Debates for everyone!

Tonight will be a landmark on the road of acceptance for gay rights, as the Democratic candidates (well, most of them) will appear onstage together to debate in front of the Human Rights Campaign and the television network Logo.

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden will not be appearing. HRC (that's the group, not the candidate) initially declined to invite Mike Gravel, due to his apparent lack of support. They wisely changed their tune when they found out he was one of only two candidates (the other is Kucinich) who fully support gay marriage (and also due to a ferocious online backlash). There will, of course, be no Republican gay debate, as none of the Republican campaigns expressed any interest in attending when contacted. No surprise there.

Now, holding a "gay debate" irks some people (and not just Republicans), who say that instead of wasting time debating specifically on gay issues, candidates should only attend debates where they debate issues for all Americans. It's a subtler version of the "they want special rights" argument.

I disagree. While gay Americans make up a small fraction of the public (anywhere from a few percentage points up to 10 percent, depending on who you listen to), all the Democratic candidates just spent a night in Chicago in front of a union audience -- and union membership in America is down to somewhere south of 20 percent. So why should the unions get a debate but not the gays? Or liberal bloggers, for that matter?

In earlier times, debates were handled by one group, the League of Women Voters. They got disgusted with candidates' endless demands (size of podium, seated, standing, time of response, no direct response, etc.) and gave up. Since then, the general election debates have been noticeably weaker and less informative. But also since that time, primary debates have exploded in popularity.

A primary debate is different from a general election debate, because there are more than two candidates and everyone is scrambling for good media. Also, the candidates can't afford to snub large parts of their constituencies before the primary.

Log Cabin Republicans notwithstanding, Republican candidates feel they can afford to write off the "gay vote." Democrats cannot, and should not. So if a prominent gay organization takes it upon themselves to sponsor and arrange a televised debate, they have every right to. If enough candidates show up, then they have showed the power of flexing their political muscles.

And there's nothing wrong with that, whether you're gay or a union member. Or a gay union member. Or a gay union member with a blog.

My question is, what other groups in America would it be fun to see host a debate? Since the bar is so low (in terms of what size your minority actually is), this covers quite a few groups of people. While gays have made an amazing journey from being pariahs to being a political force in America, what other groups are waiting in the wings to pose their questions to America?

Who would you like to see host a debate? Jews? Muslims? Mormons? Atheists? People who love Barry Bonds? Pickup truck owners? Prius owners? Surfers? Eagle Scouts? Medical marijuana patients? People who bought Paris Hilton's CD? People who bought K-Fed's CD? Snowmobile owners? Amateur pilots? Polygamists? Conspiracy theorists (man, wouldn't that make for good television!)? People who work in Starbucks? People who work in WalMart? People who don't work? People who make the minimum wage? Hedge fund managers? CEOs? Strippers? Waitresses? Flight attendants?

It sounds like sarcasm, but I'm actually seriously posing the question. I would watch at least 8-10 out of the debates I just listed (you figure out which ones). I bet others would, too. Participatory democracy and television coverage could be a lot more interesting with much more specific debates.

If the gay rights crowd is pushing the boundaries, I say "more power to them!" Let's get as many people in on the conversation as possible.

Note: Update on the Primaries

South Carolina has just upped the stakes in the: "I'm first!" "No, I'm first!" race to the front of the primary calendar -- and beyond! Iowa is mumbling about moving their caucus up before Christmas of this year. No word yet on the continuing rift in the space-time continuum between New Hampshire and Wyoming Republicans.

The whole silly story won't be resolved until early September, when the national committees of each party meet, so look for further feathers flying in the days to come. I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- it's time to federalize elections.

-- Chris Weigant