PrintJune 1, 2007
Debating immigration - why not?
Wow, Fred Thompson vs. Ted Kennedy or even Mrs. Bill Clinton. And, as someone suggested earlier today, an "undercard" with Laura Ingraham vs. Tamar Jacoby. Or Giuliani vs. Obama? Or Romney vs. Edwards? Or maybe a couple of "top guns" from the Center for Immigration Studies" vs. a couple of their counterparts from the National Council of La Raza? Or a match between Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation and his counterpart from the Urban Institute? While we're at, why not Rush Limbaugh vs. Al Franken? Instead of Rush, I was going to suggest Mark Levin, but then I'd actually feel sympathy for Franken.
That would be better than, but not by much, the challenge made by National Review's editors to the Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
Could this lead to some REAL presidential debates? I sure hope so. And why isn't PBS chomping at the bit urging all of this on? What is PBS doing with our taxes? You mean they're letting Bill Moyers do another documentary? Or what about C-SPAN? I'd think Brian Lamb, too, would be chomping at the bit to get this arranged.
With some planning, this could be better than a Super Bowl weekend, e.g., have a couple of early rounds on Friday evening and work "up" on Saturday and Sunday. Frank Luntz could do some of his focus groups, and score each debate, e.g., hold a dozen or so all around the nation. For the grand finale, there could be a round table discussion between President Bush on one side of a large conference table with Secretary Chertoff Senators Kennedy and McCain and other members of the "secret cabal." On the other side of the table, the three or four highest rated talk show hosts three or four TV "hosts" could "interview" the President's side.
I started this off lightheartedly, but this could work. And who knows, perhaps this could be a new way of settling contentious issues such as global warming or abortion. If there can be a National Spelling Bee, why not a National Debate on Immigration and the Future of America?
