Media Matters gets judicial confirmations wrong

In its latest broadside against me, Media Matters attacks my Fox News column this week on judicial confirmations.  

But As Lott himself acknowledges, numerous analyses (including one by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service) have shown that President Obama's "rhetoric" is true -- his nominees have been blocked at unprecedented levels. Lott dismisses these studies by highly reputable sources because supposedly their "numbers are fundamentally flawed,"  a bold claim from a source whose research on gun violence has been repeatedly and seriously discredited. . . .

Ironically, Media Matters attacks my calculations but doesn't explain how my calculations were done, how they compared to the other studies that both I and they cite, and, most importantly,  why the method used in the other studies is preferable.  Unlike, Media Matters' name calling, I tried to explain the different approaches and why my approach was preferable.

But, these numbers are fundamentally flawed.
These studies don't look at what finally happens to nominees, only what happens at some arbitrary cut off date, such as last fall or at the end of a president's first term.
In reality, many of the longest confirmation battles involve nominations made during a president's first term and not finished until some time during his second term.
A president’s decision to make nominations late in a congressional cycle can also strongly influence the results. . . . 

Does Media Matters think that it is wrong to see what the final outcome is for nominees?  Apparently so, but no explanation is offered for why that is the case.  Does Media Matters think that it is wrong to take into account that Obama has been making his nominations relatively lated in the congressional cycle?  Apparently so, but again no explanation is offered.  No discussion is offered for why my arguments are wrong.

Finally, let me know that I have previously responded to the attack that I am "a source whose research on gun violence has been repeatedly and seriously discredited."

For the "repeatedly" claim see the response available here.
For the "seriously discredited" claim see the response available here.

There really isn't much else to respond to here.   I have no expectation that Media Matters will post my comments nor will they respond to what I write here, just at they have ignored my past posts on their "repeatedly" and "seriously discredited" attacks.  Presumably they just want to protect their readers from knowing that there is a response.