Ed Rogers’ Washington Post op-ed ridiculing Hillary Clinton on occasion of her campaign memoir is a textbook case of obfuscation and misogyny. He lands on her with both feet, stomping her for not going gently into that good night after her loss to Trump. Had she done so, he would not have written and revealed his biases.
And what doozies they are. He equates Trump’s spurious Obama birther claims with “the Trump campaign/Russian collusion myth,” which, Mr. Rogers, is NOT a myth. He also manages to show his true colors when he derides NPR (“of course, it was an NPR interview”), long a bugaboo of far-right proponents because of its balanced and nuanced reports and interviews.
And Hillary’s related appearances with Jane Pauley and Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow are understandable. Sean Hannity for sure wasn’t going to give her a forum to pitch her book. Rogers states that Hillary is “having pity parties.” Obviously he hasn’t paid attention to those interviews. She soberly addresses issues she covers in the book, including her failures during the campaign.
But most of all, Rogers’ disappointment that Hillary has not quietly faded away is nothing other than one more bitter expression of the misogyny that has mercilessly dogged her for years. Why, oh why — in the supposed enlightened year of 2017 — is there still such a hatred of her simply because she is a strong woman?
Ray Lanford, Woodway
No name calling
I want to compliment Donna Myers about coming out and saying most Democrats are against all the crazy things the far left are doing. I am glad she is against the looting and burning of cities, students going crazy over someone speaking because it is not how they feel about things, etc. I just wish the Democratic leaders would do the same.
One thing about it, Donna Myers, is I don’t ever resort to calling anyone who speaks against what I say names. This is a common liberal thing. I will never call you trite or small minded. It doesn’t bother me when you or anyone writes against what I say, but please leave out the judgmental things.
Jerry Willett, Lorena
I, like most people, thought that the inheritance tax mainly affected the super rich.
Learned its not so; as they use trusts and other tax breaks to pay little or nothing, like the Kennedys and Rockefellers.
The real beneficiaries of ending the inheritance tax would be small farms, ranchers and businesses that are family owned. Currently, when the head of the family dies, they have to pay the 40 percent in federal inheritance tax on estates valued at more than $11 million, which many are.
The beneficiaries of this tax are big farms, ranches, businesses who gobble them up when families can’t pay the taxes.
Jim Cantrell, Axtell