 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Addressing A President
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Addressing A President From: Bill H //\\ Date: 29 Jul 09 - 07:17 PM Forgetting the Gates/Crowley brouhaha for a moment. It seems, according to Daniel Schor on NPR, that the Pres. told Crowley, on the phone,to :,,,just call me Barack". Mr. Schor's take on this is just like mine. You are the Pres. and not his or Gates' buddy---there has to be a formality whether you like it or not. The proper address---as it is for Aides---"Mr. President". Involving a "Presidential" self into a local incident is bad enough but this and the nonsense about a beer get-together is over the top. Think about any past Pres. (Bush included who was, to me, a joke--a bad one)--take FDR----do you think anyone called him Frankie, Harry Truman--he knew the value of the office, Reagan was not Ronnie, and so it goes. Bill Hahn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Rapparee Date: 29 Jul 09 - 07:21 PM If my brother were president I'd address him as "Mr. President", at least in public. In private I'd call him what I always have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Jul 09 - 07:31 PM Why not "Your Majesty" while you're about it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Alice Date: 29 Jul 09 - 07:32 PM Barack IS a formal address.... He didn't say "call me Barry". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Bill D Date: 29 Jul 09 - 07:34 PM We ain't got no 'Majesties' over here. George Washington turned down the opportunity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Bobert Date: 29 Jul 09 - 07:39 PM Public = Mr. President Private = What ever Mr. President requests No big deal... What, should Michelle call him "Mr. President"??? How about his kids??? How about David Axlerod??? His friends??? I mean, what a crock of manure... If the man wants to be called Barack by someone in private then it's his right... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Bill H //\\ Date: 29 Jul 09 - 08:10 PM The President is called Mr. President by his staff. Forget his family---that is a different issue and take. The President is called Mr. President by the public and by those invited into his presence---diplomats, plain ole folks, etc; It is a sign of respect and also of the prominence of the office. Think about this. GWB did not like the informality of the Clinton Whte House---now that was a joke. He wore a suit and thought that made him presidential. One has to draw a line and in our democracy it is a proper use of the title---not Your Majesty---just Mr. President. Would any of you have called JFK, FDR, HST, anything else? Sorry, I listed Dems--- Bush the elder, Reagan, etc; I left out GWB since, in all honesty, he made a joke of the office and he is the one that should be sharing abeer with folks while his VP sits in a cellar plotting many deeds. By the way; not to offend the Brits here--what really does the Queen do in these times other than cost a lot of money to support her and her family whilst not having any power in any case? With all due respect---and I had the pleasure of not meeting her but having her bid us wee ones farewell during the Blitz at Victoria Station for the evacuation. A wonderful memory of a stoic little girl. Bill Hahn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 09 - 10:00 PM It was a generous offer, meant to indicate he was concerned and involved as a human being. Declining it was also a fine, correct response, because the man who holds the office is duty-bound to sleep in his dignity. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 29 Jul 09 - 10:11 PM Would you go into a courtroom and call the judge by his first name? Would you go into the Vatican and call the Pope by his first name? The President of the United States is the most powerful man on earth and he must be accorded the respect that that office demands. As an individual he can not abrogate that respect because the image that our nation projects overseas is at stake. It is always Mr. President and that is what it should always be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 29 Jul 09 - 10:32 PM Mr. President is the correct form of address to the holder of the office when speaking to him in public or quasi-public meetings (ie cameras or other people present). If he wishes to be called by his first name in private, that is his prerogative. This, by the way, also applies to previous holders of the office until they die. It is President Carter when speaking of him, or Mr. President (Bush) in addressing these him in public. We are honoring the office, even if we don't hold the individual in much esteem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: meself Date: 29 Jul 09 - 11:47 PM I suppose Canadians should have been up in arms when GWB referred to Prime Minister Stephen Harper as "Steve" at a semi-official public event .... We're so naive, we just laughed. So according to some journalist, Mr President in a private phone conversation told someone to just call him "Barack" - and we're able to get ourselves worked up into a fit of indignation over that? I shall retire to Bedlam ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: heric Date: 30 Jul 09 - 12:07 AM Gates isn't going to call him anything other than Barack so he was thinking ahead? He's always ahead. (I can't believe there isn't a lot of choreography and other planning in motion.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Jul 09 - 05:21 AM Curious how a "title" that was presumably intended to be as unceremonial as possible - "president" - takes on a ritualistic significance which was surely never intended. The handy thing about having a formal Head of State who isn't the head of government is that it gets away from that. Nobody would turn a hair about the suggestion that a Prime Minister in the UK or a Taoiseach in Ireland might choose to be addressed by his first name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Geoff the Duck Date: 30 Jul 09 - 06:53 AM The thread is titled "Addressing A President". You seem to be forgetting that there is more than one President on the planet. I would suggest that if the president was Robert Mugabe, you would be EXTREMELY CAREFUL how you addressed him. In other countries different rules apply. Can't see anything wrong with calling a person by their name. He's not royalty after all... Quack! GtD. