Do you want to see the videos on Funny or Die subjected to Obamacare-like death panels?
  • Christopher Halloran / / Shutterstock.com
  • "Do you want to see the videos on Funny or Die subjected to Obamacare-like death panels?"

Yesterday, I told you President Obama released a strong statement in favor of net neutrality, arguing that internet access should be treated like a utility. I also told you that Senator Ted Cruz called net neutrality "Obamacare for the Internet." Matthew Inman at the Oatmeal beautifully explained all the different ways that Cruz's analogy failed.

Not a lot of Republicans are taking up Cruz's "Obamacare" banner, because it's totally fucking ridiculous. But Cruz was just the pilot program for the Republican case against net neutrality. Over the next few days, you'll see a lot of conservatives try out different arguments against net neutrality to see which one works. The truth, of course, is that they're against it because Comcast is against it, and Comcast is a huge donor to Republican candidates. But they can't say that, and so they need to test-drive a few arguments against it to see what really resonates with Fox News audiences.

One of the first salvos against net neutrality from the right is a piece with the stuffy title of "'Net Neutrality’? No, Thank You," by Ian Tuttle at the National Review. What does Tuttle have against net neutrality? He argues that "...'net neutrality' de facto already exists, without the aid of any governmental entity to enforce it." Then he asks, "Why, then, is government enforcement suddenly necessary to maintain the status quo?" Uh, because it's under attack now? Because cable companies have a chokehold on internet access and now they're trying to throttle sites like Netflix and Hulu because they have the power to do so?

Tuttle continues, "What is certainly the case is that the Internet has thrived in no small part because of the lack of regulation." And this is true. Clinton-era regulations (including a lack of sales tax) helped the internet expand at exponential rates. But now that the internet is no longer a curiosity, now that it's a utility that Americans need to accomplish ordinary tasks in their day-to-day lives, it requires more oversight.

In the comments to the post, even conservative National Review readers aren't buying Tuttle's line of bullshit. One argues "Comcast is flat-out evil. The end. I know it's painful to have to confront the fact that the President would get ANYTHING right, but console yourself with 'Even a broken clock is right twice a day.'" Another says "The President (shockingly) has this one right." There are quite a few thoughtful comments in the thread arguing for a Republican defense of net neutrality that are much more thoughtful than Tuttle's original post: "As a conservative, I believe that government intervention in the marketplace should be kept to a minimum. Unfortunately, in some cases, the minimum is greater than zero. Net neutrality is such a case, and Republicans need to get religion on this point." But, you know, keep trying to tie net neutrality to Obamacare and see what that gets you, conservatives. I'll give Sherman Alexie the last word on this one: