NationStates Jolt Archive

For the past week I have noticed an increasing trend in the media to refer to the President as 'Mr. Bush'.
This is, as you may know, terribly bad form. It would be like refering to the Queen of England as 'Miss Elizibeth', and even if you dont respect, like, trust or in any way think of Bush as a good President or leader, it is insulting to me, and a number of other perfectly reasonable Americans to refer to the holder of what is (argueably) the most powerful position on the planet as 'Mister'.
At least respect the office, if not the man holding it. At least it has seen (in my opinion) more good Presidents than bad, and weve never had to remove a President by force (willingly, occasionaly you have odd people that (try) to do it for us.)

Opinions welcome, please check unfounded anger at somebody defending something American at the door.

The title "Mister or "Mr." can be taken in several ways.

- A title given to one's senior.
- A quazi-formal term given to strangers and aquaintances alike out of respect.
- In the Navy, a title given to one's subordinate.

Since Dubya wasn't in the Navy we will disregard the last one. One could call him by the title "Mr." under the first two circumstances in an informal situation.

However, what you say is true. His official title is "President" and as such, should be addressed thusly in "official" situations.

Hmm...

Not sure, honestly. But they do traditionally get his attention by calling him Mr. President.....

For the past week I have noticed an increasing trend in the media to refer to the President as 'Mr. Bush'.
This is, as you may know, terribly bad form. It would be like refering to the Queen of England as 'Miss Elizibeth',

'Mrs Windsor', shurely?

Aside from that refering to the President as 'Mr. Bush' or simply 'George W Bush' is no breach of standard American ettiquette: it is only when being formally addressed that he is meant to be referred to as 'Dear Mr. President'.

Hmm...

Not sure, honestly. But they do traditionally get his attention by calling him Mr. President.....

Which is a case of directly addressing him, rather than just using a signifier to reference him.

For the past week I have noticed an increasing trend in the media to refer to the President as 'Mr. Bush'.
This is, as you may know, terribly bad form. It would be like refering to the Queen of England as 'Miss Elizibeth', and even if you dont respect, like, trust or in any way think of Bush as a good President or leader, it is insulting to me, and a number of other perfectly reasonable Americans to refer to the holder of what is (argueably) the most powerful position on the planet as 'Mister'.
At least respect the office, if not the man holding it. At least it has seen (in my opinion) more good Presidents than bad, and weve never had to remove a President by force (willingly, occasionaly you have odd people that (try) to do it for us.)

Opinions welcome, please check unfounded anger at somebody defending something American at the door.


First of all the queen is married so I believe it would be mrs. Blair is rarely called PM Blair. So what if Bush is called Mr.? Perhaps they have to keep referring to him in the same article? Repetitiveness in journalism isn't good. Any way there are more important things to worry about. Due the press refer to Saddam Hussien as King Hussien? The Irish President is nearly always referred to as Mrs. the taoiseach is never referred to as Taoiseach Ahern.

For the past week I have noticed an increasing trend in the media to refer to the President as 'Mr. Bush'.
This is, as you may know, terribly bad form. It would be like refering to the Queen of England as 'Miss Elizibeth', and even if you dont respect, like, trust or in any way think of Bush as a good President or leader, it is insulting to me, and a number of other perfectly reasonable Americans to refer to the holder of what is (argueably) the most powerful position on the planet as 'Mister'.
At least respect the office, if not the man holding it. At least it has seen (in my opinion) more good Presidents than bad, and weve never had to remove a President by force (willingly, occasionaly you have odd people that (try) to do it for us.)

Opinions welcome, please check unfounded anger at somebody defending something American at the door.

Mister is the proper form of formal address for presidents. The other option is "His Excellency" which traditionally has not been used in the US.

Oh, sort of like how they did Bill Clinton in his last year of office?

At least Bush deserves it.

Mister is the proper form of formal address for presidents. The other option is "His Excellency" which traditionally has not been used in the US.
I'm pretty sure that George Washington insisted that people not use "His Excellency," or anything beyond "Mr. President," "Mr. [Surname]" or "President [Surname]," basically...because while it is an important office...making the title (and how he should be referred to as) too formal takes away from the fact that he still answers to the American public.

