The Presidential Debates

GENERAL

Last night’s ASG-sponsored Presidential debates featured a disappointing if inevitable turn away from discussing the issues and platforms toward an attempt on the part of the candidates to out-rhetoric one another. Honesty and ideas were lost amidst ad hominem attacks, attempts at humor, and various wacky stunts.

Comedy seemed to rule the evening, with several candidates attempting to out-Evil Evil Dave Sheldon, who has earned his role as the best and most respected practicioner of “political entertainment” in ASG. Is there a place for humor in the ASG campaigns? Certainly. But when the focus of debate becomes not winning the audience over with compelling ideas presented in a competent manner, but shoving dental floss up your nose and bringing it out your mouth, the entire election process (which teeters on the brink of farce even without the help of obvious attempts at comedy) is cheapened. It’s a natural instinct: one performer has the audience in his palm because of his material, so the other performers attempt to divert some of those laughs. Still, those candidates (Kim Montgomery, Karyn Bass, and Ariel Friedler) who attempted to remain above the fracas while enjoying the comedy of others came off as more serious and mature about the office and attaining it, while the other candidates became lost in a tangle of one-liners and elaborate stunts.

Click on the candidate’s name to surf to their campaign platform!

CROWD FAVORITE, WINNER, AND LIVING DEITY: EVIL DAVE SHELDON

This guy’s so tough to puzzle out. First off, he and his staff are a pack of geniuses. What makes their comedy so compelling and worthwhile is the fact that they clearly put as much time into designing their mockery of a presidential campaign as the other candidates put into designing a serious campaign. Every part of their effort shows thought and wit. This differentiates them from someone like Paul Zelenski, who has no real goal in running other than fucking around a bit in the public eye.

But Sheldon is also an ASG senator, and seems to have done as much hard work in Senate as any other member of the body. He’s very active on the nwu.org.asg newsgroup, where he abandons the comedy to seriously discuss issues before senate withother senators and students. So you have to think that there’s part of him that takes ASG seriously, and that would actually want to be President. Not many students seem to realize this; they assume that because his campaign is totally humor, his attitude toward the position is disrespect. In fact, he’s proven himself in Senate and might even be respected as a president by many of the senators serving under him.

Would Sheldon make a good president? Quite possibly. Will he win? Quite possibly. He held the crowd in his palm all evening, with snappy one-liners and creative gags throughout the debate. Unlike previous years, where he clung to his platform ideas throughout the debate to the point of overrepetition, this year Evil Dave had a new crazy notion for each question. In the portion of the debates where candidates were allowed to question one another, he asked a “critical skills” question similar to that found on the ACT, involving a choice between two goats and a new car. He reiterated his campaign promises to gain reparations for the People of the Lake, install double-decker sidewalks, and restore the Dyche name to Ryan Field. The climax of his comedy was the attack of a rival candidate, El Presidente, complete with Mexican sequined wrestling mask and mariachi-style guitar strumming. Evil Dave slammed the foe with a plastic folding chair before climbing the small platform to elbow him from “the top rope,” Randy Savage style.

As usual, it was another great show from NU’s leader in “political entertainment.” It’s unfortunate that his committment to comedy prohibits students from realizing that he’s actually a strong candidate for the job of ASG president.

RUNNER-UP: ARIEL FRIEDLER

The bluster and invective that defined Ariel as a candidate in his appearance at Sunday night’s FMO/AAAB/Casa Hispana debates vanished from his style for this evening. Instead, he made it a point to attempt to distance himself from the “I hate ASG” theme that ran through his appearance at the previous debate and the coverage in Wednesday’s Daily Northwestern. (Still, he couldn't keep himself from slipping in a few digs at ASG, commenting in a response to one question that “I’ve been here 3 years and I’ve never seen a result [from ASG].”) He also appeared far more confident and sure of himself in his appearance last night, minus the nervous fidgeting on stage that consumed him at the Sunday debates.

Friedler’s comments throughout the debate focused largely on his extensive and varied platform, which covers many bases and would seem to have something for everyone. Some of his more articulate responses to audience questions involved improvement of race relations (a question he dominated, with the other candidates having little to say), the fact that legislation should attempt to avoid the interference of the administration, and his Council of Presidents, a great idea similar in spirit to Karyn Bass’s student leader council. With his style toned down, Friedler emerged as a serious candidate with strong potential, standing out from the other outsider candidates and the two ASG “insiders.”

THIRD PLACE: KIM MONTGOMERY

She’s confident, collected, and even a little vicious. Like her peers, Kim Montgomery polished up her speaking style and her speeches for tonight’s debate, leading to the impression that Sunday evening’s debate acted as a “dress rehearsal” of sorts for last night’s affair. Her opening and closing comments seemed comfortable and at the same time polished. She conveyed her message well, but in descending to a few attacks on Karyn Bass’s platform, she downgraded the level of discussion on the whole. In her opening statements, she questioned the feasibility of bar night at Norris and a video store at the student center, two ideas which are part of Bass’s plan to improve student life and put the students’ needs first. Montgomery also managed to get in a dig at those who question campaign manager Darren Shulman’s motives in pressing a complaint against Bass that surfaced in his fraternity: “It’s my job to get my message out; it’s my campaign manager’s job to make sure the campaign is clean.” She also appears to lack a certain degree of passion or excitement; her most animated moment came when Paul Zelenski asked his fellow candidates for their “most disturbing childhood memory,” and she told of an incident involving slamming her sister in the nose with a violin case during her kindergarten days.

Her “presidential ideas” appear to be the same as those presented on Sunday night, but in a bold statement of intent, she promises that her platform will reach the Senate in the form of legislation within 30 days of her election. Though her platform is still nebulous and unexciting, it’s her confidence in presentation and intent that makes her a compelling choice for the job of ASG president. One has to think that whether or not her own platform is worthwhile, she has the leadership skills and the drive to keep the Senate moving and make the great ideas of her peers into reality.

