Today Rick Esenberg says this:
I am not much impressed by the argument that Butler should not be approved for the federal bench because he lost two statewide elections.
Which struck the Brawler as odd, given that last summer Ese said this in an interview with the Wisconsin Law Journal:
But Esenberg noted that Butler has twice been defeated in state Supreme Court races, the last in 2008 by Burnett County Circuit Court Judge Michael J. Gableman.
“While one could argue that a person who has twice lost a statewide judicial race ought not to be elevated to the federal bench, I doubt that argument will carry a great deal of weight with the senators or the White House,” Esenberg said.
Now, ambiguity hangs over these paragraphs. Did Ese "note" the point or was he led by the reporter? Did the reporter cut language making it clear that Ese was "not much impressed" with this clearly embarrassing argument? Or were the reported remarks -- ambiguous and ambiguously caveated as they are -- an accurate reflection of what he had to say?
Anklebiting? I think not, as Ese's remarks to the WLJ are repeated on the Sykes show every time Butler comes up. And certainly Esenberg acolyte Patrick McIlheran took them at face value. Though admittedly McIlheran's reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired.
UPDATE: Esenberg weighs in in comments.