Though silly and certainly a waste of time, this was more of a statement than a threat. They don't have the authority to arrest the President and they know it. They're doing little more than expressing their displeasure with the administration. This is similar to idle threats made to build a hotel on Justice David Souter's estate in Weare, NH.

Having said that, I don't think we should be using government to make a statement about other segments of government. Government needs to operate in a manner that best serves the taxpayer and this type of thing clearly does not.

I were Bush, I'd purposely take a trip there and call their bluff.

"I'm here.......come and arrest me....I triple dog dare ya!!!"

JNE,

I disagree. The government is there to represent and make statements for the people that voted them into office. And I doubt this resolution would have made it out if most people in that area didn't agree with it.

States grip and go after the feds all the time.

Sure, ahmanrah, "most people in that area" agreed with it. So what?

There are ONE THOUSAND PEOPLE in Marlboro, Vermont. Nobody cares what they think about the President. And they have no authority to arrest him. (Though, JNE, it wouldn't surprise me if they were actually expecting it to happen.)

This is a waste of time that makes them look like loonies.

Somebody most care, because you wouldn't have heard about it otherwise.

Elected officials are in office to represent the people on issues of governing. Not to engage in assinine and senseless crap like this. I don't care if everyone in town agreed with it... and frankly, I doubt every single person did. The majority... sure. But not every single person. But that's irrelevent. If the town wants to make a statement, let them hold a rally or find a more appropriate outlet. The government is not their own personal soapbox to stand upon and cry foul. The purpose of government is to govern within the scope of their offices. Brattleboro and Marlboro have no more authority to effect Federal government than we do. What kind of position does it put the cops in if the President does decide to make an appearance? Do they attempt to arrest the President? Do they engage in a Mexican stand-off with the secret service? Brattleboro and Marlboro have a duty to their taxpayers to ensure that local roads are maintained, that schools get adequate funding, that zoning codes are maintained. Their purpose is not to provide oversight on matters of national defense.

"Somebody most care, because you wouldn't have heard about it otherwise."

Really? Is that all it takes for liberals to think they "care" about something? Does that mean we "care" about every person in every news item that comes out?

Gee, that's a relief. Now all those starving children can stop whining; obviously, if we talk about it, we "care."

Seriously, though. There really is a difference between "hey, this is important; let's do a news piece to show we care about it" and "hey, this is stupid; let's do a news piece to show what idiots live in Vermont."

Just look at South Pasadena today. They passed an ordinance that made swearing illegal. When I first saw this I figured it was some backwards little village in the south somewhere.

So, point is, governments do this all the time.

"Somebody most care, because you wouldn't have heard about it otherwise."

It's SO refreshing to see a genuinely unashamed bigot. Let's end the shaming of shameful thoughts about other people. Out of the closet, Southophobes! Follow ahmanrah to the Bigot Pride Parade!

Whoops. My text remembering thing screwed that up. Of course, it should have been in reply to:

"When I first saw this I figured it was some backwards little village in the south somewhere."

Sorry about that.

"So, point is, governments do this all the time."

I'm sorry Ahmanrah, but that's a poor argument for accepting stupidity. The difference though is that Pasadena is within their scope of governance to pass such a regulation... though I believe it's pretty assinine in and of itself. The Vermont towns are not within their scope of governance to pretend they have oversight over national defense.

Kerry,

Not sure how I am bigoted by that comment. Folks in the south, and midwest in particular proudly wear their morality on their sleeve and are quite willing to try and force it on other people.

Evangelicals demonstrate this every time they want to force the nations laws to their will, on homosexuality, abortion and contraception, stem cell research, banning books, banning education (sex ed, evolution).

So me making and educated guess, based on the likelihood of which group would be pushing a boneheaded resolution like this hardly could be called bigotry. Its more like a politically incorrect guess that in this instance I got wrong.

ahmanrah said: ""some backwards little village in the south somewhere."

And, when I referred to this as bigotry, offered this jaw-dropping defense:

"Not sure how I am bigoted by that comment. Folks in the south, and midwest in particular proudly wear their morality on their sleeve and are quite willing to try and force it on other people.

Evangelicals demonstrate this every time they want to force the nations laws to their will, on homosexuality, abortion and contraception, stem cell research, banning books, banning education (sex ed, evolution).

So me making and educated guess, based on the likelihood of which group would be pushing a boneheaded resolution like this hardly could be called bigotry. Its more like a politically incorrect guess that in this instance I got wrong."

Let's take that apart, shall we?

""Not sure how I am bigoted by that comment."

I'll help you.

"Folks in the south, and midwest in particular proudly wear their morality on their sleeve and are quite willing to try and force it on other people."

Do they? You haven't shown any evidence for this. And associating a desire to be moral and create a moral environment doesn't really earn the term "backward," does it?

The term "village" also is highly-loaded. You are trying to evoke a tone of primitivism, making you the wise urbanite and all "Southerners" (and now, apparently also "Midwesterners") the misguided and dangerous tribes in the uncharted territories where wise men fear to tread.

"Evangelicals demonstrate this every time they want to force the nations laws to their will, on homosexuality, abortion and contraception, stem cell research, banning books, banning education (sex ed, evolution)."

This is the double standard typical of bigotry. What do you call it when liberals "want to force the nations laws to their will," as in abortion, gay rights, tranny laws, and other issues on which the liberals lose the popular vote but still try to flip the law? Does it evoke a more genteel, wise, and measured form of debate? If so, you are a bigot.

By the way, the "banning" of books (which doesn't happen anymore, unless the book is written by OJ Simpson, and even then it seeps through) is now often engaged in by liberals in search of politically correct cleansing as by conservatives looking to keep the "F" word away from their elementary students. (Such as challenges based on old-style language concerning minority groups--Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer, Uncle Tom's Cabin.)

The use of the term "evangelical" without explanation or accuracy also tags you as a bigot. What, precisely, in this context, do you mean by "evangelical," and what makes you think they are doing this?

"So me making and educated guess, based on the likelihood of which group would be pushing a boneheaded resolution like this hardly could be called bigotry."

Oh, it absolutely is. And it's not an "educated guess"--it's a bigoted assumption. An "ignorant" guess, if you will. It ties up "coercive" with "evangelical," "Southern" (and, for some reason "Midwestern"), and "prudish" without any evidence, guesses wrong, and then defends its ignorance on the somewhat curious basis that it is a surprise that such things are happening in an enlightened place like South Pasedena.

"Its more like a politically incorrect guess that in this instance I got wrong."

Isn't "politically incorrect" just a polite way of saying bigotry?

Back in the day, when we used PC (politically correct), we meant it in a positive sense. It was something to be aimed at. Not being it was a bad thing. That makes you (in the black-white world of liberalism) a bigot. The term "politically incorrect" came about as a conservative response to the perceived authoritarian nature of the PC rules. So by using PI, you are actually branding yourself a conservative.

Congratulations. I knew you'd come around eventually. ;-)

Hi Kerry, Your point about a republic versus a democracy is well taken. I fear Ahman does not "get it". Likewise he will not comprehend your clever analysis of his bigotry, though he believes himself to be the smartest person in the room. Scientific and all that. He is clearly a bigot. As for Vermont, I am just very happy that I do not reside there. Loonies indeed.

I don't see this as a matter of republic versus democracy so much as local versus federal, and pro-Bush versus anti-Bush. Only the most extreme anti-Bush or state's rights advocate would support these resolutions as anything more than the pure statements they seem intended to be; it's their non-binding status that is the clue, here.

Are Bush and his gang war criminals? I don't think there is currently evidence of that, but it might be the case. In a perfect world, I'd want there to be an unbiased investigation with access to all the relevant information. However, this could never happen for so many reasons (mostly partisanship and the high bar of evidence to even warrant an investigation).

The next president, whomever it is, probably won't have interest in creating the kind of precedent that would come from investigating his or her predecessor...they never really seem interested in this. This is at least partly for good reason, but there is obviously an ulterior motive here as well.

"I don't see this as a matter of republic versus democracy so much as local versus federal, and pro-Bush versus anti-Bush."

I agree with you, if in fact the people passing the resolution know that they are just wasting their time and have no authority to arrest the President. However, I think it is more likely that at least some of them think they do have such an authority, and their assumption is based on a misunderstanding of both majority rule and federalism.

The belief that enough communities banding together could force the law to be nationally enforced is fairly common in radical liberalism (though at the same time they believe that some cabal of unfairness is going to stop it from happening). It's the "together we can" mindset that ignores what the actual law is, because they've been taught that the collective is stronger than...well, than anything. America, they think, is a "democracy," where "the people" rule.

I do agree that it is an anti-Bush mindset that most often expresses this kind of silliness, but I would also have to say that it is also fairly common on the conservative end of conspiracism, as with the John Birch Society types and others who think that their "evidence" can one day change the world.

At any rate, your question as to whether Bush is a "war criminal" is not within the jurisdiction of the cities of Marlboro or Brattleboro, Vermont--or the state of Vermont, for that matter. Or even the United States Congress. Only an international body can declare someone a "war criminal" in that sense, though individual nation-states can treat others as though they are.

While it is wisdom for the next president to avoid the question of whether foreign policy is a prosecutable offense, I would not be surprised to see Obama try it. Yes, he is that ignorant. That's exactly the kind of thing that makes me more comfortable (if such a word can be used) with Hillary heading for the White House than a Chicago politician who's only been in Washington for LESS than a full Senate term.

By the way, it might be wise of Obama to play up his image as a Muslim terrorist instead of a Chicago politician, as this Rezko trial heats up. They have a slightly better reputation.