There will be a great deal of speculation about why a career Army doctor who had risen to the rank of Major would take a pair of handguns and blast away at his fellow soldiers, killing a dozen and wounding over 30 others. Was it because he was a Muslim, and he opposed our policies? Did he fear deployment into Iraq or Afghanistan? Was he being harassed due to his faith? Or, like so many other lone gunman from so many other instances in the past, was it a combination of factors that led him to lose his mental bearings? Let the speculation begin. The one thing we won't hear much about, though, in the mainstream media, is the possibility that he was an Al Qaeda sleeper agent. That will only come to fore if this attack is followed by others in the near future (I do not suspect that will happen, like most, I find myself buying into the view that he is a lone nut, like the others, but I do not dismiss out of hand the other possibility).

More thoughts about the election results....

Paul Krugman thinks the President is facing his Anzio, a battle from WWII where American soldiers landed behind the German lines in Italy, had a chance with bold action to seize the initiative and turn the German lines but, instead, hunkered down and were trapped in a small pocket by German forces. Krugman thinks Obama could have succeeded with bolder moves, including a much larger stimulus, but has bogged down and may now be politically trapped. Not a bad analogy unless you believe, as I do, that a bigger stimulus would not have made any difference, and would have exacerbated our already immense debt and deficit problem.

Charles Krauthammer says the election results disprove the myth of a great realignment which sprang from the election of '08.

David Brooks tries to explain the behavior of the Independents. I think he is not quite on track, because he expects to see some rationality and consistency. Independents are, I think, the way they are because they are non-ideological in their political thinking, which makes that thinking inconsistent and, oftentimes, irrational. Their behavior is based on events and the perception of events. They were unhappy with Bush, the wars, the GOP Congress and, finally, the financial crisis, so they swung to the handsome, charismatic young man from Chicago and his rhetoric of hope and change. Now they are unhappy with unemployment, the wars, the Democratic Congress, the bailouts, and the exploding debt and deficits. So they are turning against that man and his people, and are looking for another man on a white horse to save them. It is not rational, but it is very human. Daniel Henninger describes that political volatility and its consequences.

Kim Strassel sees a tipping point for Obama and the Democrats.

Jay Cost is laughing at the spin which gives more credence to GOP divisions by looking at NY-23, than the much bigger divisions in the Democratic Party when one looks at Virginia, New Jersey, and the debate over the health reform bill which Nancy Pelosi has set for a vote in the House tomorrow.