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Liz the Squeak Date: 30 Jul 09 - 07:20 AM As long as it's clearly legible and the correct postage stamps have been applied, it's entirely up to the sender! LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Jim Dixon Date: 30 Jul 09 - 08:06 AM It seems to me, deliberately calling him "Mr. President" after he has asked you (personally, and in private) to call him "Barack" would carry a somewhat hostile message, something like "I respect the office of the presidency, but I don't like you." Of course, that might be exactly the message you want to convey. Furthermore, publicly reporting that he has asked you (personally, and in private) to call him "Barack" is another kind of impoliteness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Bobert Date: 30 Jul 09 - 09:12 AM The entire idea of sitting down over a beer implies informality... That is why "The President" has asked to be called Barack... I understand that... This talk is supposed to be like three guys sitting around trying to talk as equals... Yeah, I understand that George Bush would have never done this because George Bush was too arrogant and eat up with his own self worth to have done this but, persoanlly, I like it... Change we can believe in... Jus' MO, of course... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 30 Jul 09 - 10:11 AM Not everyone knows that when our first President under the Constitution took office there was no authority on how he was to be addressed or referred to. Some pushed for "Your (or His) Excellency", but Washington refused that and suggested "Mr. President". Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: catspaw49 Date: 30 Jul 09 - 11:09 AM "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED EQUAL........" So it takes 233 years before we finally get a guy who understands that phrase and y'all wanna' be dumpin' on his ass? Gimmee a friggin' break here........... He wasn't suggesting he be called Barack at formal affairs but in a conversational setting what's the big deal? Respect for the office? C'mon....I have a ton of respect for a man who holds the office and wants to make others comfortable around him in a communicative setting. Its not like he fell to the floor breakdancing and rapping "Call me BigB Whopper-Daddy" now is it? Or are y'all afraid that this informality might lead to that???? ..........geeziz.........A true bullshit thread if we ever had one! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Paul Burke Date: 30 Jul 09 - 04:29 PM -what really does the Queen do in these times other than cost a lot of money Saves us from the embarrassment of having to own Blair, Brown, Cameron or Your Highness might have suited Clinton, though he denied it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Alice Date: 30 Jul 09 - 05:00 PM The Obama critics are really getting into petty nit-picking to scrape up this complaint. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 30 Jul 09 - 05:12 PM Time moves on, values change, Bill H. In this case Barack is a little bit behind the times, as it was 12 years ago that Blair became prime minister in the UK and said "call me Tony." And when citing the stately Bush Jnr as a precedent, it should be remembered that he himself lowered the bar a little when he summoned the said PM with a respectfully hollered "Yo Blair!" R the UK monarchy, it is surprising to see Paul Burke relying on such feeble straw-dog argument. Beheading Her Majesty need not give us a Brown or Cameron for president. The last time I heard serious debate on the subject, abolitionists were proposing elder-statesmen types such as Betty Boothroyd. I'm not a Tory, but I'd be happy to go with the present Speaker, John Bercow, as a price worth paying to avoid Prince Charles becoming George VII. It is defenders of the monarchy who suggest that any UK president would have had to be PM or leader of the opposition. But that is by no means the only recruiting territory for presidents elsewhere (Ireland for instance, as Paul will be well aware) so why float that unlikely spectre for the UK scenario? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Paul Burke Date: 30 Jul 09 - 06:19 PM What, Dana? OK, we could have Gary Glitter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Bill H //\\ Date: 30 Jul 09 - 07:23 PM AH---another tempest in a teapot ( you have to love Shakespeare). Semantics. This has nothing to do with royalty or evil leaders of other countries. It has everything to do with the dignity of the office and not its holder at the time. Do I like Bush---No---should he he called Mr. President---Yes. And so on. McGrath---that may be a problem. The lack of respect and formality and shown in the tirades in the House of Commons. Actually a well applied term. How can one show more respect for a powerless monarch than the actual leader of your great nation. SO--back to the beer. I find it hard to believe that Pres. Obama would get involved in this nonsense---and it is nonsense that he should never have initiated because of a fau pax on his part. Picture this---FDR or JFK or even Nixon sitting down with someone with a LOCAL issue and resolving it over a brew---well, perhaps Andrew Jackson. Not a great example of diplomacy for sure. Well---back to Vodka and contemplating this inane time we are in where a Pres. after all his hard work to attain the office is willing to lower himself to the level of two antogonistic individuals---one of which I disagree with and one I think handled a difficult situation well. Bill Hahn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: Joe_F Date: 30 Jul 09 - 10:49 PM It has always amused me that the lower offices (which existed before the presidency) have kept their antique folderol. True, we have no Majesties in the US, but it is always "his honor, the Mayor" and "his excellency, the Governor" (not in direct address, tho!). I remember listening to the radio after President Kennedy was killed. The announcer said "Here comes Mr Johnson now" and then suddenly bethought himself and said, in quite a different tone, "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States". That's how we do "The King is dead. God save the King!" over here. I was impressed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Addressing A President From: meself Date: 30 Jul 09 - 11:19 PM Obama obviously should not have gotten involved, but, having blundered into the matter, he has handled it superbly. His enemies, as we can see, are trying hard - very hard - to turn his indeed "great example of diplomacy" against him. Good luck! |
