To: SandRat
'Mr. Bush told editors ...'
that's PRESIDENT BUSH, you donkeys!!!!!!!!
5 posted on
01/11/2005 7:51:01 PM PST by
bitt
(Why didn't they shove Dan Rather out of the door in his underwear?)
To: bitt
From the very beginning of this Nation it has been so.9 posted on
01/11/2005 7:55:31 PM PST by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
To: bitt
Ditto! I don't recall hearing "Mr." Clinton when he was in office and in his case "Mr." was far more suitable than President. The MSM are caught between two irreconcilable forces -- knowing he will be our President for the next four years but hoping by calling him Mr. Bush we'll forget it.
38 posted on
01/11/2005 8:15:31 PM PST by
StarFan
To: bitt
Nothing wrong with this.
It is commonly accepted you may refer to the president as Mr. after calling him by the proper title.
It is not a sign of disrespect.
After all, most do not even get referred to by Mr.
132 posted on
01/12/2005 8:49:12 AM PST by
rwfromkansas
("War is an ugly thing, but...the decayed feeling...which thinks nothing worth war, is worse." -Mill)
To: bitt; StarFan
that's PRESIDENT BUSH, you donkeys!!!!!!!! For the forty or so years that I have followed politics it has always been President XXX the first time in an article and then President mixed with Mr. This is to lower the repetitiveness of using just one and is done no matter who is the President.
139 posted on
01/12/2005 9:12:54 AM PST by
HoustonCurmudgeon
(Redneck from a red city, in a red county, in a red state.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson