Credit where it is due for Sarah Palin

YOUR recent attack on Sarah Palin and conservative Republicans (Examiner, October 8) is outrageous in its inaccuracy and in its sneering condescension.

It is a falsehood to state that Sarah Palin “could not name even two or three newspapers”.

Again, I notice a liberal sprinkling of insulting adjectives in describing her as “crass, vacant and contrived”.

When you describe someone as “constructive, progressive, inclusive and fair-minded”, what you are really describing is your ideal Democratic candidate.

But your very article itself means that you are not being any of these things, in describing conservatives.

You are exclusive, because you exclude their point of view with such dismissive contempt.

In unfairly describing the “ultraconservative evangelicals” as “hateful,” you yourself are practising the very hatefulness you condemn.

In what way are they hateful?

I find it extraordinary that you would claim with such smugness, in the same article, that our presidential candidates are more admirable than the former “head of the Fellowship of Christian athletics at Alaska’s Wasilla’s High School”.

Would it not have been more obvious to describe her simply as the former “Governor of Alaska”?

Of course then you would have been giving her credit for actual achievement.

I have already written in the past criticising the candidatures of Martin McGuinness and David Norris.

It should be obvious that neither of these, at any rate, can hold a candle to Ms Palin.

James McGrath

Birchgrove

Hollyford

Co Tipperary