Wingnut Ankle Biters

The wingnuts have been mouthing off a lot lately. The whole “motion
to recommit” kerfuffle this week was priceless. It was also nonsense, but that
didn't prevent the Republican leadership in the House, in what had to be a coordinated
effort with the blogs, starting with Drudge, in drumming up attention to the
story, hoping for traction. It didn't work. So it didn't come as much of a surprise
to me when I went wading into the wingnut sphere of blog blathering to find
a lot of trash talk on Al
Gore's forthcoming book, Assault
on Reason. But a post on Ankle Biting Pundits took the cake.

Bull Dog Pundit resurrected a column by Alan Simpson that he wrote in the midst of
the heated 2000 election, which transformed pure spin into the type of swiftboating
slap for which Republicans have become infamous. The charge leveled by Simpson is an oldie; one that wingnuts like to trot out when the mood strikes them. Now former Senator Alan Simpson's
quite a colorful character, so it's always fun to listen to him, but tall tale
doesn't begin to describe the yarn he spun on this one. Simpson's 2000 article
is now found on a classic
Republican styled hit site whose only purpose is to smear Al Gore. We've
seen this before. Since 2000, these type of sites pop up before every election cycle.

Going back to rehash the first Gulf War, Simpson's article claimed that Gore's
vote was predicated — wait for it — on what time he was given to speak about
his vote on the Senate floor. I. Kid. You. Not. What actually happened
is so obvious I can't believe I have to explain it. Sure Al Gore asked for speaking
time. Duh. It's how the Senate works. But from there Simpson jumped to dramatic conclusions with sentences like, “The following
day, Gore arrived on the Senate floor with, I always thought,
two speeches in hand.”

“I always thought”?

This is proof of what, exactly? Simpson “always thought” Gore
had “two speeches in hand.” Is he kidding? We're supposed
to take from this that… oh, I can't go any further. Neither could anyone else,
because Simpson wrote a column that most everyone else ignored or ridiculed. To use language the now retired senator would appreciate,
Simpson's loony charge fell flatter than a George W. Bush appearance at a VoteVets
rally.

Simpson goes on to conclude, “I believe only then after Gore realized
we were asking for more time to make room for him on our side, that he finally
decided to support the resolution authorizing the use of force to drive Saddam
Hussein out of Kuwait.” Wow. I just can't imagine why Alan Simpson,
a Republican, would bring this up and write a column about it on September 3,
2000, during one of the tightest presidential contests in U.S. history and just two months before Election Day. It was an eight year old story.
Why suddenly come out with a column on it? Couldn't have been election year politics,
now could it? Nah.

George Mitchell, the majority leader at the time, scoffed: “They've been trying to peddle that for eight years.” – New York Times

Eight years now going on fifteen.

Come on wingnut ankle biters, do your homework. You're making this way
too easy.