Granholm and DeVos debate state issues

Candidates square off on economy, school vouchers, abortion, and more

by Christian Bell, Editor in Chief

DeVos answers questions following Tuesday's debate

On Tuesday, Michigan Governor and Democratic incumbent Jennifer Granholm and Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos met at the WOOD-TV studios in Grand Rapids for the second of three debates in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 7 elections. I was invited to attend the debate as part of the media pool, an experience which provided a first-hand look at the candidates, the issues, and the process that goes into producing a live television debate.

The stakes for Tuesday's debate were high; polls showed Granholm with only a few percent point lead on DeVos, once margins of error are factored out. Moreover, over ten percent of Michigan voters polled said they were, and still are, undecided.

The format of the debate itself was highly structured. The debate was moderated by WOOD-TV news anchor Suzanne Geha. Only three pre-selected media panelists and the moderator were allowed to ask questions. Candidates were given two minutes for an initial response, their opponent was then given a one minute rebuttal, and the original candidate then received a 30-second response.

"This was quite a format in a debate," Geha said after the debate. "There was a 9-page contractual agreement, so everything was really spelled out in terms of the structure."

Geha said the format allowed each candidate to convey a lot of information, although she said the format somewhat impeded the back-and-forth exchange common in political debates.

The debate itself covered most of the same issues, claims, and accusations that have been volleyed back and forth between the Granholm and DeVos camps throughout the course of the electoral season. DeVos, who was criticized as coming across too weak in the first debate, fired the opening salvo by saying he was "furious" about Granholm "lying" during the last debate, and said that Granholm is "willing to say anything to keep her job." Granholm responded by laying out the details for her economic plan to stimulate Michigan's sagging economy.

While the economy was the focal point of most of the debate, the candidates touched on a number of other issues as well. Granholm discussed a state-led universal healthcare plan and accused DeVos's Alticor business of hiring temps to avoid paying healthcare benefits. DeVos, when asked about school vouchers, asserted his support of "parental choice, because I support public schools." DeVos said that Granholm was the first governor in 20 years to cut funding for education. On the issue of illegal immigration, DeVos said "If you're here illegally, that's a problem," while Granholm, who herself came to the U.S. as an immigrant from Canada, said she supports a "sensible path to citizenship."

There were some surprises during Tuesday's debate. DeVos claimed to have arranged a post-election meeting between President Bush and the heads of the "Big 3" automakers in Detroit; Granholm said of the meeting, "It's news to me." Both Granholm and DeVos indicted that they favor eliminating the controversial Single Business Tax, although the methods each proposed for doing so varied considerably.

Perhaps the most surprising part of the debate was when DeVos was asked about Michigan abortion laws. DeVos said, "I'm comfortable with the laws we have. Our current laws are sufficient." DeVos did assert that he is pro-life and said that partial-birth abortion was an exception to his comfort with current Michigan abortion laws.

The overall tone of the debate was generally negative. From DeVos's opening accusations that Granholm was lying, to both candidates' sharply-barbed accusations of the other, the mudslinging didn't stop until the debate was over. Towards the end of the debate, WOOD-TV political reporter Rick Albin, one of the three panelists for the debate, asked both candidates, "Is the right tone being set?" Neither candidate directly responded to Albin's question, and in the course of their responses, both candidates again traded accusations.

Watching the goings on behind the scenes of the debate was almost as interesting as the debate itself. Television, radio, and print journalists from across the state showed up to cover the event; the back lot of the WOOD-TV parking lot was packed tight with over a dozen satellite-uplink vans. We all sat around tables in a large conference room in the basement of the studio to watch the debate on several big screen TVs (only WOOD-TV cameras were allowed to tape the debate). The mood in the room was generally friendly and upbeat, with several reporters jokingly complaining about how much time they've spent covering the two candidates.

After the debate ended, we were allowed to go up to the studio to speak with the candidates. DeVos remained in the studio for several minutes and gave a series of additional talking points to reporters. Officials from both campaign parties were also let in to give talking points and interviews. Granholm didn't remain in the studio after the debate, and answered only a few brief questions from reporters while being escorted back to her car.

The most interesting event, however, took place the minute the debate ended. A man quickly walked through the media room handing out press releases that proclaimed DeVos the winner of the debate. When Granholm finally arrived outside to talk to reporters, similar press releases heralding her performance during the debate were also being handed out. In neither case did the press releases make much more than a veiled reference to the actual substance of the debate, indicting that they were clearly fabricated well in advance of the debate itself. It's unclear to me what either side hoped to accomplish by handing out these insubstantial press releases, but judging from how coordinated their efforts seemed to be, such actions are apparently par for the course in a political debate.

Reflecting back on the debate itself, it's unfortunate that this debate like so many others ended up essentially as a shouting match in which each candidate tried feverishly to show their economic, political, and moral superiority to the other. Numerous claims, statistics, and "facts" were bandied about by both candidates, although the validity of any of that information in such a highly-contentious atmosphere is suspect. Both candidates presented compelling arguments, and both candidates presented frustrating rhetorical blocks to questions they didn't want to answer. It's not clear that either candidate "won" the debate; isn't such back-and-forth bickering a zero-sum game?

Both candidates agreed on one thing: the state of Michigan is going through very difficult economic times. It's truly unfortunate that in a state where thousands of workers every year have lost their jobs and families are burdened by a sagging economy, the only thing two gubernatorial candidates could produce for television was a mud-wrestling competition of embarrassing proportions.

Want to respond to this article? Send your letter to letters@kerux.org; see the guidelines for more information.