Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Chuck Norris uses a very strange new right wing meme about Dawn Johnsen, Obama's nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ. Try to parse this weird sentence:
Despite the victory of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts, President Obama re-nominated pro-abortion activist and former NARAL attorney Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.
But it appears that Norris is just plagiarizing an article on an anti-abortion site, which says:
Despite the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, President Barack Obama re-nominated Johnsen and the pro-abortion activist group NARAL today is calling on its members to urge support for her.
But how exactly is the election of Scott Brown even remotely related to the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the OLC? The job she is nominated for has nothing to do with abortion, and even if it did, how would the election of Scott Brown have anything to do with it? Brown is pro-choice himself, for crying out loud.
Johnson actually has very strong support in the Senate. She passed the Judiciary Committee easily. Her nomination was kept on hold by a single senator.
Politics
Comments
Not that it makes any difference to the absurdity of this argument, but doesn't Scott Brown support abortion rights?
http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Scott_Brown_Abortion.htm
Posted by: Granis | February 5, 2010 9:41 AM
Just pisses off the rabble. Doesn't matter what is actually said.
Scott Brown elected = Bad for Obama = Good
Dawn Johnsen = Abortion = Bad
The marketers spewing non-sequiturs fully expect the poor (read non existent) comprehension skills and sprinkle these gems to raise moron fury.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 5, 2010 9:47 AM
I guess the religious right just assumes that because Scott Brown is a Republican that he will vote with the collective. I really hope that is not the case.
Posted by: Doug Little | February 5, 2010 9:51 AM
I don't understand this conservative idea that the only way Obama can be allowed to do anything, and the only compromise they are willing to consider, is the idea that Obama must adopt ultra-conservative Reaganomics style policies. I mean last week when he met with the Republican congress-critters, over and over again, they basically said "we'll compromise with you if you do everything we want." Where the hell did they get the idea that if they win the election they get to do whatever they want, and if they lose the election the winner has to do whatever they want?
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 5, 2010 9:51 AM
He should have just said, "despite the victory of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts, President Obama and every Democrat in congress refuse to kill themselves and hand over power to the Republican Party as the constitution demands."
Posted by: Imrryr | February 5, 2010 10:05 AM
@ MikeMa: Of course, Chuck Norris is himself part of the logic-impaired rabble toward which the WND markets its agenda. He's far too dumb to have a single strategic thought in his head.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 5, 2010 10:14 AM
I should visit to the optometrist, because when I try reading that all I see is:
FOX News Alert: Despite the victory of Scott Brown, President Obama still uses spicy mustard.
Posted by: m | February 5, 2010 10:36 AM
This post by Slacktivist pretty much nails the GOP's attitude about the Brown victory in Massachusetts:
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/01/keep-big-government-away-from-my-defective-strollers.html
Posted by: Ericb | February 5, 2010 10:45 AM
WND NEWS EXCLUSIVE! "Despite Martha Coakly running the worst campaign of the 21st century, Barack Obama still doesn't let Chuck Norris tell him whom to appoint!"
Posted by: James Hanley | February 5, 2010 10:47 AM
m @7
lol - spits coffee on keyboard.
cheers
Posted by: MikeMa | February 5, 2010 10:52 AM
Scott Brown is an interesting test case where an analogous example appears to argue for a non-intuitive prediction.
Mr. Brown is merely serving till the end of Sen. Kennedy's term, which ends Jan-13, meaning he has to run again in '12. If I were him, I would assume that the Democrats' primary in 2012 would yield a strong candidate in a state that greatly favors Democrats, but whose voters are willing to elect moderate, seemingly competent Republicans in state-wide elections, e.g., William Weld and Mitt Romney for governor. Such a reality seems to argue that Sen. Brown must be perceived as a non-partisan independent-minded Senator serving at least the interests of MA voters if not the nation. This of course is the antithesis of how Republican Senators are currently acting where they are instead moving hard to the right and opposing the President's agenda. So much so that moderate Republicans' previous positions now have far more in common with President Obama than they do with their own party.
However, the counter-intuitive example are Maine's normally independent and moderate Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe who have also fallen in like sheep this year with their Republican caucus in opposing the President's agenda; even when the President's agenda is in line with their previously stated positions like we realized in the health insurance reform debate (the Senate Bill is fairly consistent with the goals they stated for reform in early '09).
