Several of the news shows that I watch are taped on Friday. That means that last week, they didn't get to discuss the Tucson shooting, which meant that today is the main topic of discussion. On a strictly political level, there is one thing that has picqued my curiosity - and that is why all the main republican pundits were lauding Obama for his speech in Tucson.

I mean, it was across the board, and while the democrat pundits all also said it was a good speech, it was remarkable how the republican pundits lined up in support of Obama. And, the whole trigger of the congratulations was the fact Obama had basically exonerated Sarah Palin by saying that there wasn't any kind of political motive to what the Tucson shooter had done.

Palin seemed pretty desperate to not be tied to this action at all, not even in the most theoretical way. Of course, some of the more liberal pundits had criticized Palin for keeping her map of "targeted" congressional districts, with those districts identified by what looks like a gunsight target. Bny now, this map has become infamous. Palin, the dummy, kept it up on her website not just after the election, when it was moot, but it was still up when the shooting occured.

As soon as it was starting to show up in media that her map was still up, it was reported that she took it down. But by then it was too late. A video of a news interview with Gifford a couple months before where basically said she didn't like it that Palin was using the gunsight crosshairs to show these targeted districts started playing over and over. There was no question that Gifford wanted Palin to change the sybolism, but she didn't. She left the bull-eyes in place.

After she was criticized for this in the media, and some did try to link that to the shooting, which was premature, she posted a blistering video speech on her facebook page where she came off as trying to sound like she was the victim, using the term "blood libel," to describe what was happening to her. I didn't realize the significance of the term, but many pundits and interest groups have gone public saying that the use of the term was inappropriate for the moment. She just didn't come off good.

You know, fair enough that there "isn't any evidence" that the Tucson shooter had been unduly influenced by Palin specifically. But, the fact is, that she did use symbolism that was gun based. She used it in the context of other gun based symbolisms that she had been using in her advocacy. She did not show any compassion for Ms. Gifford's concerns and fears, because she didn't change her map at all even though Gifford, who was specifically in one of the crosshairs, was expressing discomfort and concern at being targeted with the crosshairs. And I don't believe that anyone is criticizing Palin for actually identifying congressional seats that she thinks are important and wants to try to get a candidate favorable to her election. Lots of interests do that. It's using the gun symbols in doing it.

Palin could have used lots of symbols to mark those districts which could have portrayed a strong message without being overtly hostile and potentially violent. Even in the face of the concerns by Ms. Giffords, she chose to continue with that symbolism. She must have known that it looked pretty bad for her if she took down the map quickly after the shooting. If it was ok, then why not leave it up?

The other republicans, including the pundits of which I speak above, do not want to be painted with this kind of brush. They were so relieved when Obama exonerated them by saying that the shooting was non-political, that they were willing to cheer Obama to the hilt. I find it fascinating. But they have to know deep down that Palin was wrong to do that, whether it had any direct impact on the incident in Tucson. Hopefully, this close brush with responsibility for the unthinkable will lead them to rethink this kind of harsh political behavior.