Shark and Shepherd flip-flops on puerile attack on Butler nomination?

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.

Meanwhile Obama plans to renominate Butler, as he should. And the illusory Tenant wades through the well-considered arguments of teabaggers who berated Feingold over the nomination.

UPDATE: Esenberg weighs in in comments.

Comments

[Rick Esenberg]

I don't know why you would regard my noting an argument that was being made at the time and saying that it wouldn't carry much weight is a puerile attack. Nor do I understand why it is a flip flop to say now that I am not impressed by an argument that I said then would not carry much weight. As to what was cut out of my remarks, you can find it here.

Really, I think you're trying too hard.

[John Foust]

Standard Contradictory Disclaimer™.

[Mike Plaisted]

As usual, Esenberg validates wing-nut arguments he pretends to be unenthused about. He did the same thing when Gableman put out his racist ad. "Well, I wish he hdan't done that," he said at the time, while denying its racist intent and being entirely pleased with the result.