Not directly linked to Republicans

I've refrained from commenting on the Tucson Shooter, so as not to add to the sorry flood of crocodile tears, as people who live and die by their ratings exploit him for their own purposes. But the New York Times has really crossed the line. Here is what the Gray Lady wrote about Mr Loughner, after first admitting that he appears to be just another nutter: "But he is very much a part of a widespread squall of fear, anger and intolerance that has produced violent threats against scores of politicians and infected the political mainstream with violent imagery." How is he a part of the squall? Is there the slightest connection between Mr Loughner and, say, Sarah Palin? (I assume it is only squalling Republicans who upset the NYT, not squalling Democrats, like the candidate who bragged in 2008: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.")

The editors then walk back their smarmy insinuation while managing to reinforce it in the process: "It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge." Love that "directly"! Blue skies! -- Dan Ford