On paper, it had all the elements of a classic Jerry Springer dooney-brook. The question was would the two guests transfer that from paper to the telly?

Curtis Hertel Jr. and Jim Runestad knew each other. Oh yeah, they did. They both served in the Michigan Senate and came to almost every issue not seeing eye to eye. After all, Sen. Hertel had no choice. He was the son of Curtis Hertel the senior who back in the day was the Democratic Speaker of the Michigan House. Curtis learned from his daddy and was an accomplished legislator advancing the progressive agenda in the legislature first as a senator and then as the lobbyist for his best friend who just happened to be governor, as in Gretchen Whitmer.

Sen. Runestad was as conservative as it gets as he always finished in the top ranks of those lawmakers leaning hard to the right.

But within the last month they were thrusted into roles where they had the opportunity to go mano-a-mano. Hertel was recently elected the new state Democratic party chair hoping to whip up some magic sauce to get his party out of depths of despair after losing the works from president on down in the federal elections last November.

Sen. Runestad, while keeping his legislative day job, added something else to his resume. He beat Donald Trump’s candidate for state GOP party chair on the same day Hertel got a unamious vote at his convention.

And it wasn’t long after they did a victory lap that both were invited to meet for the first time on the same platform before a statewide Public TV audience and without a moments hesitation, they both said yes.

Individually, they had done the “Off the Record” broadcast before but the stakes were higher for this one as each had a chance to establish their persona while trying to score points with their counterpart. The unanswered question was, how would they interact?

Each was on time for a 7:30 a.m. tape roll. (Ugh on the time).

Neither wore a tie. (Thank you Rick Snyder). They came open collared with a sports coat perhaps to appeal to the viewers who don’t wear ties either? They sat inches apart and just before the cameras rolled as they chatted, Runestad raised his fist and faked a punch with a broad grin at you know who. They laughed.

Having served in the Senate from opposite ends of the political spectrum, they never really worked on legislation together. They were colleagues but hardly drinking buddies.

To underscore those differences right off the bat they disagreed on President Trump’s foray with Canada and Mexico into tariff la-la-land and the impact of same on this state. The president concedes there would be some initial “disturbances.”

Runestad answered “no” to the question, “Were the tariffs bad for Michigan?”

Hertel noted that in some instances, tariffs might be effective, but given that Trump promised Michigan voters to bring down the cost of living, he asserted tariffs would do just the opposite.

Runestad credited the president for giving the auto folks a one-month reprieve and went on to explain that there might be some economic bumps along the way, but the tariffs would “help the state of Michigan in terms of the long-term impact.”

They fought to a draw agreeing to disagree and in a very respectful and, dare I say, polite manner. (View it at wkar.org.)

If he was watching, Springer would not have been happy as he might have said to himself, “They are siting on chairs. Why don’t they use them!”

Alas, there would be none of those theatrics as the broadcast unfolded because they both agreed to be respectful of each other. The question came up about how they would deal with each other when the political heat was on; when control of the governor’s office, the state legislature, and other top state offices were up for grabs next year.

“Never attack each other’s families (and) personal attacks are not appropriate,” Hertel began, adding, “Personal distortions have gotten out of control in politics.”

Runestad offered, as he looked at his opponent, “to say that he is a bad person or he wants to destroy the state of Michigan. No. That stuff should be left out of the arena.”

They both concurred that the debate should be about the issues and the respective party policy records.

Now one could argue that having been in their new assignments for less than a month, it is easy to suggest those attitudes should prevail. But the game for both has not begun, so how will they conduct themselves when the you-know-what hits the fan and political lives are on the line?

In the spirit of believing that what they said it is the truth, they deserve a pat on the head from the electorate which is in large part fed-up with all the inter-party verbal war mongering that has poisned the current political climate.

And, just so you know, they ended the broadcast with a handshake.