At first blush, it sounds like Nancy Pelosi, in refusing to allow a proposed House resolution honoring Michael Jackson's "humanitarian work" is suffering from a minor case of common sense. But then she explains her reasoning:
"In his case, if the idea is to praise the life and work, as I assume that resolution does, then why not do that?" she said. "A resolution, I think, would open up to contrary views to -- that are not necessary at this time to be expressed in association with a resolution whose purpose is quite different."
Heaven forbid that Congress should ever have to be open to "contrary views" in association with something "whose purpose is quite different." That might start an unhealthy debate or something.
Say, here's an idea: Make the resolution a 1,200-page document introduced on the same day it has to be passed, with 400 pages or so added at the very last minute, then say there will be an unimaginable crisis of epic proportions if it isn't approved, and question the patriotism of anyone who votes against it. It'll be years before anybody even knows what was in the thing, and, as a bonus, it will put Republicans further on the defensive.