John Quiggin has a thoughtful post on the parallels between the Bellesiles and Lott affairs. Meanwhile, Charles Murtaugh, responding to this Tapped piece reckons that there is an important difference: there are pro-gun people like Michelle Malkin criticizing Lott, but there weren't pro-control people criticizing Bellesiles. He's wrong. Consider, for example, this Wall Street Journal article by Kimberley Strassel on Bellesiles:
It's worth pointing out that not all of these professors have an obvious political agenda. Jim Lindgren, Gerald Rosenberg, Erik Monkkonen and Randolph Roth all prefaced their remarks by saying they favor gun control
Notice that Strassel is mentioning the pro-control critics of Bellesiles for exactly the same reason that Tapped mentioned the pro-gun critics of Lott: to show that the criticism isn't politically motivated.
In response to my asking who the people were who were seeking retribution for Bellesiles affair, C. D. Tavares writes:
The stench of "sore loser" permeates your jihad, right on down to the little website shrine you have crafted for it. It may make you feel like Clayton Cramer, but you're no Clayton Cramer.The Washington Post article exposed an organized anti-Lott campaign by its very existence. Even given the paper's well-known bias, a pissant "story" like this doesn't make the Post unless it's being pumped harder than Pamela Lee Anderson.
Don't consider this a private communication---feel free to repost it anywhere you wish.
Umm, if I'm so "sore" about Bellesiles and out for retribution for him why did I post this over at the History News Network back in August?
I think the reason why the Lindgren critique of Bellesiles is so effective is that he confines himself to just those sort of points where we can say with certainty that Bellesiles is incorrect.Incidentally, Glenn Reynolds has made a copy of Lindgren's piece available at http://www.instapundit.com/archives/003080.php#003080
And if there is an organized anti-Lott campaign, wouldn't they have contacted me by now?