I'm so sick and tired of hearing sore losers from the last two elections call President Bush, "Mr. Bush." That just goes to exemplify how immature some people are, including the press. It reminds me of a little five year old in a grocery store crying because they can't get what they want. As if that wasn't enough, some try to withold a legitimate debate by arguing the President is a bad President because he's "stupid". I ask "Why is he stupid?" the answer "Just look at him!"
Umm... no offense there brosef, but if you want to make a legitamite claim as to Why you don't agree with the President, I'm all ears. But when it turns out to be a name-calling match, I have no aspiration to talk with you. I just think its entirely immature to call the President "Mr" no matter if you voted for him or not - and trust me - you've made it well known if you didn't vote for him, ok?
I think it's great to have such a supporting news media. Oh wait... "They started it!"
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
"Mr." isn't an inapproriate title; it just isn't used as often when the man in reference is serving as President. We hear W referred to as "the President" or "Mr. President" because he's currently serving, but that doesn't make "Mr. Bush" any less accurate or respectful.
Maybe it is a deliberately roundabout and subversive, but hey, at least they're calling him by a proper name. As you can see I'm guilty of (along with a lot of the rest of the country, some of whom probably support him), calling him a letter.
Question: what's the difference between politicians and the press calling a person "Mr." and Joe Nobody on the street doing it? Does exposure really matter when the sentiment's the same?
I just think it's interesting to hear reporters call Clinton "President Clinton" even though he hasn't been president for 5 years now.
And I think that since the President is the Commander in Chief and when addressing him as such, at least reporters should be more professional.
Well, they ARE reporters... (kidding, kidding).
It is interesting, you're right. But this is also an exceptional administration for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that approval rating. Seeing as the television media especially does things with finances in mind (ah, commercials), I'm inclined to think they're trying to reflect some of the public sentiment in this tiny way.
I dont like Bush and cant wait until the next election.
I don't think it's inappropriate. I call him Mr.Bush, I see nothing wrong with that. What should we call him? Mr.President Bush? or just President? To me it's all the same
noun
Definition:
1. man's title: the customary title of courtesy used before the name of a man
Mr. Smith
You make an excellent point. However, the President has a rank. It's what differentiates him from "Senator So-and-so" and a Mr. Joe Schmo. Being Commander in Chief, it's military-based. You wouldn't call a Coronel in the army, "Mr. Coronel." You address them by rank, not by social titles.
I partially agree with "Maraneau" it should be President Bush or Mr. President. because it is his rank, He is the camandor in Cheif of the military and the leader of our country. We should respect his title just as you would a title for a Judge, and Police Officer, or even a Soilder...