I don't think it's odd at all; nor is it a sign of guilt. It's a knee-jerk reaction due to a non-stop stream of such connections being made, erroneously, in the past.
During the Aurora Shooting aftermath, Brian Ross immediately tries to tie the violence to the Tea Party by, apparently, just Googling the shooter's name, in conjuction with the term "Tea Party" and coming up with a guy, by the same name, associated with the Tea Party in Aurora and making the connection. Wrong.
In the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a cacophony of accusations filled the airwaves that it was the violent, militaristic use of things like cross-hairs in Sarah Palin's ads that drove the shooter to act. Wrong.
Immediately after the attempted Times Square bombing, Mayor Bloomberg insinuated it was probably someone opposed to Obamacare. Wrong.
Some guy flies a plane into an IRS office and The New York Times asks, "The First Tea Party Terrorist?" Nope. He wasn't.
Some census workers commits suicide and scrawls the word "Fed" on his own body and Time Magazine speculates it's related to Tea Party vitriol.
Combine just those examples with the fact there have been NO instances of violence tied to the Tea Party and, well, you begin to wonder if the media and the left (sorry for the redundancy) are trying to invent a narrative about the Tea Party.
Then, you look at the actual violence perpetrated by the Occupy crowd, who were supported by just about every top Democrat figure, including Obama and Pelosi, and you also wonder, WTF?