Courtney McGrailDear Editor, Your correspondent Declan Cooney (Letters IC 01/12/2016) took Fr Gerry O’Hanlon to task for bemoaning the election of the Republican candidate as President of the USA. In doing so he repeated the “there was no other alternative [to Hilary Clinton]” argument which has already been trotted out – and refuted – ad nauseum.
There were in fact at least three other (minor party) candidates – although they of course received little or no attention from the mainstream media. You may not happen to like any of those candidates – or believe that any had a realistic chance – but it is quite wrong to claim there was ‘no alternative’.
Mr Cooney also complimented your paper on its ‘fair and balanced’ coverage of the election. I would argue that if such were the case then your approach while no doubt well-intentioned was ultimately misguided. To equate the Republican candidate – who should be regarded as morally and politically beyond the Pale – with Hilary Clinton (whatever her failings – and indeed there were many) is to effectively legitimise him.
As one of the people instrumental in the reluctant disbandment of the Kells Amnesty Group earlier this year owing to Amnesty International’s stance on abortion I was very appreciative of the supportive coverage afforded us by your paper (IC 23/06/2016). In that context I must say that the most accurate and insightful contribution to the coverage of US presidential election in your November 17 issue was the anonymous Webwatch column headlined ‘Squandering pro-life movement for a tawdry triumph’.
Lastly, may I compliment you on the inclusion of Fr Eamonn Conway’s wonderful piece on Leonard Cohen in the same issue. It served as something of an antidote to the other tawdry business.
Yours sincerely,
Danny Cusack,
Kells, Co. Meath.