Some person commented on the letter I posted written by Lyra Kilston and Quinn Latimer. In the letter, Kilston and Latimer make several statements about Sarah Palin. They then ask that those who agree Palin is the wrong choice for VP and that she is not representative of women send them a statement to this effect. It was their intention to take all such statements and create a blog with all of the statements they receive. I posted the letter because I fundamentally agree with the premise that Palin is wrong for VP and wanted to allow others who agree to add their voices to the mix.
The commentator stated that I lose “credibility” when I publish something that isn’t the truth. On that point, I agree. If I am asserting something factual and it is wrong or inaccurate, I lose credibility in my assertion. I also agree that I should fact check something before I publish it. (Incidentally, I did check to ensure the purported letter writers had in fact written and disseminated the letter.) However, my issue with the commentator and the reason I am responding via blog post is to point out that I did not allege anything other than that I agreed with the letter writers. How could I fact check my own opinion or lose credibility when I have not attempted to persuade anyone of anything that would require my words be reliable? I have little doubt that the comment writer intended that I somehow lose credibility by agreeing with persons she claims make inaccurate statements, yet I reassert my original assertion: I agree with the letter writers. No one should have any reason to disbelieve this assertion. Does anyone think that in posting this letter I might actually want Sarah Palin for vice-president? I seriously doubt it.
The fundamental point of the Kilston Latimer letter is that Sarah Palin is wrong for the vice-presidency and that although she has a vagina, she does not represent American women. They wanted to create a statement by women saying as much. Because I find Palin’s positions on a number of issues to be completely reprehensible, I wanted to add my words to this statement. I wholeheartedly believe that Sarah Palin is the wrong choice for vice-president of the United States. She may not have taken the steps necessary to successfully ban books in her library, but she asked what would happen if she tried (per factcheck.org). Yet her position on certain books is the tip of the iceberg as far as I’m concerned. Her lack of education and experience, her methods for management, her perspective on the environment, her religious views, her previous actions while in office as mayor and governor, as well as so much more all compile to create what I perceive as a disaster should the unthinkable happen and she and McCain are elected. If there is any doubt as to my credibility in holding this opinion, I hope this post puts it to rest.