Is Newt toast?

[Grace62]

$tevie wrote:
Straight from the horse's aßß - er, mouth:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-rec...ck-horizon

The man is delusional. I'm not sure he believes his own rhetoric at this point.

I love it when conservatives twist themselves into pretzels trying to pretend that the president can (or somehow should) control the price of gasoline.

[Gutenberg]

Why do the GOPs continue to call Newt "Mr. Speaker?" He is not Speaker of the House, he is a former Speaker of the House who was forced to resign because his own party would not support him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol...110798.htm

He violated tax law (a felony) and lied to the House panel investigating him. He also had a hard time knowing the difference between campaign funds and his own money. He was an embarrassment to the nation and his party.

I notice that GOPs will not offer the same honorific to former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who completed her time in the Speaker's chair without committing felonies and ethical lapses. But she did commit the unforgivable sin of being female, moderate and a Democrat.

[Grace62]

Gutenberg wrote:
Why do the GOPs continue to call Newt "Mr. Speaker?" He is not Speaker of the House, he is a former Speaker of the House who was forced to resign because his own party would not support him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol...110798.htm

He violated tax law (a felony) and lied to the House panel investigating him. He also had a hard time knowing the difference between campaign funds and his own money. He was an embarrassment to the nation and his party.

I notice that GOPs will not offer the same honorific to former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who completed her time in the Speaker's chair without committing felonies and ethical lapses. But she did commit the unforgivable sin of being female, moderate and a Democrat.

If the media would stop referring to him as "Speaker Gingrich," it might help. CNN referred to him that way during the initial debates, and others followed. They refer to Romney as "Governor" which is also incorrect. Santorum is correctly referred to as "Senator."
Maybe the commentators think that distinction is unfair.

[Lux Interior]

Grace62 wrote: They refer to Romney as "Governor" which is also incorrect. Santorum is correctly referred to as "Senator."
Maybe the commentators think that distinction is unfair.

Why is it okay to call an ex-senator by his old title but not an ex-governor?

[Grace62]

Lux Interior wrote:
[quote=Grace62] They refer to Romney as "Governor" which is also incorrect. Santorum is correctly referred to as "Senator."
Maybe the commentators think that distinction is unfair.

Why is it okay to call an ex-senator by his old title but not an ex-governor?
A few offices keep their titles after the person retires: senator, ambassador, general, for example.

For jobs which can be held by only one individual at a time: including president, speaker of the house, governor, and representative of a specific congressional district, after the person leaves office they are addressed in writing as "The Honorable" or if referred to in a report: former (title) or (title) 2001-2009 and in person as Mr/Ms/Dr. so-and-so.

So, if you're moderating a debate, it's Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Romney, Senator Santorum, and Congressman or Representative Paul, depending on which he prefers.

This guy is a protocol expert and the go-to person for questions about forms of address and titles:
http://www.formsofaddress.info/FOA_home.html

[mrbigstuff]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=Lux Interior]
[quote=Grace62] They refer to Romney as "Governor" which is also incorrect. Santorum is correctly referred to as "Senator."
Maybe the commentators think that distinction is unfair.

Why is it okay to call an ex-senator by his old title but not an ex-governor?
A few offices keep their titles after the person retires: senator, ambassador, general, for example.

For jobs which can be held by only one individual at a time: including president, speaker of the house, governor, and representative of a specific congressional district, after the person leaves office they are addressed in writing as "The Honorable" or if referred to in a report: former (title) or (title) 2001-2009 and in person as Mr/Ms/Dr. so-and-so.

So, if you're moderating a debate, it's Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Romney, Senator Santorum, and Congressman or Representative Paul, depending on which he prefers.

This guy is a protocol expert and the go-to person for questions about forms of address and titles:
http://www.formsofaddress.info/FOA_home.html
this is only in practice when that person is appearing before an official body, like the government they just left or receiving an award from some kind of institution. however, I agree that in the debates, it is confusing and should be abandoned altogether. for everyone.

[Grace62]

mrbigstuff wrote:

this is only in practice when that person is appearing before an official body, like the government they just left or receiving an award from some kind of institution. however, I agree that in the debates, it is confusing and should be abandoned altogether. for everyone.

Not sure what you mean. These people can use those titles socially throughout the remainder of their lives, and in any private setting it is appropriate to use the title when addressing them.

[Lux Interior]

Grace62 wrote:
So, if you're moderating a debate, it's Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Romney, Senator Santorum, and Congressman or Representative Paul, depending on which he prefers.

Gingrich was a member of the House, so why not congressman or representative Gingrich?

That rule (only one office holder at a time) seems debatable. There is only one governor of a particular state, but there are 57 states, so there is technically more than one governor at a time. You could conversely argue that each district has only one congressperson at a time, so they shouldn't retain the title.

I think they should all be addressed as "President Wannabee" or "Vote Whore." But that's just my opinion.

Yes, the 57 states was a deliberate error.

[Gutenberg]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=mrbigstuff]

this is only in practice when that person is appearing before an official body, like the government they just left or receiving an award from some kind of institution. however, I agree that in the debates, it is confusing and should be abandoned altogether. for everyone.

Not sure what you mean. These people can use those titles socially throughout the remainder of their lives, and in any private setting it is appropriate to use the title when addressing them.
I don't think the honorifics should be used in a public debate where most viewers will not understand the niceties of protocol. After the introductions, in which they are introduced as "former governor" or "Congressman" or whatever, they should all be addressed as Mr. or Ms. or Dr. or whatever.

[Grace62]

Gutenberg wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
[quote=mrbigstuff]

this is only in practice when that person is appearing before an official body, like the government they just left or receiving an award from some kind of institution. however, I agree that in the debates, it is confusing and should be abandoned altogether. for everyone.

Not sure what you mean. These people can use those titles socially throughout the remainder of their lives, and in any private setting it is appropriate to use the title when addressing them.
I don't think the honorifics should be used in a public debate where most viewers will not understand the niceties of protocol. After the introductions, in which they are introduced as "former governor" or "Congressman" or whatever, they should all be addressed as Mr. or Ms. or Dr. or whatever.
That could work. I'd be for that.