That a Republican would oppose Net neutrality rules is hardly surprising. After all, for a party that tends to view with suspicion most efforts to extend regulatory authority over the private sector, particularly in markets that are outpacing the general economy, the FCC's action this morning seems an unwelcome intrusion.

It's worth noting that the two Republican commissioners on the five-person FCC cast votes of partial dissent to the order, questioning whether the factual record supported government action and whether the commission had the legal authority to intervene. But they also cast votes of partial support, saying that the notice of public rule-making (which only initiates a fact-finding process) was worthwhile because the market is in need of further study.

But not for McCain. His "Internet Freedom Act of 2009" was introduced with the warning against a "government takeover of the Internet," a point toward which the FCC seems inexorably driving with this morning's action.

Interestingly enough, seven House Democrats earlier this year signed onto the "Internet Freedom and Preservation Act," which would write Net neutrality principles into law.

So both sides claim they're safeguarding Internet freedom. That pretty well encapsulates the funhouse-mirror rhetoric that sadly attends this debate.

Still, here's where I'm swayed from my centrist view. If we were living in normal times, when government actions would be judged by level-headed people who were satisfied with a reasoned and civil debate (ahistorical optimism, I realize), I might go along for the ride.

But at a time when so many of us have given over to the hysterical paranoia that the Dems are wolves in sheep's clothing, that they're hell-bent on toppling the republic and replacing it with a socialist, statist, collectivist -- whatever -- regime, I lose interest.

In an op-ed published in today's Washington Times, McCain wrote: "Regulation kills innovation. Let's not kill the Internet. An open and unfettered Internet may be the real stimulus during these difficult economic times."

That is despite the vehement assurances of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski that his interest is not to impose the heavy hand of the government on the Internet, but rather to continue a light-touch approach that will only ensure that applications and services compete on equal footing.

But, if you're in the Glenn Beck camp, you're more inclined to see it as yet another shady visit from the man who introduces himself, "Hi, we're the government and we're here to help."

Marsha Blackburn, a Republican representative from Tennessee, took it a step further.

"Net neutrality, as I see it, is the fairness doctrine for the Internet," she said at a recent event in Washington, according to The Hill.

And with that, she invoked a favorite avatar of those inclined to see the Democratic executive branch moving to reinstate a policy that would pose a threat to ideological media on both sides of the political spectrum, a policy that each of the five FCC commissioners have declared is a dead letter.

But, it's a talking point, just like the death of Internet freedom. Never mind that Net neutrality advocates believe that their way is essential to protecting free speech, a goal shared by opponents of the fairness doctrine. Any by god does it resonate with the conspiracy theorists.

Fox News picked up The Hill's piece on Blackburn's fairness doctrine comments.

Said commenter "American Sharecropper":

"I always found it curios (sic) how collectivists name bills the exact opposite of what they represent. The 'Fairness Doctrine' is hardly fair, 'Net Neutrality' is anything but neutral. My favorite is 'Public Option', the 'option' to pay a fine or go to prison for non-compliance. Modern collectivists take their cues straight out of an Orwell novel, creating a dystopian arena of non-debate."

Many well-reasoned arguments have been presented against Net neutrality. They come from people who understand both how networks and Washington work. These arguments have nothing to do with Internet freedom or freedom of speech, so they aren't present in the talking points of the ideologues.

Here's hoping the FCC will flout precedent as it proceeds on this one and stay above the political fight, because boy, is it ugly down there.