It'll be interesting in watching how this all plays out. I of course would like a Republican party willing and able to govern. In terms of GOP Senators the country merely needs a handful. To date the handful remaining that are able to govern have refused to do so. Will Sen. Brown join them?
BTW, Senator Snowe is also up for reelection in '12, Sen. Collins in '014.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 5, 2010 10:55 AM
As they used to say on MST3K, “Welcome to Non Sequitur Playhouse!”
^..^
Posted by: Tigerwolf | February 5, 2010 11:58 AM
Ed asked:
Because in the infantile minds of the far right/ tea partier that one singular state election was, somehow, supposed to be the clear message to Obama that the entire country thought exactly as they did*. As such, Obama's part in the script was to do as they said but he's ab libbing and they can't wrap their heads around it.
*Just like the recent New York election was supposed to be until it became the first Democratic win in something like a century. At least that one ran concurrent with a few elections in other states where Republicans won.
Posted by: Jeremy Shaffer | February 5, 2010 12:22 PM
Chuck Norris, Texas Ranger, kick your bottom.
B-careful.
Posted by: datruth | February 5, 2010 12:43 PM
I always enjoyed "Miami Vice" better than "Texas Ranger" by great orders of magnitude anyway...
Posted by: JimNorth | February 5, 2010 12:50 PM
Don Johnson & Chuck Norris - They are actors! They read scripts for a living. Check who is writing the lines before you pay any attention to the message.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 5, 2010 12:54 PM
Too late. Congressional Dems have been dead for years.
(Everytime the R's start ranting about Reid & Pelosi, I want to join in...)
Posted by: Diane G. | February 5, 2010 12:59 PM
I speak fluent fundie, let me translate for you: "We expected Obama to go off in the corner and pee on himself after the loss of Kennedy's seat for the Dems. The fact that Obama is still standing, dry-pantsed, and still nominating people we don't agree with is scary to us. Now we have to go in the corner and wet OUR pants. Dammit!!!"
Posted by: lauram | February 5, 2010 1:09 PM
Diane G.:
What exactly do the Republicans complain about regarding Ms. Pelosi where you concur?
I understand your point regarding Sen. Reid, but not Speaker Pelosi. While it's true that Ms. Pelosi doesn't have to contend with minority rules that Reid does, my observations is that she's able to whip a majority quickly and effectively. I was especially impressed with how she managed the credit crisis votes where the House Dems saved Bush's ass when his own party deserted him (and saved the country and the rest of the planet for that matter).
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 5, 2010 1:39 PM
Diane G. @ 17:
Upon further reflection I take back my empathy regarding your point about Sen. Reid. What rants are delivered by the Republicans for which you empathize regarding Sen. Reid?
My frustration with Sen. Reid is that that the caucus he leads won't allow floor votes, i.e., several Senators caucusing with the Dems threaten or actually have filibustered their own caucus. I doubt that is frustration shared by Republicans who are fiercely and consistently in favor of filibustering major legislation favored by the majority of the Senate Democratic caucus.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 5, 2010 2:06 PM
Which strongly suggests effective Party discipline -- something increasingly rare (and patently absent on the other side of the aisle.)
The New York race is suggestive in that regard: it would appear that the POG has discovered the power of threatening Republican candidates who don't measure up with support for independent spoilers.
My read is that had Snowe broken ranks, she'd be looking at a flood of money coming into Maine in support of a primary challenger, and after she shot her financial wad on the primary, another flood coming in to back a right-of-Limbaugh "independent" in the general election.
Keep your eye on the Arizona race for John McCain's seat this year. It's not all about Hayworth.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | February 5, 2010 2:23 PM
Michael, I absolutely love your input because you follow things so closely and save me the trouble of doing my own homework. Thank you for those specifics because I would really prefer to be a tiny bit less cynical than my base level of late.
I just look at the overall picture and see a Republican Party that seems to manage congressional leadership much more effectively, in or out of power, than the Dems have for some time. It's no doubt not helping that I easily remember the days of Tip O'Neill and the like--and I do acknowledge that those days are long dead.
My not terribly thought-out remark was not really worthy of your time...I certainly don't agree with the R's on many, if any, specifics, I just despair at the extent of the compromises it takes to get anywhere these days.
