April 07, 2004
That's Mr. President to you, boy
The other day, Bush had an exchange with a reporter that went like this:
11:31 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: I just met with Specialist Chris Hill's family from North Carolina. You know, I told the family how much we appreciated his sacrifice -- he was killed in Iraq -- and assured him that we would stay the course, that a free Iraq was very important for peace in the world, long-term peace, and that we're being challenged in Iraq because there are people there that hate freedom. But the family was pleased to hear that we -- its son would not have died in vain. And that's an important message that I wanted to share with you today.
Let me ask you a couple of questions. Who is the AP person?
Q I am.
THE PRESIDENT: You are?
Q Sir, in regard to --
THE PRESIDENT: Who are you talking to?
Q Mr. President, in regard to the June 30th deadline, is there a chance that that would be moved back?
The left, predictably, jumped all over it. Bush isn't the common man like he pretends to be! He wants to be addressed as 'Mr. President'! I thought 'well, yeah, just like a doctor wants to be called Dr. instead of Mr., what's wrong with Bush wanting to be referred to by his title, especially by reporters who, usually, can barely conceal their contempt of him'. Turns out, though, that the written word can sometimes obscure what is really going on. Andrew Sullivan has this:
NOT SO TESTY: I was a little surprised to hear the president dress down a reporter for apparently not addressing him as Mr President. Drudge ran with it; so did many other sources. It's to Josh Marshall's credit that he points out that this incident may actually have been due to the fact that the reporter asking the question had a cell-phone up to his ear. In that context, "Who are you talking to?" is not so crazy a question. In fact, if this was the case, it seems to me that it was the reporrter who was being ill-mannered, not the president.
Posted by Karol at April 7, 2004 12:00 PM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags:
oh karol, this was a blog for blog's sake!
we all know that you address the president as "mr. president," and i'm pretty sure that, even in north carolina, an ap correspondent would know this.
get back to the juicy stuff!
Posted by: mike at April 7, 2004 12:37 PMLike my email implies, I'm just here to clear up misconceptions. :-)
Posted by: Karol at April 7, 2004 12:40 PMMike, you are totally right!! I was there for the behind-the-scenes-decision-making and she was all I have nothing to blog about... oh, wait, ok, I guess I'll blog this. hahahahahahahahaha
Spot On, indeed.
Don't believe a word that girl Dawn says. :-)
Posted by: Karol at April 7, 2004 12:41 PMHey, I'm not being critical, once in every blogger's career they throw up a post that well, just takes up the space where their best friend would have guest-blogged about Condi-dos and Condi-donts.
Posted by: Dawn Summers at April 7, 2004 01:14 PMGuy, my best friend is a teacher in Brooklyn, who is, sadly, blogless.
Posted by: Karol at April 7, 2004 01:15 PMGlad this got debunked. Though, like judges, I think it is quite appropriate for the President (capital P) to rebuke those in his official presence. Ever try to rise and address a judge without saying "Your Honor?"
Posted by: Scott S at April 7, 2004 03:37 PMThis rendition sounds kind of strange to me.
One, Josh Marshall is getting it 3rd hand..."someone" told the guy Marshall quotes in his post. Two, the reporter heard the President ask him two questions and answered them before he addressed Bush as "Sir." And three, in this day and age it's amazing to me that reporters are allowed to have cell phones on their persons, let alone have them on during a press conference with the President.
Lastly, Dan if you looked at a judge and addressed him as "Sir" and the judge interrupted you and said, "Who are you talking to?” I would say that judge is acting just a tad arrogant and uppity.
Posted by: Rick at April 7, 2004 08:58 PMDan=Scott S
Posted by: Rick at April 7, 2004 08:59 PM
