Maybe we’re incorrigible optimists. But we still haven’t given up on urging the editors of the Wall Street Journal to a public debate on the merits of the immigration bill.

		Steyn: The Superbower Blase: A Medicaid Buy-Off Sanders: Blanche Lincoln’s Balancing Act Costa: Saturday Night Fever Miller: The Man Who Would Kill Lincoln Hibbs: Just Bite Her Already Goldberg: We Need Your Help Spruiell: Welcome to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Editors: End It, Don’t Amend It Goldberg: Palinophobes Hate First, Ask Questions Later Murdock: Medicare: A Glimpse of the Future? Krauthammer: Travesty in New York Charen: Holder’s True Motive Lowry: Barack Obama’s Chump Diplomacy Spakovsky: Criminalizing Health-Care Freedom Anderson: Roadmap to Victory

The Journal’s Steve Moore has the right spirit. He said last week that he would welcome such a debate “any time.” Well, how about this week? We hope Moore’s evident zest for a sustained, substantive public discussion of the bill spreads to his colleagues.

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?

Alas, we’re beginning to think we’re going to have to outbid Rupert Murdoch to buy the Wall Street Journal to get its editors to come debate the bill. But, as we said, we’re optimists. We still hope the spirit of open, substantive debate among friends (who happen to disagree on this issue) will prevail at the Journal.