WSJ v. NRO: Not Pistols, But a Debate?

Heh.

We hereby challenge the Journal’s editors to debate the immigration bill in a neutral venue with a moderator of their choosing — two or three of us versus any two or three of them. We propose to do it in Washington next week so it will have the maximum impact on the Senate’s consideration of the most sweeping immigration reform in decades (time and place to be worked out in a mutually satisfactory fashion).

It shouldn’t be a problem for the Journal’s editors to take up this challenge, since opponents of the bill aren’t “rational” on the question, have no arguments, and are “foaming at the mouth,” as they explained in a videotaped session of one of their editorial meetings last week. Click here to watch — you have to see it to believe it.

We urge them to come out of the shadows, and hope defending the bill in this forum is not another one of those jobs that no American will do. (We would challenge President Bush himself to a debate on behalf of the conservatives he has maligned, but we fear he hasn’t read the bill.)

So who at the Journal is willing to debate the merits of the legislation rather than cast aspersions from afar? We await the answer. To keep us posted in the meantime, we hope they videotape their consideration of this challenge

The WSJ editors may not bring their seconds: Big Ag, the Fortune 50, Big Tech, and Housewives-With-Maids.

HT: Hot Air