Loughner does not appear to have had any coherent partisan motivation, though it seems plausibly non-coincidental that the event occurred in Arizona, the nation's most gun-crazed state.

While his ideology appears incoherent, Sarah Palin certainly used the wrong word in calling him apolitical. (One can have unhinged views which are nonetheless political, i.e.) It appears to me, Walter, that your posting on this topic might be accomplished with greater brevity--and quite non-controversially: "Tea Partiers don't deserve blame for the shooting." (In this we agree.)

Sarah Palin has put forward the formulation that--to paraphrase--'the criminal alone is responsible', and no one else should be called out. Like you, I reject blaming anyone baselessly--though I'm a bit hesitant to categorically rule out, say, Arizona's fanatical gun culture, as having played some role. Let me put the question another way--so that you can help dispel my confusion:

What if a politically-active liberal Democrat committed a similar act, and the victim was a conservative Republican? Would you actually respond by saying 'Democrats--and the Dem Party--should be held blameless in the crime?'

Affiliational groups, whether voluntary or involuntary, are funny things. Most of us accept it as reasonable that the dishonorable conduct of our family members somehow reflects upon our own reputation--and their successes seem to justifiably elevate our own status.

Other affiliational groupings also have this same oddity--which has the socially-beneficial effect of making us all intensely concerned with the thoughts and behaviors of our teammates.