Gene in contempt

Sir — Re ‘What Does It All Mean? The Best Analysis’ introduction on your front page (Sunday Independent, October 28) regarding the presidential election. The review of the election and the candidates by your correspondents, certainly achieved a reasonable balance — until we reached the last page, ‘Soapbox’, and a different analysis emerges. “Analysis” not altogether apt, more a hatchet job to my way of thinking.

Gene Kerrigan’s heading ‘If it looks like racism and it sounds like racism…’ sets the tone for his diatribe. Not content with alluding Peter Casey as a racist, he indulges in a litany of insults. His intelligence (not as smart as Donald Trump), his speaking voice (weak, wobbly and cliched), his character (bog-standard, charisma of a string vest). Casey is all “flibbertigibbet”. I had to resort to my Concise Oxford Dictionary, ie gossipy, flighty, frivolous or restless person. But I think Mr Kerrigan reveals his own mentality when he referred to Peter Casey as “a creature”.

I doubt if he will read ‘Soapbox’, but if he does, I’m sure he’ll dismiss it with the contempt it deserves. I’m not writing this letter to defend Peter Casey, but to defend myself. As one of the 342,727 who supported his candidacy whom he classifies as bigots, confused, resented with a hint of racism besides. Patrick Fleming,

Dublin 9