“Who’s Mick Wright? If you have the debate, I’ll beat he’s shown to be Mick Wrong.”

I open with this quote by “polar donkey” not only because it’s the most efficient comment I’ve seen lately that includes both a misspelling and an insult cliché but also because it reveals at least some interest in the live debate I challenged Chris Davis to have with me.

Another fan of Davis writing from somewhere in Middle Tennessee says, “It would be worth the drive to Memphis to see that.”

If nothing else, it shows there are plenty of Leftists in the area that would like to see a neo-conservative Republican get a good lambasting, even if it’s a nobody, someone they’ve never heard of before.

Of course the interest in a live debate is shared by some folks lining up behind me, including Tom Guleff (”It would be interesting to hear the two sides”) and Donna Locke (”I might pay money to see that”).

Davis has responded to my debate invitation here and here.

Among other things, Davis questions my understanding of “how blogs work” as well as my (oh-so-typical) desire to add the dreaded element of sound to our discussion: “Mick, need a venue where you can turn up the volume?” and “I’m telling you, take away the element of volume and these guys are lost.”

My mistake, Chris. I honestly thought that was you and your buddies getting together, in person, around a table with a microphone. Maybe that was a cardboard stand-in and that’s a microphone with no volume control. I deeply regret the error.

So, I know I don’t understand how blogs work and all, but since I gave you the ability to suggest whatever format you desired, our debate could have easily included video and other elements that could be later posted to several blogs and linked around the world, thus continuing the discussion right here, in your comfort zone. Heck, it could’ve been liveblogged.

Davis writes about linking to me, “I wanted everybody to go and see the dumbness for themselves.”

That was my thought exactly. That’s why I gave the invitation.

Davis complains that I have exhibited multiple personalities and am here shown to be “popping a gear” instead of being “playfully combative,” while simultaneously being indignant that I called him a “moonbat.” Um, you think maybe I was being a little bit ironic by calling you a “moonbat” and an “offensive epithet factory” in the same sentence? Do you think I was being completely serious about making an effigy and parading it through the streets? My goodness, I thought you guys were supposed to be good at picking up on subtle humor.

Finally, I must take a moment to fully appreciate the nearly-incoherent statement by Davis that 90% of news is biased in my favor (who is guilty of “bad, silly science”?), supplemented by this comment by JeffC:

As for “The Liberal Media”, I always point to this, which is the document that launched a thousand liberal blogships:

http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm

What you’ll find there is a list of some conservative (and some liberal) pundits and what they might say in a hypothetical situation, followed by a “prove me wrong” challenge.

Let’s see… I can’t technically disprove your obnoxiously dumb scenario given that it’s a, you know, hypothetical, and further given that you provide no comment section with which to do so.

I will say this: even if all of these pundits say what you think they would say, all of them are commentators, not straight news reporters. Nobody expects Keith Olbermann to be unbiased, but — and call me old-fashioned — I happen to like it when the regular news is delivered with a bit more restraint. For instance, be consistent with your terminology when you’re reporting a cloture vote, and be truthful when you’re informing the public about bureaucratic changes in the federal register.

But that’s another debate for another time, and apparently one some folks are actually not willing to have.

It’s fair of the acolytes to ask, “Who’s Mick Wright?”

I’m just an average guy with a full time job and a few spare hours here and there to stay informed. I have no background in public speaking. I have no expert information or any special skills or assets. Davis is a trained stage man with access to a newsroom, with hours to research and interview anybody he likes, and with a press pass to get him just about anywhere. To top it all off, he’s not just a dumb Republican like me.

Davis, and his buddies on the Left, never had a better opportunity.

UPDATE: Top Ten Excuses Chris Davis Has for Not Participating in a Live Debate

1. Isn’t running for a political or religious office, such as “Jesus.”
2. His challenger just wants to control the volume.
3. His challenger just has something to prove.
4. His challenger just wants to “take it outside.”
5. His challenger just wants to compare the size of their sexual organs.
6. The debate would not benefit anyone.
7. The debate would not alter the political landscape.
8. The debate would not shape our world for the better.
9. Has other commitments that prevent him from debating.
10. Wants to hold a similar debate online.