Gas Prices Brought Them Together. The Insults Took Over.

Gas prices, a war, and tariffs were on the table. What Michigan voters got instead, at least at first, was two Senate candidates trading insults across the stage.

Abdul El-Sayed and Mike Rogers met Thursday night in Grand Rapids for their first debate in the race for Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat. The questions were serious: whether to pause the federal gas tax, how to respond to the war in Iran, and what to do about tariffs that can raise the price of everyday goods.

Both candidates said they would support a pause on the federal gas tax. That was one of the few places where the answers sounded alike.

Then the debate turned personal.

El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee, called Rogers a “sock puppet” for President Donald Trump and said he was “weak” and “cowardly.” Rogers, the Republican nominee and a former congressman, called El-Sayed a “con man” and accused him of making promises he could not pay for.

They talked over each other. They argued during a commercial break. The moderator had to step in.

I understand why campaigns get sharp. A Senate seat matters. Michigan is closely watched, and the candidates are competing to replace retiring Sen. Gary Peters, a Democrat. But I also worry when a debate about gas prices becomes a contest over who can land the uglier line.

What voters were asking

The opening question was not abstract. It asked whether the candidates would support a pause on the federal gas tax at a time of high fuel prices connected to the war in Iran.

That is the kind of question people ask while standing at a pump, not in a campaign office. Can I get to work this week? Can I make the grocery budget stretch? Can I still afford the trip I planned months ago?

El-Sayed said he would support the pause, then argued that the larger cause was the war in Iran. He said the war had been “cheer-led” by Rogers.

Rogers said he had been aggressive in calling for a pause at both the state and federal levels. He also said he believed the war in Iran would come to an end.

Those are real differences in emphasis. One candidate wants voters to focus on the war’s effect at the pump. The other wants to present himself as someone pressing for relief now. A voter could reasonably want to hear more from both of them.

Instead, the exchange moved quickly into character attacks.

The part that stayed with me

The debate also touched on tariffs. Rogers had released an ad the day before criticizing Trump’s tariffs on Canada, saying Canada was not an enemy and that the tariff war needed to end.

El-Sayed pressed him on the change. He argued that Rogers was shifting because of his poll numbers, not because of a new view on policy.

That is a fair line of questioning. Politicians change positions. Voters deserve to know when they do, why they do, and what it means for the people affected by the policy. Tariffs are not a Washington abstraction when they touch supply chains, prices, and jobs.

But the answer voters need is specific. What would Rogers do differently? What would El-Sayed do? How would either approach affect a Michigan manufacturer, a farmer, a small retailer, or a family buying groceries?

The debate gave them a chance to explain that. The insults took up space that those explanations needed.

Why the tone matters

There is a difference between forceful disagreement and contempt. Forceful disagreement can clarify a choice. Contempt makes the other person seem unworthy of being heard.

El-Sayed’s criticism of Rogers centered on loyalty to Trump and on recent changes in Rogers’s positions. Rogers tried to frame El-Sayed as someone whose proposals would raise costs for Michigan residents. Those are political arguments. They can be tested, challenged, and answered.

The personal attacks are different. They do not tell a voter what a senator would do about gas prices, health care, or a war. They tell a voter who to dislike.

And that is where my concern sits. Not because candidates should be polite for politeness’s sake. Because a Senate debate is one of the few moments when a wide audience can hear competing answers side by side.

When that time gets consumed by sniping, the people who lose the most are the ones with the least time to sort through campaign ads, clips, and social media arguments.

What was actually discussed

The candidates did discuss more than insults. The debate covered affordability, health care, tariffs, and the Iran war.

On Iran and Israel, El-Sayed was asked whether he would support funding for defensive weapons for Israel if the country were attacked. He said he did not want U.S. tax dollars buying weapons for other countries. Asked whether Iran or Israel posed a greater threat to the United States, he called the question a “ridiculous hypothetical” and said both had proven dangerous in their own ways.

Rogers’s position on the war has also drawn attention. In September, he said the war needed to end quickly. The day before the debate, he criticized Trump’s tariffs on Canada.

Those positions deserve scrutiny. So do El-Sayed’s. A voter should be able to ask what “ending” a war means in practice, what a candidate would support if an ally were attacked, and how a senator would weigh costs at home against commitments abroad.

Those are hard questions. They do not become easier when the answer is another insult.

What I hope comes next

The two candidates have another debate planned. That is good news, if it is used well.

I hope the next one spends less time on who is a puppet, a con man, weak, or dishonest, and more time on what a Michigan senator would actually do. How would each candidate lower costs? What would they change about tariff policy? What would they support in the Middle East? What would they refuse to support?

Voters do not need the candidates to like each other. They need to understand the difference between them.

A debate can do that. It can put two visions of the country next to each other and let people judge. Thursday night had moments of that. It also had too many moments where the argument became about the men on stage rather than the people watching.

The gas prices are still there. So is the war. So are the tariffs. Michigan deserves answers that treat those problems as more than material for a fight.

More on: Politics