Correction appended
During an hour-long debate in the McCormick Tribune Center Forum, the three candidates for Associated Student Government presidency established and continued to reinforce distinct, and varying images of themselves, even while overlapping on rhetoric and policy proposals.
Luke Adams, a Weinberg junior and ROTC member, firmly defended his status as alternative outsider candidate. Adams avoided long-winded explanations of policies and kept the debate lively with his quirky sense of humor – he even began his opening speech with a homespun joke. “What’s the difference between a conservationist and a conservative?” he asked. “One likes trees, the other likes Bush.”
Meanwhile, Mike McGee, a Communication junior, came off as the most conciliatory of the candidates, and the most willing to work within the existing confines of student government. McGee spoke often of collaboration and called his goals “realistic.” He also mentioned minority enrollment first and discussed it most thoroughly.
Bill Pulte, the third candidate for the position, offered the most sharp-edged challenges to the current state of ASG and his opponents, while continuing to emphasize his participation in the organization and his faith in its potential. He immediately called out McGee for a weak record outside of the student government and said McGee could not produce results in the same way that he could. Pulte continued to draw direct contrasts between his own campaign and McGee’s throughout the night.
Adams was largely still and did not change expression much throughout the debate. McGee was hunched over, constantly writing on his notepad and laughing often, especially when Pulte attacked him directly. Pulte did not write as often and sat straighter and taller than McGee, laughing heavily at some of Adams’ comments but mostly looking neutral.
Though the debate was barely moderated — candidates got two minutes to answer every question and never exceeded their time limits — and most of the speaking was in monologue form, there were some moments of direct interaction.
On one occasion, Pulte made a direct, and unexpected reference to Smithburg. “I don’t know why [Smithburg] never ran for president,” he said. Pulte later said that Smithburg had asked him to be his running mate and Pulte declined. McGee thanked Pulte for a “glowing endorsement” of his running mate.
In another exchange, McGee cited ASGPAL as an example of one of his accomplishments as Academic Director in ASG. Pulte responded by saying he was probably responsible for half the student profiles on the site, and McGee countered the Pulte had only arranged seven out of the 80-plus profiles.
Much of the back-and-forth between Pulte and McGee concerned each candidate’s ability and plan to achieve “results.” Pulte claimed the word for himself early on and used his experience outside of ASG to sell his promise of bringing results. McGee stressed that he is more focused than Pulte on how to actually achieve those results.
“It’s not just a goal and results,” McGee said. “You have to get there.”
Both McGee and Pulte were ambivalent in their assessments of the tenure of outgoing president Neal Sales-Griffin, a SESP senior, and by extension, vacillated on how much they wanted to emulate Sales-Griffin.
Pulte said that serving as Sales-Griffin’s vice president showed him that “the machine is in place, now we just need to let it run.” Pulte’s criticism of ASG, which was at times quite pointed, was often generic in its aim – he stayed away from naming specific culprits, with the exception of McGee, and even paid compliments to Sales-Griffin and Smithburg.
As the former Academic Director, McGee said he owed his involvement in ASG to Sales-Griffin. But McGee conceded that Sales-Griffin’s “passion” and forcefulness might have limited his effectiveness. “My leadership style is more collaborative, diplomatic,” McGee said.
In their closing arguments, the candidates rehashed some of the more contentious issues in the debate but generally turned back to their talking points.
Adams, who emphasized from the beginning that his candidacy was not a selfishly motivated one because “the navy doesn’t care about your résumé,” said he hoped to reach the vast majority of students not at the debate.
McGee and Pulte traded barbs on their philosophies about sending e-mails. The argument reintroduced maybe the central question of the debate: what does effective collaboration look like, and is it the right way to achieve results?
“I send a lot of e-mails,” McGee admitted. But he argued that e-mails, and the kind of collaboration and communication they represent, are the way to set up meetings and eventually achieve goals. Pulte took his chance as the final speaker to make the point that “you have to seal the deal in the meetings to get things done.”
Updated April 14, 10:02 a.m.: This story was edited for grammar purposes. Thanks to commenter Tedious Reader for pointing it out.