One Side Doesn't Want to Debate Immigration

The editors at National Review have reiterated... for the second time... an invitation to the editors of the pro-amnesty Wall Street Journal to debate the immigration "reform" bill.

So far, it seems the WSJ editors are more interested in spinning than in a substantive debate:

Paul Gigot, in contrast, told the New York Times that he has no appetite for such a debate because he invited two NR writers to come on his Fox News show to discuss the bill the week before last. Both declined for scheduling reasons.

But dueling sound bites on a TV show moderated by Paul Gigot is not the kind of debate we have in mind. We’re challenging the Journal to a Firing Line –style debate — an extensive, detailed engagement on all the important issues surrounding the immigration bill.

Once again: Our challenge is two or three of us against two of three of them, in a neutral venue, with a moderator of the Journal’s choosing. What could be fairer? And who can doubt that the bill — the most important immigration reform in decades — deserves such an airing? “I wish we could lift up the level of discourse and dialogue,” Sen. John McCain said the other day. That’s exactly what we hope to do.

As we’ve mentioned before, in their recent videotaped editorial meeting, the Journal’s editors said that opponents of the bill are irrational and bereft of arguments. If that’s really the case, they should be willing to come out and prove it. What could they possibly have to fear?
In other words, the Journal says they want to debate their way, not the way a real, substantive debate should be done. And note that National Review will permit the Journal to pick the moderator.

The fact that the proponents of this travesty of a bill won't even engage in a true debate should speak volumes about it.