Like what? Any candidate that doesn't get Borked by the extreme left will get Borked by the extreme right.
The thing I learned from this is to not expect better reporting based on facts from the National Review than from the New York Times.
Maybe she wasn't a solid candidate, but what I saw was serious Borking based on cherry picking details rather than looking for the truth.
"Like what? Any candidate that doesn't get Borked by the extreme left will get Borked by the extreme right."
So, getting Borked by extremely bad people for bogus reasons is the moral equivalent of getting Borked by good people for valid reasons?
The false moral equivalence, usually the exclusive tool of the left, is really getting a workout on this thread.
And what facts did the National Review get wrong?
"The thing I learned from this is to not expect better reporting based on facts from the National Review than from the New York Times."
Amen to that.
I completely agree with you.
What many so-called conservatives here have accomplished is what the Democrats wanted all along and still do: a "moderate" person on the S.C. instead of an actual conservative.
And that's what these faux conservatives have accomplished, and assisted the Democrats in the failure to ensure a Constitutionalist is not only not nominated but not confirmed to the S.C.
That people are congratulating themselves here is more of the stupidity.
Absolutely. They decided what they wanted to believe about her, and then set about finding "facts" to fit their preconceived opinion about the lady. They're an absolute disgrace.