, the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, it's sole purpose was disarming weapons of destruction- including nukes- in the former Soviet Union. It had been largely successful and had the support of both bush I and Clinton.
What Kerry was talking about was in 2002 bush actually cut the funding to less than half of it's original budget. And for eight months shut down the program after that. In 2003 he resumed the pgoram but with less financing than before and still limited to Russia. bush on the other hand was talking about "spending" that he has done since taking office on security; and mainly with starting a new executive department, The Office of Homeland Security.
Posted by: M. Wills at September 30, 2004 09:30 PM