FOURTH PLACE: KARYN BASS

Karyn Bass’s enthusiasm is impossible to deny. When speaking, she seems almost desperate to convey her excitement for her platform and her desire to be president to the crowd. Unfortunately, her platform is built around some rhetorical gems that have lurked in the language of ASG campaign week for years: “students first,” “proactive government,” “no more bureacracy.” Bass’s reliance on these old chestnuts is almost as prohibitive to change as ASG’s dependance on bureacracy.

Still, there’s a certain dynamic energy to Karyn as a speaker, and presumably as a leader. She also gained points for refusing to sink to the level of Montgomery’s rhetoric and slam her fellow candidates, going so far as to comment in her closing remarks that “leadership is about attacking real problems, not each other.” Yet where Montgomery comes off as confident and sure of herself, Karyn’s ebullient energy often gives the impression of a desperation to convey her ideas. Without psychoanalyzing a person I barely know, I think it’s safe to say that Karyn’s less sure of herself than Kim or the other candidates. This could be based on sheer exhaustion; the number of attacks her campaign has suffered over the past week, between the complaints filed to the election judges and several harassing phone calls placed to her room, would drain the energy of even the most energetic politician. One hopes that Karyn can pull her energy together for one last push into the election on Tuesday.

It may very well be that the perfect candidate for ASG president will share the experience of Karyn and Kim, taking Karyn’s energy and fusing it with Kim’s confident style and sense of purpose. As separate candidates sharing status as the most experienced candidates from within ASG, they appear to be two halves of a whole. On the other hand, they are the only two candidates who are both taking this election seriously and would have the ASG skills and know-how to get things done. Unless science develops technology to fuse two human beings into one composite entity, it will be a hard call to pick between these two on election day.

FIFTH PLACE: JASON BRIGGEMAN

Jason Briggeman seemed more prepared for the ASG-sponsored debate than he was for the minority debates on Sunday night. But some of the changes made weakened his platform on the hole and led to his being trapped in a corner by the other candidates during the question-and-answer session. Absent from the debate were Briggeman’s ideas for improving the quality of food at Marriott. These ideas seemed a fresh approach on an old idea, but perhaps Briggeman discovered that since the contract with Marriott won’t be up again for at least a few years, there would be little he could do to affect change. Instead, Briggeman focused on his other major platform idea, making the Student Activities Fee optional. He also maintained a general resolve to strip power from ASG and hand it back to the students over the course of his term as president.

Briggeman’s central platform point was hammered into oblivion during the portion of the debates devoted to candidate-on-candidate (does anyone else think that sounds like a category of pornography?) questions. Briggeman asked what each candidate would do to get the fee back to the students, and all six of the other candidates replied that in fact, the fee is currently refundable and is no longer mandatory. Staggering from the continuous attack (and was it really necessary that all six candidates kick the guy while he was down and repeat that the fee was refundable?), Briggeman then spent his response to the question and his closing statements attempting to recover. He insisted that a phone call to the student accounts office met with “the verbal equivalent of a blank stare” before asking the other candidates, “Have you guys really researched this?” He then closed out his statements with the promise that if it’s currently refundable, then he’ll make it easier to get back than having to fill out forms. A nice recovery, but the damage had already been done.

At any rate, this reporter doesn’t want to contemplate the idea of a campus where every student has three or four new CD’s, but absolutely no theater, speakers, bands, films, publications (save the self-sufficient Daily), or activities period to attend and enjoy. That’s what would happen if the Student Activities fee were refunded. It’s naive to think that every student on this campus would contribute their fee to a student group, instead of pocketing the extra cash. This would lead to a drastic drop in the amount of funds available for A&O, FMO, and other large student groups. Hence, no programming and a dead campus, where Briggeman’s “minorities of one” wander aimlessly and alone, with little if no connections to each other. Though it may seem like a great notion to give the fee back to the students, there are massive consequences in such a decision.

SIXTH PLACE: BRIAN OBERHAUSER

Brian Oberhauser wants to instigate “a shakedown from the top-down” if he is elected ASG president. What does this mean? To be honest, I’m not really sure. Oberhauser downplayed his central campaign promise throughout the evening: to make Northwestern the #1 college in the nation. However, he did implement it when responding to a question on minority enrollment, claming that making NU #1 would bring better minority professors and students to this campus. Instead, Oberhauser focused somewhat in his comments on ideas for making life better for the students. Though his responses to questions were fairly articulate, he never came off with much enthusiasm, or with any cohesive platform to run with. A few lame attempts at jokes also cost him points with the audience, as he attempted to match verbal wits with Evil Dave and Paul Zelenski.

Oberhauser seems to have an acute understanding of the political game, but lacks any serious conviction for the job of President. All of this came through in the debate on Thursday night, as he focused on rhetoric that rarely tied to concrete ideas. Like other candidates, Oberhauser wants to bring a multicultural center to campus and wants to improve Norris. But where’s the spark that indicates that he wants this job less for a resume boost and more for the chance to affect change? That spark was absent Thursday night, and it cost him in the debate.

SEVENTH PLACE: PAUL ZELENSKI

Paul: WHY?! You’re a charming, funny guy. You seem nice enough. But what’s your gimmick? Why bother? At least Evil Dave has some diabolical, chaotic comic agenda to forward. You have dental floss to shove up your nose. That’s fine; it’s a funny trick. Yet where Evil Dave would offer a funny response to a question from his platform, you'd instead make a fairly inane comment that had no basis in anything. This guy’s pretty much a joke, but that appears to be what he wants, so what can you do?

—Matt Springer