Et tu, Jane?

I just read a post by Megan McArdle in which she takes Democrats to task for stonewalling President Bush's judicial nominees because (and I can't believe she wrote this in all apparent seriousness) the judges in question, while being minority judges, are not liberal minority candidates.

Now, I'm not entirely sure why Megan would completely disregard the actual reasons stated for why a relative handful of judges are being opposed; nor am I certain shy Megan apparently thinks that Democrats actually expect the President to nominate "the same judges Al Gore would have nominated"; nor am I certain why Megan is of the apparent belief that it's their minority status that is riling the Democrats (that Charles Pickering fellow -- in what minority does he fall?).

And then, one of the commenters on the thread, in just the fifth comment, provides some factual data that pretty much completely disproves Megan's post. I can only assume that she has the flu and composed this post an hour after drinking half a bottle of NyQuil, because it makes so little sense that I had to check three times to make sure I was even on her blog in the first place. While I don't find it uncommon to disagree with her, I do find it highly uncommon to actually think she's being intellectually dishonest.