Cramer in the tank? Not *quite*, Rush
So I’ve got Rush streaming over my iPhone while running an errand (ain’t technology grand), when he brings up a topic I’ve written a thing or two or fifteen about in this diary, that of one Jim Cramer of CNBC and how he’s handled matters political since being called into Principal Stewart’s office last winter. Rush basically dismissed Cramer as being back “in the tank” for Obama since that day, before revealing the “surprise” that Cramer was viewing the potential victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts as a bullish event for the markets.
Now, I’ll admit I haven’t been quite as vigilant in Cramer-watching in recent months as I was when I started my “Cramer’s Remorse” series of diary entries. And, as I’ve pointed out myself many times, Cramer’s view on just about anything is as subject to change as the direction of the wind.
But on the whole I don’t think Rush gives Cramer quite enough credit. In particular, one thing I’ve found to be consistent about Cramer is that he values being right (as in, “correct”) about his predictions over most anything else. In fact, that was largely how Stewart got to him, by airing a montage of calls that Cramer blew, as one who makes as many calls as Cramer does will.
Thus it really is no surprise at all that Cramer, lifelong Democrat as he may be, will nevertheless tell it like it is and admit that the market wants to see Brown seal the deal in Massachusetts.
Indeed, I have read in snippets to small to merit their own diary entry Cramer’s new approach to matters political. Obama, Cramer says with the thinnest of veils covering his cynicism, is off limits to criticism. But Pelosi and Reid are fair game, and he has let them have it on multiple occasions.
In Limbaugh’s defense, he only really had maybe 30 seconds to sum up Cramer’s complicated if not outright contradictory remarks regarding Washington DC 2009-10, so he was never going to truly be able to do them justice. But then again that’s what I figure I’ve signed up for, to try and fill in some of the depth of the oftentimes highly confusing character that is one Jim Cramer.