Dec 27, 2003 1:43 am


used up his credibility with his increasingly frantic defenses of John Lott.

How many times has he desperately misrepresented Tim Lambert in the last couple of weeks?

As Cramer continues to embarrass himself daily, it's becoming harder and harder to believe that this is the same guy who credibly took down Bellesiles's critics a year ago.

What a difference a year makes, huh?

I'm not exactly surprised however. I predicted all of this last January and February if you recall. (To find the Lott posts, just do a"find" search for"Lott.")

If you recall, way back in January I argued there was a simple reason for why the Lott case was so important to them:

As I've said many times, these folks only went after Bellesiles tooth and nail because they disagreed with his thesis and now they believe Lott's flimsy alibi because they agree with his thesis. To admit that's what's going on would essentially destroy the"dishonest libruls supported Bellesiles" morality play that is so important for their particular worldview to work.

They won't dare admit that they're doing the same thing Bellesiles's supporters did because it threatens more than Lott. It calls into question their entire cartoonish view of academia itself.

And they wouldn't dare do that, would they?

Lott's defenders have now proved themselves to be even more sycophantic than Bellesiles's defenders. I'd argue that's not exactly something to be proud of.

However, I must say that it's all unfolding exactly as I expected it would.

Ah, the irony is quite delicious, isn't it?

comments powered by Disqus