I heard a newcaster on CNN call the prsident Mr. Bush. Not President Bush but MR.
I thought this was incorrect. Is this happening on other TV news?
Is this some slight or insult?
Or is it no big deal?
Don’t know about the news, but when I was in Marine Corps Boot Camp in 1982, whenever we recited the chain of command, we referred to the President as “The Honorable Mr. Reagan.” We referred to the Secretary of Defense as “The Honorable Mr. Weinberger.” Forget, actually, if there were any more civilians in the chain.
I don’t know if the USMC still recites the names in this manner or not.
About the news–my guess would be that if the President is referenced several times in one report, they may vary the title/honorific instead of monotonously saying “President Bush” over and over.
Or you may be right – it may be a snub. I honestly don’t know.
Sir Rhosis
Sorry didn’t mean to quote you right after your OP. I hit the wrong damn reply button… again.
Sir Rhosis
It was generally settled since Washington that we should call him Mr. President. Though it doesn’t really matter what you call him as long as people don’t get offended and understand who you are talking about.
The safest bet is Mr. President.
Most news style guides will have you use ‘President Lastname’ upon the first mention of the person, and ‘Mr. Lastname’ on every subsequent mention. They’ve been doing it that way for a long long time.
Interesting question. No slam against Sir Rhosis, but in the Army we handled it a little different. I was in 80-86. If we were to meet the man himself, which to the best on my knowledge I never came within a thousand miles of doing, we were to address him as “Sir”, the same as any other superior officer. When refering to him in public it was “Commander-in-Chief” (which struck me as silly, Chief Commander makes more sense). As a civilian, I think "Mr. President " and “President lastname” are considered appropriate. “Mr. lastname” fails to recognise the office and IMHO is lacking. If I do not care for the policies of a certain administration so be it, but the office itself should be respected. If by some odd chance I were to run into the president this afternoon, I would address him as “Mr. President”
I agree with this. As others have noted, however, the monotony of talking about one guy all the freaking time begs for variety.* “Mr. Lastname” is less offensive than many names I could think of that are just as accurate.
*: I can’t say if this is what happened in the OP broadcast.
I agree, and have used a few unfavorable adjectives to describe presidents, past and present, but in private conversation. Face to face, failing to recognise the office would be rude. I have my say at the ballot box, unless that Chad guy gets in the way, or the Supreme Court, or Diebold, or Haliburton say otherwise.
Mr. President is what you use to refer to the president to his face. Mr. Bush is proper terminology for referring to the current president in the third person in an article or newscast. It’s used because repeated references to President Bush in a sentence or paragraph quickly becomes ungainly.
Normal newspaper style is to refer to President Bush in the first sentence (or first usage) and then Mr. Bush thereafter. I assume that television coverage is similar.
Go to Google news and put in “Mr. Bush” to see many examples of this.
So I guess “Georgie” would be out of the question? 
Is there a form of address for the President analogous to “Your majesty” for Kings/Queens? I’d imagine what with the U.S.'s creation of the role there wouldn’t be, but I could be wrong.
“Mr. President” (you hear it screamed by the press at the once-in-a-blue-moon press conferences he holds)
I’m glad we didn’t use Washington’s first suggestion: “Your Excellency.”
Isn’t POTUS styled ‘Excellency’ in diplomatic protocol (letters of credence, etc) and whenever he goes overseas or at the UN? Canada seems to thing that Bush’s full style is His Excellency the Honourable George W. Bush, President of the United States.
FYI some other styles suggested for the President in 1789 were “Patrotic Highness” and “Elective Majesty”. Washington ended debate when he let it be known that he prefered simply “Mr President”.
To be precise, we said, “The President of the United States is The Honorable Mr. Reagan” only while repeating the chain of command litany at the top of our lungs. We too would have called him “sir” in a face-to-face.
Sir Rhosis
Or maybe we too said “The Commander-In-Chief is The Honorable Mr. Reagan.”
Point being during this litanty we actually called him by the title “Mr.”
Sir Rhosis
You call him “Charles.”
IIRC, protocol for the US President is that he is primarily a civilian (as opposed to a military head of state or a heredetary sovereign), and that therefore he is to be addressed as “Mister” - either Mr. President or Mr. Bush.
Which brings to mind a cartoon from a few years back: Protocol person briefing the Prez before a Royal Visit tells him "Now remember, she will call you “Mr. President”, but you don’t address her as “Mrs. Queen” 
No votes for “Mr. Cheney” yet?
Mr. President and Mr. Bush are perfectly appropriate and neither shows a lack of respect in my book. I mean the dude already knows who he is so why should he care which we call him? To his face, I would use Mr. Bush.
The Vice-President is almost always referred to in the same manner as the President.
Not twice, you wouldn’t. As I said earlier, the proper to-his-face reference is Mr. President. Unless you’re a relative, or extremely old friend in private, there really is no other way to speak directly to a president. Never, ever Mr. Bush.