• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why always POTUS?

I still remembering explaining to a kid in my car at driver's ed that the 'GOP' meant the 'grand old party' and that it was used to denote Republicans. This same student decided to register as Republican, because the Rock did.

Yeah, political acronyms are weird.
 
And to throw another monkey wrench into the stew, don't we still give former presidents the honorific too? He's President Carter still, not Mr. Jimmy Carter.
 
My impression is that it's mostly a holdover from defending Bush. As in, "you can't criticize Bush, he's the POTUS!"
 
Thanks for this. Always thought it sounded ridiculous. It's unnecessary, and it sounds like a cross between dufus and potato.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for this. Always thought it sounded ridiculous. It's unnecessary, and it sounds like a cross between dufus and potato.

I wonder if the Secret Service thought of the stupid and spuds connection when they decided to use this term for the person they protect.
 
And to throw another monkey wrench into the stew, don't we still give former presidents the honorific too? He's President Carter still, not Mr. Jimmy Carter.
True, but it would be equally incorrect to say POTUS Carter.

I would hope the only people who would need an indication of which one is the current POTUS are those who recently came out of a coma or time travelers.
 
I've been using POTUS since before Obama... easier than typing "president of the united states". I could type "president" but them some pedantic poster will demand to know which president, or say I'm too US-centric, or some other thing about it that upsets them.

Remember "Usaian"? :duck:

I wouldn't say "POTUS Obama" though.

POTUS was a standard term in the Military for the President when I was in, and then the POTUS was Reagan.....
 
True, but it would be equally incorrect to say POTUS Carter.

Says who, Emily Post?

I would hope the only people who would need an indication of which one is the current POTUS are those who recently came out of a coma or time travelers.

It is a a title, not a reminder who currently holds the office.
 
It is a a title, not a reminder who currently holds the office.

POTUS is a position. The associsated titles are either "President Obama", for example, or "Mr. President".

I challenge you to find any instance where someone says something like, "Hello, President of the United States Obama." It doesn't happen because it is not a title.
 
I believe that it comes from the symbol-heavy military, particularly the Navy, as in COMNAVSEASYSCOM - COMmander, NAVal SEA SYStems COMmand. The first place I ran into POTUS was in a Tom Clancy novel.
 
POTUS is a position. The associsated titles are either "President Obama", for example, or "Mr. President".

"Executive Office of the President"

"Every day, the President of the United States is faced with scores of decisions, each with important consequences for America’s future."


http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop

The sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense if the POTUS refers to a position instead of the title of the guy in the Oval Office. Or do you now want to correct The White House as well?

I challenge you to find any instance where someone says something like, "Hello, President of the United States Obama." It doesn't happen because it is not a title.

Tell that to Joe Biden. Of course he added his own personal spin to it.



"the next president of the United States, Barack America,”
Joe Biden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTjlAd-GXM&feature=related
 
Last edited:
You've got to admit, at least Biden's mistakes are endearing.

As for whether or not the way we use POTUS is "correct" or not, I'd say that acronyms often follow their own rules, regardless of how things would read if they were fully expressed. Language is as language does. Once an acronym becomes a symbol for a concept and not a collection of symbols for individual concepts, it tends to just get used as a word. Same thing happens with foreign phrases. Take "the hoi polloi" for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoi_polloi

It means "the masses" (or majority, people, etc.), where "hoi" means "the" already, so when we say "the hoi polloi", it's like saying "the the people", which is dumb if you're actually translating the words "hoi polloi" into what they mean, but not if you treat the expression as a dismissive term, which is how it's actually used. A lot of people get bent out of shape about that, but I declare it a natural and inevitable consequence of how English (at least) evolves and is perfectly valid.
 
Cicero, you prove my point.
"Executive Office of the President"

"Every day, the President of the United States is faced with scores of decisions, each with important consequences for America’s future."
This quote does not use POTUS as a title (i.e. "President of the United States Obama"), but merely "the President of the United States". It is not specific to Obama and is true of anyone holding the position.


The sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense if the POTUS refers to a position instead of the title of the guy in the Oval Office. Or do you now want to correct The White House as well?
No need. The White House used it correctly, as I outlined above.

Of course, the sentence refers to a person. But it is not being used as a title the way that you use it.

Just to be clear, a title is a prefix to a proper name. For example:
  • Mr. Smith
  • Mrs. Smith
  • Dr. Smith
  • Reverend Smith
  • etc...

Tell that to Joe Biden. Of course he added his own personal spin to it.

"the next president of the United States, Barack America,” Joe Biden

Cicero, you even included the comma that shoes this is not an instance of someone using "President of the United States" as a title. No one says "Mister, Smith". That matches exactly one of the examples what I outlined above. Biden is talking about the next person to fill the position of President of the United States and then names him.

Even if he had used it the way you are implying, what would "the next President of the United States Barack Obama" mean? There had never been a previous "President of the United States Barack Obama". It is statistically unlikely that there will ever be a subsequent "President of the United States Barack Obama". That has only ever happened twice where two people with (approximately) the same name held the position of President of the United States and Obama doesn't have a child named after him.

So, you have yet to provide an example of someone using "President of the United States" as a title, i.e. "President of the United States Obama". (Note the lack of a comma.)
 
Last edited:
Even if he had used it the way you are implying, what would "the next President of the United States Barack Obama" mean? There had never been a previous "President of the United States Barack Obama". It is statistically unlikely that there will ever be a subsequent "President of the United States Barack Obama". That has only ever happened twice where two people with (approximately) the same name held the position of President of the United States and Obama doesn't have a child named after him.

What about the statistical possibility of there being a POTUS Barack America?
 
What about the statistical possibility of there being a POTUS Barack America?
Better than 1 in 300,000,000.

...and completely irrelevant.

eta:
Oh, you're fuming about the "America" part? Really? :rolleyes:

also completely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
So, you have yet to provide an example of someone using "President of the United States" as a title, i.e. "President of the United States Obama". (Note the lack of a comma.)


"Former President of the United States Ronald Reagan"

http://vilnius.usembassy.gov/06-08b-04.html

If only the U.S. Embassy had checked with you first you could have supplied them with a set of commas. Somebody should tie you to Emily Post. You do lack a certain comma sense.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom