Jack Cafferty's Palin Derangement Syndrome reached a new level on Thursday's Situation Room on CNN, as he attacked the Republican for her reply to those who tried to tie her to the Arizona shootings: "It was just awful, defiant, [and] inflammatory." Cafferty also ripped Palin for using the "blood libel" phrase and stated that the reply would "effectively end her chance of ever being elected president."
The commentator devoted his 5 pm Eastern hour Cafferty File segment to his rant against his perennial nemesis: "Sarah Palin may have done herself in this time. The tragedy in Tucson presented an opportunity for Palin to reach beyond her base and to strike a note of unity, to say something that showed she's capable of true leadership." After noting that "there was a good deal of sympathy for her. A lot of people thought it was wrong to drag her into the debate to begin with," Cafferty struck hard at the former Alaska governor for having the audacity to answer the latest charges against her:
CAFFERTY: But then she spoke, and it was just awful. Defiant, inflammatory, Palin invoked the historically painful term, 'blood libel,' in attacking the media. This is a phrase used hundreds of years ago to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews killed children and then used their blood in religious ritual. NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell suggested the use of the phrase 'blood libel' was 'ignorant.' It was. A CBS analysis suggested Sarah Palin played 'the victim card.' She did. And ABC said Palin- quote, 'once again, has found a way to become part of the story,' unquote- true.
It's being suggested that the scope of the Tucson situation is quite simply beyond Palin's limited skill set, and when you compare Palin's response to the uplifting speech we heard from our president last night, you can draw your own conclusions. President Obama still has work to do- no question about it- when it comes to delivering on his campaign promises to change Washington and elevate the national dialogue, but last night went a long way in reminding a lot of Americans why they voted for him. And comparing the President's lofty words to Palin's small ones must have many Republicans rethinking their support of a woman who has great difficulty getting beyond her image of some sort of a rogue momma grizzly bear- whatever that is.
By the way, Cafferty and ABC, the former Republican vice presidential candidate didn't find "a way to become part of the story" of her own accord. Mere hours after the attempt on Rep. Giffords life, many liberals pointed their fingers at Palin as being to blame, due to the map with the scope marks on it. In fact, on Monday's Situation Room, the CNN commentator did exactly that, lumping her in with the Tea Party movement:
Well, since the shooting, Palin has expressed her condolences and says she hates violence. The Tea Party movement, which has also been a cauldron of inflammatory rhetoric, is also distancing itself from the tragedy, condemning what happened. But even if there's no direct correlation here, people like Palin could bear some indirect responsibility for the mind-set of the shooter and others like him.
After asking his "Question of the Hour" ("Did Sarah Palin's reaction to the Tucson massacre effectively end her chance of ever being elected president? Here's a hint- yes."), the commentator read some of the viewer replies near the end of the hour. All agreed with him, and anchor Wolf Blitzer hinted that he agreed as well:
Jeff in Hawaii: 'Caribou Barbie is a simple-minded, hateful, money-grubbing, vindictive liar. (laughs) In the past two years, she has consistently shown her true colors through her rhetoric, whether it was death panels; don't retreat, reload; or her current hoof in mouth, blood libel statement. She has never been, nor she ever will be a viable option for president.'
Cory writes, 'If the American voters choose to elect a person with such a lack of compassion, intelligence, et cetera, we'll be in serious trouble. We need leaders who are smarter than a 5th grader.'
Carla writes, 'Palin's a typical reality show in the flesh- all show, very little reality. The woman will find a way to insert herself into any situation, no matter how tragic, and use it as a vehicle to promote herself. One can't serve self and the people of this country simultaneously. Sadly, she has no grasp of this, and not knowing the meaning of the term 'blood libel before using it in a public speech is inexcusable.'
Ray writes, 'This was just one more example, maybe the 50th, of Palin pontificating in a protected, unchallenged vacuum. She has proven both her inability to participate in public discourse and discussions and to think or speak independently of her advisers and speech writers, who are clearly doing her no favors.'
Jacqui in Illinois writes, 'It's despicable she uses this time of national grief to turn the spotlight on herself, but moreso, that she uses the term blood libel in her discourse. Too bad she didn't look it up on Wikipedia. Too bad her advisers didn't do so, as well. Palin in 2012? Even hard-core Republican conservatives aren't that dumb. She stepped way over the line this time, and even her fellow Alaskans cringe at her ignorance.'
Dave in Utah: 'Obama: it's all about us. Palin: it's all about me.'
And Terry writes: 'I don't agree with you a lot of times, but this time, I think you are 100 percent right on.'
If you want to read more on the subject, we got thousands of e- mails on this-
BLITZER: Thousands?
CAFFERTY: Go to my blog at CNN.com/CaffertyFile.
BLITZER: Thousands?
CAFFERTY: Thousands.
BLITZER: And were most of them very critical of Sarah Palin or was it sort of balanced?
CAFFERTY: No, they weren't balanced at all. It was overwhelmingly negative, probably- I mean, I didn't read 2,500 e- mails in the last half hour, but I read a couple of hundred, and I didn't see probably three that were supportive.
BLITZER: Wow. But the question remains, at what point do you think Republicans, especially those who want to try to get the Republican presidential nomination, will try to distance themselves from Sarah Palin?
CAFFERTY: I think this is a turning point. I think- you know, if you watched that tape, a couple of things occur to me. One, she didn't write it, and two, this absolute lack of awareness of the historical significance of that phrase, 'blood libel,' is offensive to civilized and intelligent folks, and I would think that civilized, intelligent Republicans will react accordingly.
BLITZER: I suspect you might be right. I think they'll be getting- she'll be getting some heat, as she always does from Democrats and the liberals, but she might be getting some heat from some Republicans, as well.
CAFFERTY: I think so.
BLITZER: We'll see what happens, Jack. Thanks very much.
Where was all this outrage when liberals such as Eugene Robinson, Andrew Sullivan, and Frank Rich used the "blood libel" term? Also, one might guess that Cafferty, Blitzer, and all of their viewers didn't see Alan Dershowitz's defense of Palin's use of the phrase, someone who is no conservative.
