Wow.

In the same category as major roadkill or an approaching train wreck...

almost...

mesmerizing.

(scroll down for video)

If it proves true, it was a dumb thing to do and he would definitely deserve censure and, if the voters decide, to be voted out of office. But I don't understand what is particularly mesmerizing about the video.

Approaching train wreck, I think. I have no idea if Charlie violated rules, but when he gets to blathering, well... there's a reason they secure the cannons on a ship.

As to Luke's question, Charlie is right in spirit. If he's found guilty by the Ethics Committee, they will come up with a fine of some kind. It will not include removing him from office. After all, Tom DeLay was not removed. He resigned. Newt Gingrich was not removed. He resigned. William Jefferson was not removed. He lost an election. If those three crooks are thrown out by their peers, a tax evasion allegation isn't going to get them to do it.

Don't be naive.
It is...on so many political and social levels and nuances.
I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you...
the sun is out...and so I'm outta here.
It's just one of those things you either get/understand or don't get.

I'm not interested in watching potential train wrecks. Regarding this, it will be decided at the polls. Ted Kennedy survived a pretty damaging scandal, was reelected, and had a long, active career. Dan Rostenkowski, not so much. So, I have no prediction on how this will turn out, other than I won't be surprised.

Republiteabaggers are easily mesmerized.

My post is not even about his ethics charges.
The title of the thread is "Charlie & Luke."
My mouth dropped at the interaction.
Democrats: they eat their young.

But what I find especially fascinating is ol' Charlie's take on NBC/MSNBC.

BTW, it's reported that Charlie has since apologized to Luke Russert.

... as he should.

I don't know, Stash. I think I recall you cheering Mr. Funky when the KING-TV news crew tried to get him to comment on a ridiculous little "scandal" about another candidate and, instead of giving them a sound-bite, he gave them an earful about how they only come to Grays Harbor when they smell something negative to report and how they neglect all the good things that happen here, yada yada. You cheered that on and said it was great, IIRC. So why was that situation different than the Charlie/Luke issue?

I'm all for respectful dialogue but we really don't know what happened, do we? We saw a snippet. What did Russert say before the video we saw started? Gosh, did you already forget about the Breitbart edits? It is entirely possible that we don't have the whole story here.

I watched the video and was astonished at a seasoned public person responding in such a way.

But, Charlie has a valid point. Does Russert think 2/3 (290) will vote him out or that a special election will be held?

I understand getting frustrated. There have been a few impeach Obama signsters out in Aberdeen and Monte. I always want to ask them who are they trying to get to initiate impeachment, because we sure cannot. With that thought, I can understand Charlie's frustration, with what, I think, he took as a lack of knowledge. With that said, it came across as a train wreck.