The students may be apathetic toward the current Government of the Student Body, but the slates certainly have animosity toward each other.

Thursday night’s debate started out in an off-kilter way: rescheduled, moved from the Memorial Union to Carver Hall and commencing a good 20 minutes after the scheduled time.

GSB President T.J. Schneider kicked off what would be a feisty debate by introducing himself as the “President of the Government of the Student Body … currently,” alluding to his possible impeachment and bringing laughter to the crowd of roughly 50 students and a handful of administrators.

All three slates exhibited an uncanny talent for political speak and traditional election rhetoric that they used to dodge questions and issues. Examples such as Jon Mullin’s comment that diversity was a “goal of GSB in the past and will be in the future” and Mike Banasiak’s “we are working for the students, not the other way around” are just a few key phrases that littered the debate.

The true sniping, however, flew between Matt Denner and Banasiak. In a show of bitterness worthy of a small town school board, the two presidential candidates chided each other for failing to show up at a press conference for Lobby Day and for inability to effectively lobby.

Banasiak stated several times during the debate that they would surround themselves with a qualified cabinet to help elicit student opinion.

Later in the debate, Denner almost mockingly referred back to this statement when he said he was the “most qualified to find the most qualified students” for the executive branch.

Despite these snide remarks, or maybe because of them, Banasiak and Denner showed a true passion for student government that seems to have been lacking in past elections. Although students see GSB as largely ineffective in lobbying against severe tuition increases, Banasiak stepped out of the political straight-jacket and fired, “Why is higher education not a priority in the state of Iowa and that needs to change!”

Vicky Lio also ventured beyond the confines of vague political ideas by suggesting that GSB meetings be broadcast on the ISU campus television station so that students would be more aware of what their government was doing for them.

The eventual emotional honesty of the debate brought out the true colors of the candidates — it proved they at least have the emotional drive to run the government of the student body. Take time on March 10 and 11 to pick the best leader of these three slates.