INPIRG sparks debate between IU’s Democrats, Republicans

In an evening that mostly highlighted the differences between the platforms of the nation’s two biggest political parties, both sides could agree on at least one thing: The most important thing for the country to focus on is what comes next.\n“We’re here tonight to speak about the future of our two parties. For the Republican party, that future is John McCain,” said sophomore Chelsea Kane, chairwoman of IU College Republicans. She spoke at an Indiana Public Interest Research Group-sponsored debate between her group and the IU College Democrats held Tuesday in the Henry Radford Hope School of Fine Arts.\nAlong with Kane, sophomores Danny Orthwein and Pat Buschman represented the College Republicans. IU College Democrats President Anna Strand represented her party, along with freshman and Administrative Vice President Daniel Herman and junior Clint Ward.\nThe debate, moderated by Associate Vice Provost of Academic Affairs and Student Retention Ray Smith, consisted of questions submitted from various student groups, including the IU Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance, Human Rights Campaign and Students Working Against War. Topics covered included health care reform, the Iraq War, taxes and gay marriage, among others.\nBoth sides pointed out that they were not simply interested in offering empty rhetoric, but wanted to advance specific proposals to remedy problems facing the country.\n“We don’t simply believe in the buzzword of change,” Strand said. “We are actually trying to purvey it.”\nThe debate began with a two-and-a-half minute statement from each side outlining the basic principles of its party.\nIn his opening remarks, Herman touched on the issue of climate change. He said it was time to put aside the argument of whether or not climate change was real and to focus on practical solutions to the problem. He mentioned the work of California-based NanoSolar, which has developed ultra-thin solar panels that can be placed on most any surface, as the type of project the government should be supporting.\n“These types of things need to start now,” Herman said. “The sooner we start, the better of we will all be.”\nAfter the opening statements, nine separate questions were posed to each team. Both sides were given an initial five-minute response time, with an additional one-minute rebuttal after the other team responded. Any time left after the team’s original response was added onto the time allowed for its rebuttal.\nA question was posed on the issue of college costs, a topic both sides noted was of critical importance to IU students, themselves included. In her response, Strand highlighted a recent bill passed by the Democratic Congress that would aim to lower the cost of college tuition and would cap the period of time individuals would have to pay back loans. \nIn her rebuttal, Kane stated that while she agreed the government should offer assistance in helping students attend college, students should also take personal responsibility in seeking out ways to pay their tuition.\n“There are lots of grants and scholarships out there,” Kane said. “People should be taking advantage of these as much as possible.”\nOn health care, another issue of great importance to students living on fixed incomes, the Republicans said the responsibility for providing health insurance should not fall on the government.\n“Individuals know best how to manage their assets,” Orthwein said.\nKane mentioned proposals of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to open the pharmaceutical market to foreign companies as one way health care costs could be lowered and health insurance could be made available to more Americans.\nOn the Democratic side, while conceding that both Obama’s and Clinton’s health care plans differ somewhat, they all agreed on one idea: Health care is a right all American citizens should be afforded.\n“Never should anyone have to choose between paying their rent and paying for their prescriptions,” Ward said.\nThe debate ended with a closing statement of two and a half minutes from each group. Both sides agreed it was important for students to inform themselves about each side.\n“We have a voice, and I think we should use it,” Buschman said.