You know what really bugs me? The media bends over backwards to recognize knighthood, but they constantly belittle our president. They make sure to always say
Paul McCartney, but I can't even count the times I've heard the media refer to our president as "Bush". His name is President Bush, you clods.
Do you have examples of this in the MSM where they don't call him President Bush the first time they refer to him? It would surprise me if that happened too often, although it would be no surprise if you saw a lot of articles where they say President Bush once and simply 'Bush' thereafter; that is just good writing. Do a Google search on "Clinton" site:foxnews.com, and you will see them doing this often for both President and Senator Clinton (with a few articles where their titles never get used even one).
Posted by: Pericles at July 21, 2005 06:51 PM (hHudX)
Yes, I have examples, but they're oral, so I can't prove to you that it has happened.
Posted by: Sarah at July 22, 2005 02:08 AM (j3A3+)
Were these anchorpeople or commentators?
I can't prove this either, but my hunch is that if you went back six years you would see them talking about Clinton the same the way. And if you go back to coverage of the campaign, I bet you would see/hear a zillion references to John Kerry that omitted the title "Senator."
Posted by: Pericles at July 22, 2005 07:50 AM (hHudX)
just be thankful the MSM doesn't refer to him as "lying motherf****n bush" as a veteran of the first gulf war this clown is the worst president since carter
Posted by: tommy at July 22, 2005 09:59 AM (NMK3S)
OK, perhaps they've done it to other presidents too; that wasn't my point. My point was how they HEAP respect on celebrities who've randomly been knighted but neglect the same respect for our president.
Posted by: Sarah at July 22, 2005 10:09 AM (j3A3+)
celebrities who've randomly been knighted...
I assume you mean someone else who's been "randomly knighted." McCartney's genius and dedication deserves every bit of respect a knighthood would afford.
I wonder if the mark "The Beatles" have left on the world will ever be eclipsed by another musical group?
Posted by: Curtis at July 22, 2005 11:19 AM (GC501)
Okay, if you aren't trying to complain specifically about how the media treats a conservative President and are just trying to complain about the media's infatuation with the British upper classes, we may have some common ground. The Princess Di worship over here has gone a little overboard, as far as I'm concerned. I've nothing against her, but she didn't walk on water. She was just pretty.
Posted by: Pericles at July 22, 2005 01:51 PM (hHudX)
Curtis -- Meh. I'm an Elvis man.
Posted by: Sarah at July 22, 2005 04:21 PM (j3A3+)
I dont think any president has been as bad as Carter for the simple fact he came off as a totally powerless president that couldn't make a hard decision.
Remember he was President during the Iran Hostage crisis and he came off as being completely powerless to do anything whatsoever.
This is also the time of our first gas crisis / shortages. Remember the long lines at the gas pumps and only being able to get gas on odd or even numbered days?
While Bush may not be well liked at least there is one thing you can say.
He is a man of action. Maybe not the action we'd like to see but at least he's doing something other than sounding like a ninny like Carter did.
If Carter were president now I doubt we'd be in Iraq. I also doubt we'd be in Afganistan or anywhere else for that matter.
We'd be sitting here waiting for the next attack like wimps and crying about it.
Posted by: G.Schaefer at July 22, 2005 05:07 PM (Pr6kL)
G. Schaefer, Carter was not the first president to be in office for a "gas shortage", in 1973 the Arabs embargoed oil to protest the U.S. meddling in their affairs, the president in '73? Richard Milhous Nixon. If you look back through history there has been an "oil crisis" about every 30 years or so. So Nixon was probably not even the first president to have this happen to him.
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at July 22, 2005 10:42 PM (aHbua)
You're right, but it has to go both ways. We have to meticulous about Senator Kennedy and President Clinton while we're ripping them new ones.
Posted by: pedro at July 23, 2005 11:36 AM (b5kM6)
hey g.schaefer listen bro my biggest problem with bush 43 is very simple.iraq is tough.iran would be 10 times times harder.n korea would be 50.our troops are under-manned,under-funded.and their families are being asked to sacrifice more than should have to.at least when i went to war we all KNEW we were going kick some ass and come home all right.the same can't be said about this conflict.and as a fervent believer in powell doctrine unless you are 100% sure you going to win don't start a f*****n war in the first place.
Posted by: tommy at July 25, 2005 10:05 AM (NMK3S)
The libs infatuation with British royalty has always made me giggle. Those idiots even learned to curtsy and bow when Charles and Diana visited the US!!! (of course I would never be invited to one of those gigs no matter how much money I might make - because I'd never curtsy to foreign dignitaries)
I couldn't understand why they would pay homage to foreign royalty when they can barely be civil to most Americans especially the President... but so it is. Knighted celebrities are just a couple of steps down from the regular titled aristocrats in Britain.
Heaven forbid you forget to use that title when talking about them, but the President isn't special at all... How hysterical.
Posted by: Teresa at July 29, 2005 09:21 PM (nAfYo)
| Add Comment