More on Obama's Tucson speech

Though many pundits applauded President Obama's Tucson speech for flatly stating that political rhetoric did not cause the shooting, Byron York observes that Obama was merely playing "good cop" to the four days of "bad cop" from the rest of his party ("Rethinking Obama's political performance in Tucson" | Byron York | Politics | Washington Examiner):

But how could he have said otherwise? By the time Obama spoke, there was irrefutable evidence that shooting suspect Jared Loughner was deeply mentally ill and acted out of no recognizable political agenda. Obama simply could not have made the case that Loughner's acts were in any way the product of political rhetoric from right or left.

He didn't need to. The point Obama wanted to make was not that political rhetoric caused the violence but that such rhetoric -- like, for example, criticism directed at Barack Obama -- should be toned down. So even as he conceded that rhetoric did not cause the violence, Obama argued that it should be muted anyway. And he cloaked his appeal in so much emotionalism, in so many tear-jerking references to the recently departed, that some in his audience might not have noticed he was making the political point he wanted to make all along.

As Ann Coulter wrote,

It's not that both sides did something wrong; neither side did anything wrong. The drama queens need to settle down.