The title sounds a bit silly, a bit reduntant, I know, but there's a method to my madness.
A Reuters article was published this morning noting the votes in the towns of Brattleboro and Marlboro in Vermont to have President Bush and Vice President Cheney arrested and handed over to authorities who would properly prosecute them. What's interesting about this article is less the content than the particularly offhand manner in which the author implies that this is just a few crazy liberals in Vermont, a particularly liberal bastion of liberal New England.
This article is all of 6 one sentence paragraphs, with the second and third reading as follows:
The nonbinding, symbolic measure, passed in Brattleboro and Marlboro in a state known for taking liberal positions on national issues, instructs town police to "extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them."
Vermont, home to maple syrup and picture-postcard views, is known for its liberal politics.
I appreciate the author's assistance in telling us moronic readers what Vermont is known for (hint: liberalism). One would think if a state were known for something, one wouldn't need to reiterate that in an article about said state. I realize that this is less egregious than many of the other Reuters diaries around, noting the way they seem to feel the need to trash Democrats, but this is still pretty ridiculous.
That is not to mention that the idea of impeaching President Bush and Veep Cheney is actually a very politically conservative idea, as well. Consider that the Republican party is the historical home of most people who claim to want a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution; if anyone's violating the strict separation of powers/oversight powers of the Congress, it's this administration.
Now, again, I'm a proud liberal, but the snide way in which the word is tossed in there, not once, but twice, really bothered me. By the way, this particular article was written by Andy Sullivan and edited by David Wiessler.
Side note: Has anyone noticed if Reuters has been particularly bad since it's merger with Thompson back in May of 2007? I don't know if there's any there there, so to speak, but it might be worth looking into.