Politicizing the Tragedy

Weigel urges everybody not to think about the shooter's politics:

What would it mean if he was a Democrat? What would it have meant if he was a Tea Partier? Probably nothing. Some killers put out manifestos explaining why they did it. Some are psychopaths who go through some of the motions of ordinary life -- showing up at events, voting -- before snapping and committing a non-ideological crime. Jared Loughner shot a congresswoman because he believed that money wasn't real.

Alex Koppelman notes that neither Obama nor Romney mentioned the issue of gun control in their speeches on the massacre, in what could only be regraded as astute omissions:

There’s a protocol in American politics for dealing with days like this. Those who follow it forswear politics. They offer heartwarming words for the victims and their families. They talk about prayer, loved ones, and their own children and grandchildren. They deliver affecting speeches. They do not talk about gun control.

As a result, those speeches—no matter how heartfelt they are, no matter how much comfort they offer a confused nation—can sometimes seem a bit awkward, at least to those who know what’s missing. Today, two Presidential candidates who are, by all appearances, personally in favor of at least some measure of gun control, spoke about what happened at a showing of “The Dark Knight Rises” in Aurora, Colorado—the largest mass shooting ever perpetrated by one person in the U.S.—and didn’t once mention the issue.

More coverage here and here.

(Image: "Obama supporters bow their heads during a moment of silence for the victims of the Aurora, Colo., shootings at a campaign rally for President Obama in Fort Myers, Fla." Mandel Ngam/AFP/GettyImages, via Slate)