I'm pretty sure that George Washington insisted that people not use "His Excellency," or anything beyond "Mr. President," "Mr. [Surname]" or "President [Surname]," basically...because while it is an important office...making the title (and how he should be referred to as) too formal takes away from the fact that he still answers to the American public.
Close, it was Jefferson who insisted that 'His Excellency" not be used.

Close only counts in Horseshoes and hand grenades.

Fortunately for me, we're not keeping score.

Didn't Washington refuse to be referred to as some title though? His majesty, maybe?

Close only counts in Horseshoes and hand grenades.

Fortunately for me, we're not keeping score.

Didn't Washington refuse to be referred to as some title though? His majesty, maybe?I think that was it, I know "His Excellency" was used during the Adams Administration.

I disagree that the media are getting it wrong...

President is his title, officially.

We don't refer to Blair as Prime Minister Blair - it's either Mr. Prime Minister or Mr. Blair

You guys are getting confused between Lizzie and George...whilst our Liz is nominally the Head of State, she's really just there to sit and look pretty.

No one gets offended at "Mr. Rumsfield" even though officially, he is "Secratary Rumsfield" (or Mr. Secratary, I guess...)

Also, no one seems to be offended when he is referred to plainly as "George Bush"

...and I've even heard him referred to simply as "Bush" on the News...

What's so wrong with "Mr. Bush"?

For the past week I have noticed an increasing trend in the media to refer to the President as 'Mr. Bush'.
This is, as you may know, terribly bad form. It would be like refering to the Queen of England as 'Miss Elizibeth', and even if you dont respect, like, trust or in any way think of Bush as a good President or leader, it is insulting to me, and a number of other perfectly reasonable Americans to refer to the holder of what is (argueably) the most powerful position on the planet as 'Mister'.
At least respect the office, if not the man holding it. At least it has seen (in my opinion) more good Presidents than bad, and weve never had to remove a President by force (willingly, occasionaly you have odd people that (try) to do it for us.)

Opinions welcome, please check unfounded anger at somebody defending something American at the door.that's been happening ever since the 2000 elections. almost all of the news services called him Mr. Bush, and (back then) rarely called him President Bush.

No one gets offended at "Mr. Rumsfield" even though officially, he is "Secratary Rumsfield" (or Mr. Secratary, I guess...)

Also, no one seems to be offended when he is referred to plainly as "George Bush"

...and I've even heard him referred to simply as "Bush" on the News...

What's so wrong with "Mr. Bush"?simply this, Ever heard of President Clinton referred to as "Clinton" or "Mr. Clinton"? Any President that held that office, While in office were always called "President [name]"

including Former President George Bush Sr.

Maybe the US is moving with the times and doing what Britain does?

Oh the damned liberal media is at it again. THIS time their latest disrespect, calling someone "Mister." I don't know where you live, but "Mr" is a sign of respect. Maybe the media should call him, "Hey, Bush." Do you care?

Since when is the media known for giving anyone any real respect (including the audience)?

Of all the things to complain about, the Mister versus President moniker is one of the least important issues. Realize that and move on.

A mountain ant hill. out of an
Arrange the words above into a well known saying.

I think that was it, I know "His Excellency" was used during the Adams Administration.
Doesn't surprise me. Adams was an ass who just rode in on Washington's coattails.

simply this, Ever heard of President Clinton referred to as "Clinton" or "Mr. Clinton"? Any President that held that office, While in office were always called "President [name]"

including Former President George Bush Sr.
Granted, I wasn't exactly that old when Clinton was in office (ooh damn, I forgot to say President Clinton)...but the fact of the matter is, on the rare occasion that I talked about him, I usually just said Clinton.

I'm waiting for someone to call Bush "G-Dub" or something like that...and even at that point...who gives two shits? People who make large deals out of rediculously small things waste my time.

Honestly, my guess is that the media supposedly changing how they refer to the President has less to do with the actual person and more to do with a sign of the times. (Blogs, etc.)

This is, as you may know, terribly bad form.

indeed it is. i demand that the formal title be used.

war criminal bush