Here are four e-mails:
1) So, does Steve Moore’s statement constitute acceptance?! I’m excited…
I’m sure you’ve thought about moderators, and I’d suggest Hugh Hewitt. I say this because his position on this is somewhere between NR’s and WSJ’s, he’s actually read the bill, he’s already offered to host it on his show (so he’d fly out to host it live)…
Anyway, I hope this happens.
2) What a great idea! I’m getting giddy to take a few days off of work and drive down from Youngstown, Ohio to watch you crush the opposition. For whatever it’s worth, make the venue BIG and save me a seat up front!
Freaking thrilled…
3) It’s a great idea. My guess is they’ll decline, though. The basic idea of the proponents of this bill is to ram it through with all the speed and Washington-insider techniques they can muster. Slow down, talk about the ideas, and they lose, and they know this very well…
4)…[from a DHS address] It is not clear to me why WSJ would want to debate NRO since WSJ would use the idiom of basic free-market economics which is a language that is not understood by most of the NRO antagonists.
ME: Taking them in order:
1) Unfortunately, I doubt Steve speaks for the editorial board officially on this. But I do very much admire his fighting spirit and his willingness to debate this thing fairly and openly in a Firing Line-style forum, As for Hugh moderating, we’re open to whatever the Journal would want to do on that front;
2) People do seem genuinely excited by the idea;
3) That’s a cynical interpretation. But it certainly applies to a lot of elected supporters of the bill;
4) I don’t want to get into the market arguments in detail here, but just let me say I have tons of respect for the Journal guys. I think they’re wrong, but I don’t think they’re irrational or foaming at the mouth. I think they would be formidable in the kind of debate we’re talking about. Another reason to look forward to it—if they accept.