"Anarchists?" If only! Let's stipulate that Maureen Dowd's current column is absolutely brutal about Hillary. Riffing off the Republicans' letter to the ayatollah, Dowd deigns to send a letter from "America" explaining the Constitution to Clinton. Dowd denounces Hillary for being "willing to cite your mother's funeral to get sympathy for ill-advisedly deleting 30,000 emails," and describes her as "an annoyed queen, radiating irritation at anyone who tries to hold you accountable."
But that won't stop us from holding Dowd accountable for her absurd shot at Republicans, whereby she writes of Hillary exploiting "our fear of the anarchists and haters in Congress."
The subtext of your news conference cut through the flimsy rationales like a dagger: “You can have the first woman president. You can get rid of those epically awful Republicans who have vandalized Congress, marginalized the president and jeopardized our Iran policy. You can get a more progressive American society. But, in return, you must accept our foibles and protect us.”
You exploit our better angels and our desire for a finer country and our fear of the anarchists and haters in Congress.
Because you assume that if it’s good for the Clintons, it’s good for the world, you’re always tangling up government policy with your own needs, desires, deceptions, marital bargains and gremlins.
Let's leave aside "haters," which is shorthand for people who disagree with what you like. But "anarchists?" Really?
Could Dowd please describe just who and what she has in mind? Thomas Jefferson, perhaps, who said "that government is best which governs least?" Today's Republicans timidly call for slight reductions in the growth of government programs. When's the last time you heard a national-level Republican call for the abolition of anything big?
So please, Maureen. We dug your column, but only wish you were close to right in characterizing Republicans as passionate defenders of the minimalist federal government our Founders envisioned.
Note: want to read about a real anarchist, the kind who thinks the shooting of two policemen in Ferguson was just reaping what you sow?
