I'm soooo ambivalent about this. The Senate ought not be passing resolutions condemning any group of Americans' political speech. (Ok, I know, maybe a Nazi Bund or something, but I mean in the ordinary course of the political discussion.)

I understand, but disagree. Generally speaking, there are two ways to diffuse a corrupt argumentative standard -- (1) argue that it is unfair/corrupt/dangerous or (2) take it and apply it to the people wielding it.

In our political culture, tactic (1) -- the more noble one -- does not usually work. It comes off as whiny and weak. The only way to destroy these tactics is to demand their equal application, including to the people who invent and disseminate them.

Ultimately, a bad standard applied only to one side is worse than a bad standard applied equally.

The resolution against MoveOn smacks of McCarthyism, and while I think it is helpful to keep Rush's heinous comments in the spotlight, I'm not comfortable about seeing the Senate go wholesale into the business of condemning political pundits and activists. And there are just a few other issues to which they might be better off dedicating their time.

How about if demanding equal application of the Condemnation Standard is the only way to put a stop to it (which is what I think)? Then would you support that? Assume - as I think is true - that there are only two choices:

(1) Republicans keep using formal governmental condemnation as a political weapon, or

(2) Democrats take the same weapon and apply it to Republicans, thereby eliminating the advantage of this pernicious tool, thereby causing it to end.

Which is better? Clearly, you prefer option (3) -- the weapon is never used at all -- but as the MoveOn vote shows, that is not an option in the real world.