I would say that Pelosi & Reid do not (seem to me to) have a lot of the charisma that sometimes aids leadership. But then the Dems often go for wonkiness over charisma...Not to call either of them a wonk, either. The recent NYT mag profile of Reid, though, made him sound like a bit of a plodder if I remember correctly? (Tho I liked the bit about the Grateful Dead poster... :D )
Posted by: Diane G. | February 5, 2010 3:07 PM
Chuck Norris , insipres me to be some insane person who kicks others in teh face
Posted by: Vic Vanity | February 5, 2010 3:54 PM
The answer is simple, inside his head there is no brain, just a fist.
Chuck Norris really needs to stop proving how stupid he is.
Posted by: Sean O'Doherty | February 5, 2010 3:55 PM
I have several Republican friends who criticize Reid as a poor Senate Leader. I will generally agree with them, while wondering aloud why they want an effective leader given the Democrats control the Senate. Given that two weeks later, they will make the same complaints, I dont think the message is sinking in.
Posted by: Dave | February 5, 2010 4:05 PM
Years ago I had to quit following the creationists because my brain was utterly burned out on tard. Lately even the indirect exposure I get to right-wingers through blogs like this is proving to be too much. Not sure what I'm going to do. Subscribe to Cat Fancy, perhaps.
Posted by: steve s | February 5, 2010 5:23 PM
Conservatives seem to view this election in Massachusetts as a big red STOP sign or something. It's like they feel that because Democrats no longer have 60 Senate votes, then the Democrats have to stop governing and stop pushing through any legislation that Republicans don't like (i.e. everything not thought up by a Republican). It's amazing to me that more people don't see how ridiculous this is. Democrats still have an overwhelming majority in the Senate. 60 votes shouldn't be necessary for every single vote on every single issue. Extreme partisanship aside, it's nuts that the results of one election in a small state should totally alter the course of national politics. Yes, it was a surprising result, but it shouldn't bring the national government to its knees. With all due respect to the citizens of Massachusetts (excluding Tom Brady who can lick me), the Bay State can go fuck itself. I've only ever been to Boston a couple times in my life. I don't live there and I have no interest in the state. Why should the politics of the entire country come to a grinding halt because of the result of one special election in one small state? The other 49 states need to say enough and stop being held hostage by Massachusetts and ridiculous Republican legislators and pundits.
Posted by: Ryan | February 5, 2010 7:42 PM
I have to say that I've come to respect Nancy Pelosi -- she was more or less useless during the Bush administration but has finally started to show real leadership under Obama. Reid, however, is beyond useless. Bring on Schumer.
Posted by: Brian X | February 5, 2010 8:38 PM
@ Ryan: it has nothing to do with Massachusetts per se (conservatives usually look down their noses at the Bay State, to say the least). Others have summed it up succinctly: because Coakley lost an election, and a Republican won, conservatives like Chuck Norris erroneously believe that the nation suddenly has a conservative mandate. Never mind that Scott Brown would be derided as a RINO in other circumstances; never mind that the Massachusetts election has dick to do with Dawn Johnsen's nomination; never mind that the Democrats still enjoy a majority position; never mind that the Republican party is still in shambles, despite a few victories here and there.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 5, 2010 9:58 PM
Dawn Johnsen is an abortion feminist. She is unfit to serve in the capacity she was nominated for. Dawn Johnsen's extreme abortion ideology puts her outside the mainstream.
Posted by: Matt | February 8, 2010 4:11 AM
So, Matt, what does one's position on abortion (which, I should point out, is a legal procedure) have to do with the OLC?
On a side note, Dawn Johnsen was awesome in Miami Vice.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 8, 2010 4:57 AM
Matt @ 30:
Using that same logic would require we take a position that nearly all so called pro-life advocates are also unfit to serve in the position Mr. Johnsen is nominated to fill. In fact such a position would require even more opposition to anti-abortion rights advocates given that women have constitutionally protected abortion rights in most circumstances.
I therefore suggest discarding with this defective argument and come up with a different argument supportive of your opposition to Ms. Johnsen; which appears to be a preconceived position I doubt would change even if all your arguments faltered as this one clearly does.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 8:08 AM
Matt - From that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia. Still think that "no abortions under any circumstances" is a 'mainstream' belief? -Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 8, 2010 8:25 AM
"Dawn Johnsen is an abortion feminist."
Since when is "abortion" an adjective?
Posted by: daniel rotter | February 8, 2010 9:06 PM