In the case of her use of the term "blood libel," Palin exposed the Left's attempt to criminalize conservatives and make it impossible for conservatives to either defend themselves or pursue their alternative policy agenda. ... Just as its Israeli counterpart did in the wake of Rabin's assassination, so the American Left seeks to attach a sense of criminality and violence to the American Right in order to make it socially and otherwise unpalatable to support or otherwise identify with it.
It's an old tactic and an effective one and Glick is correct to call it out. There's more:
By calling the Left out for its behavior, Palin exposed its agenda. But the logic of the blood libel remained. Trusting the public's ignorance, and the liberal Jewish community's solidarity, the leftist media in the U.S. immediately condemned Palin for daring to use the term, hinted she was an anti-Semite for doing so, and argued that by defending herself, she was again inciting violence. ...
After all, it is high time that Sarah Palin stopping hitting the closed fist of the Left with her face. More still:
It matters not whether these conservative thinkers support Palin. What matters is that by telling her not to defend herself from libelous attacks, they are accepting the Left's right to criminalize all conservatives. If she is not defended against a patently obscene effort to connect her to a madman's rampage in Tucson, then conservatives in the U.S. are signaling they really don't want to control U.S. policy.
I think this is true, too. As does John Hinderaker of Powerline, who endorses Glick's position, but in a peculiar and maddening way:
I agree with that last observation, which is why we, along with many others who do not necessarily support Palin as a potential Presidential candidate, have defended her against the Left's increasingly over-the-top attacks.
I agree with Glick, too. Here's my question for Hinderaker: why the escape clause? Why must one offer a disclaimer about Palin's presidential prospects while ostensibly defending her from attack? Either she's worth defending on the merits or she isn't. Hinderaker makes a point of quoting a Palin defender at length, but then undercuts his own argument at the end.
It's not clear that Palin is running for president anyway. We can deal with her prospects and potential alternatives if she becomes a candidate. For now, if you feel like defending her, just defend her. Criminy.