Those on the left have gone down even further in my mind with their tactics in light of the recent tragedy in Arizona.  They treated the situation almost as if the tragedy itself was not the most important thing, but instead that the influence of conservative politicians and talkshow hosts was the big story.  It's as if they view all natural or artificial disasters as political opportunities to attack their opponents, be it with Katrina, global warming, the BP spill, and now this.  I have yet to hear anything that remotely resembles a showing of causation between what any commentator has said and what the shooter did, yet for days we have seen the mainstream media raise questions about Sarah Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, etc.  The logic floating around has gone something like this:1) Someone opines that political rhetoric has been "incendiary" in recent months (nevermind the anti-Bush rhetoric from earlier in the decade)2) An individual commits a crime against a politician and other private citizens3) Ergo, that individual was influenced by the "incendiary" political rhetoricThe errors in this logic are plenty: it is subjective as to whether rhetoric has really become more "incendiary" recently compared to years past, violence may be incited for non-political factors (such as violent music/movies), lack of evidence that the shooter had any inkling of conservatism, or that he listened to conservative talk, or that he would have been motivated by conservative talk, and there is also a lack of consideration for the free will of the shooter.  Yet for some reason, those on the left continue to talk like their conclusion is a reasonable one.  It is not.