When I saw the title of Ms. Pierce’s editorial (“Sarah Palin and the viper pit,” July 8 Kent Reporter) I thought “okay, some local insight on Sarah Palin.” But one paragraph into it I soon realized it was yet another vile screed lacking any insight, wisdom or critical thinking. It was simply another in a long list of bitter, attacking articles intended to further insult and denegrate Mrs. Palin.

Ms. Pierce apparently thinks she can speak for all of us when she says Palin’s speech was incomprehensible. Really? It was only incomprehensible to anyone devoid of knowledge of Alaska politics or understanding of Alaska’s ethics rules. I would suggest Pierce do even the most rudimentary amount of research before pretending to know what she’s talking about.

I must also ask what the purpose was of calling the father of Bristol’s child a “snot-nosed brat”? Or choosing to call out the fact the child is illegitimate? Beyond simply being an ad hominem argument that served to expose the bitterness Pierce has for Palin, I failed to see what insight it offered.

I could go on pointing out the vacuousness of Pierce’s editorial, but I would simply end up repeating myself.

I understand that Ms. Pierce feels threatened by Palin. I would suggest that in the future she not use the editorial pulpit to project her insecurities on The Reporter’s readers, but, if at all possible, write about something of which she has knowledge.

Dave Madison

Kent

Comment on this story.

COMMENTING RULES: We encourage an open exchange of ideas in our online community, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. In a nutshell, don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read.