English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

...rather than "President Bush"? They still refer to former President Clinton as "President Clinton." Do you think it is a sign of disrespect?

2007-01-24 03:39:55 · 13 answers · asked by Dr. Quest 5 in Politics & Government Government

romulusnr: Misleading? No. I have heard her, and other journalists as well, refer to him as "Mr. Bush", when reporting a story. I was told she did it again last night either before or after the State of the Union address. Thus my question.

2007-01-24 04:31:51 · update #1

13 answers

It is clearly a low-class and juvenile sign of disrespect. It is also illegal, once a person has served as a president, US Senator or a state governor they are legally termed with the highest level of office they held.

2007-01-24 03:45:51 · answer #1 · answered by Matt M 5 · 1 3

Absolutely! You hit the nail square on the head. Liberals live in a fantasy world where Clinton was their secular messiah and everything was all good as gumdrops. They ignored the genocides in Rwanda and Yugoslavia, and failed to react to repeated attacks on Americans domestically and abroad. Somehow President Clinton doesn't have responsibility for anything the country failed to do or screwed up when he was running it, so they still call him that. They wish he could be President for life, and that's why they'll vote for Hillary. I've literally heard liberals say that they don't like her, but will vote for her, if that's what it takes to get Bill back in the White House.

President Bush, however, would be the anti-Christ in their opinion if they believed in Christianity and the Bible. So they would call him simply Evil Bush if they thought they could get away with it. "Mr. Bush" with defamatory inflection on the Mr is the worst disrespect they can do for sitting President. They agree with America's enemies like Hugo Chavez because they're all liberals.

EDIT: Hey stoopid, the President is NOT elected by the popular vote, so it doesn't matter how many Gore won. Several presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote. There are too many uninformed voters like you, and that's why the system is designed that way with the electoral college. And the courts had nothing to do with the 04 election when Bush clearly won both the popular and electoral votes.

2007-01-24 03:55:58 · answer #2 · answered by C D 3 · 1 2

Its on your link sis. "The source of the inaccurate document become apparently Al Arabiya television. Reuters relayed the resignation tale, which become later retracted through the Arabic-language information channel." Are you nonetheless mad at Katie Couric because she requested Sarah Palin what she examine? That turned right into a lengthy time period in the past - and Sarah Palin ought to were more suitable prepared. @Brad, You and that i are a similar age. you may insult me if it makes you experience more suitable about your self. i'm able to take what you're allotting. doesn't difficulty me somewhat. . . Its all you've and its truly type of unhappy. And it doesn't replace the info. @Brad, Cordelia has one i. My answer stands.

2016-10-16 01:08:47 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

In this interview, Katie Couric clearly calls the president "Mr. President," multiple times.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/06/five_years/main1979933.shtml

Your question is misleading. Deliberately?

2007-01-24 04:18:34 · answer #4 · answered by romulusnr 5 · 0 1

Bush lost both elections. He was never elected President. In 2000 Al Gore got 50,996,116 votes Bush only got 50,456,169 votes. We all know Jeb Bush fixed Florida. Kerry also won Ohio in 2004, the Conservative bias Supreme court ruled against States rights and gave Ohio to Bush. Couric is just being factual. It is also factual that we are in "occupation" of Iraq. Ever hear Fox news or Rush use that word?

2007-01-24 03:51:45 · answer #5 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 3 2

Katie Couric hates George Bush. Yes it is her way of disrespecting the president

2007-01-24 03:43:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Sure it is. I think when they get all over Bush for this country's reputation they don't seem to realize that it isn't him as much as it is how America treats it's leaders. It's incrediable that they think other countries will respect a country that does this expecially when in the biggest share of the world you'd disappear or be dragged out in the street and tortured before they did you in. If you don't like him fine but you don't disrespect your country.

2007-01-24 03:49:01 · answer #7 · answered by Brianne 7 · 0 2

My, my. You certainly stirred up the bottom feeders.

There are two logical and compelling reasons to refer to him as "Mr."

1.) According to informed family members, he has a penis,of sorts.

2.) He is not presidential material.

Keep in mind when you post questions that the remaining few bush-believers now number fewer than those who believe in alien abductions. By and large they are a sub-set of that subset of the 50% of the people who, by definition, are of below average intelligence.

2007-01-24 03:53:58 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 4 2

Bush isn't really President, Cheney is. Bush is the figurehead.

2007-01-24 04:10:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Ah someone besides I noticed this! Thank You.

2007-01-24 03:48:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers