Scroll down and watch the video if you’ve been relying on the mainstream media to tell you about Rep. Bob “Who are YOU?” Etheridge’s little self-control problem.

In the wake of the video of an unhinged old man attacking a couple young, well-dressed young men for asking a Democrat if he supported the Obama agenda, the treatment of the incident in the press has been downright bizarre.

Almost immediately, you had Dave Weigel, the Washington Post’s “conservative” blogger, concerned not about the congressman’s behavior, but the identity of the cameramen. It was almost the reverse of the old tactic of a lawyer representing a rapist: “What were you young men wearing that caused the congressmen to attack you? You were asking for it, weren’t you?”

Last week Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-N.C.), who's seen as a safe bet for re-election this year despite representing a somewhat conservative (Cook R+2) district, ran into two self-described students with video cameras outside of a fundraiser.

"Do you fully support the Obama agenda?" asked one of the students.

"Who are you?" asked Etheridge, grabbing one of the cameras and pointing it down -- a move more typically seen from Hollywood bodyguards than congressmen. The second camera rolled as Etheridge, irritated, held the wrist of the first cameraman, then pulled the student to his side and grabbed him in a hug.

"We're just here for a project, sir," said one of the students.

"I have a right to know who you are," Etheridge said.

"I'm just a student, sir," said one of the students.

It went on and on, with the grappled student asking to be let go, until he broke free and Etheridge left.

A hug. If I “hugged” a complete stranger in the street like that, I’d certainly be charged with assault.

Read the entire blog post. Weigel doesn’t have a word to say about Etheridge’s behavior, but spends plenty of time worrying about the cameramen. For a laugh, read Weigel’s follow-up the next day where he complains that people sent him nasty e-mails because “he used too soft a verb.” No, Weigel, you got attacked because you missed the story in such a way to call into question your credibility and news judgment.  

And then you’ve got some nut at the Charlotte Observer that believes assault is just peachy keen and congressmen should commit more of it.

Shame on you, Bob Etheridge.

For apologizing.

Judging by the reaction to this story, I realize I am in a tiny minority here, and it is probably the main reason I never get elected to Congress, but I don't think Etheridge has anything to be sorry for.

Speaking strictly for me, I get a little defensive when purposeful strangers lurking on the street try suddenly to detain me, even if they are merely polite young men pointing recorders at my face and asking impertinent questions in the name of science.

Call me old-fashioned, but I find that a tad menacing.

Etheridge is sorry he seized the wrist of one of the polite young men. Why? Good for him.

My reaction in such situations is either to hand over all my pocket change, say " No hablo ingles" and make a getaway or to think up something to stun them for a moment like, "What's the frequency, Kenneth?"

I never would have the presence of mind (OK, I wouldn't have the nerve) to snatch his free hand before he could use it to fish out something sinister.

And people say Etheridge assaulted them.

Yes, people say that, because it is obviously assault.

One wonders how columnist Mark Washburn would react if some right-winger got caught on tape taking a similar jab at propagandist Michael Moore. Undoubtedly, he wouldn’t feel the same.

Partisan. Not principled.

Media. Wound. Self-inflicted.

To top it off, you had the DNC come out with talking points defending Etheridge’s assault.

1. There is always the part of the story that you can’t see in these gotcha style videos — what were these folks doing, how did they approach him, how were the cameraman and/or others off camera acting?

2. Why would any legitimate student doing a project or a journalist shagging a story not identify themselves. Motives matter — what was the motivation here? To incite this very type of reaction?

3. This is clearly the work of the Republican Party and the “interviewer” is clearly a low level staffer or intern. That’s what explains blurring the face of the “interviewer” and refusing to identify the entity this was done for. The Republicans know if they were caught engaging in this type of gotcha tactic it would undermine their own credibility — yet if it was an individual acting on his own there is no reason that person would have blurred themselves out of the video — and if it was the work of a right wing blog they would have their logo on the video and be shouting their involvement from the roof top.

4. This was a purposefully partisan hit job designed to incite a reaction for political reasons — but it is a tactic so low — the parties involved are remaining anonymous.

5. The fact that no one wants to take credit for this should raise real questions in the minds of voters and the press.

6. Push hard w/ blogs the lack of credibility inherent to anything Breitbart does/posts, given its role in the debunked ACORN videos.

Who you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?

Sometimes its better just to remain silent.