If it had been ‘Liar of the year’ or ‘hypocrite of the year’ I could understand it better. I couldn’t believe it when it was announced on TV this afternoon, as the speakers gave one the impression that they admired him for ignoring his own advisers. It makes more sense I guess now that I’ve read that ‘for better or worse’ part.
Going strictly on how much influence a person has on big pieces of legislation, the President of the United States would win every year. I always thought that the point of the exercise was to pick a person who did something particularly brave, unexpected, and/or unique. Thus Burt Rutan would have been a good choice for this year. By contrast Bush did exactly what he did in 2000, and exactly what everyone expected him to do this year. He fought dirty, and when that didn’t work he fought dirtier, and then repeated the process until he was winning.
First off the economy isn’t in bad shape. Second off everything but getting 51% of the vote happened in previous years.
Very little of this is either a) happening or b) Bush’s fault.
More than any other individual on the globe, Bush affected more lives and world changes during the year 2004 than any other human being.
Excellent …well thought of… choice.
I think it’s a well-deserved award.
Twenty years from now, when historians are digging through the rubble of the United States and trying to find what sent the nation over the edge, all the big blinkin’ neon lights will be pointing at Dubya.
Its confirmed… “Person of the Year” is Bush… sad… sad…
I would have prefered Karl Rove… to make him come out of the shadows a bit.
Who cares? Who died and made Time king? My person of the year is John Kerry, and in four years, 80% of Americans will claim to have voted for him.
Ummm…really?
Can Iraqi hearts and minds still be won? Pentagon’s own report says no.
Rumsfeld to Troops: Deal with it
Abu Ghraib - graveyard of our honor
Arctic melting… Hey! We can get us some more oil!
Global Warming…
Some analysts say Bush’s deficit-cutting plan is an illusion
Bush Says Social Security Accounts to Ease Deficits
US trade deficit bulges to record high
U.S. Trade Deficit Swells to Record $55.5B
Dollar weak after G20 meeting shows little US appetite for action
Dollar weak against euro ahead of US data
US dollar hegemony has got to go
I think there is probably a valid debate on:
- how much of this is Bush’s fault
- how likely the worst-case outcome is (for example, the last one just doesn’t seem very likely to me),
- how important it is
but to say that very little of it is happening just isn’t a statement with any factual backing.
The title of that thread (granted I have only read the summary of the report) is grossly misleading. It doesn’t say that they can’t be won just we are going about
it the wrong way.
This is Rumsfeld’s and the militaries fault not Bush’s
I don’t think you can fault the President for the actions of grunts in the field. The blame lies somewhere in the Command chain for those soldiers.
Global warming has been going on for years, granted Bush hasn’t done much to stop it but neither has any other president.
I’m gonna stop there but you’re right everything in his post is happening to some degree. Little of these have a specific Bush action to blame for. My point for this thread is that Bush has made one extraordinary decision that has changed the course of history but that was all done in '03. The choice of Bush as Man of the Year sucks. The Iraqi insurgent is definately a better choice.
It’s not a terrible choice. Bush has been a newsmaker this year, and has been influential. But I also believe it should have been Karl Rove, who has to this point completely altered the political electoral process (for good or bad) for many years to come.
I notice that President Bush like the Sex Pistols, Black Sabbath and Lynyrd Skynyrd has not been inducted into the Rock Hall of Fame yet U2, The Pretenders; soul veterans Percy Sledge and the O’Jays, and blues guitarist Buddy Guy have. Is this right?
Actually, I believe some of the news reports about this year’s MOTY said that the Time editors were considering Karl Rove, but that he demurred and said they needed to give credit to George. Insert your own comment about slinking in the shadows… 
(Though I believe Karl does get a write-up in Time’s “runners-up” sidebar, along with Michael Moore/Mel Gibson and others.)
I don’t get the push for Rove over Bush. Rove is influentiual to be sure, but if he was equally asw influential as George W. Bush, HE would be the President.
It’s always a cheap choice to pick whoever wins a Presidential election but in this case it’s a geniunely good one.
No.
And to think that there are those out there who consider Time to be a moderate to liberal publication(or at least my neo-con FIL does! To me it reads like a GOP party pamphlet.
What about Howard Dean? IMO he should have been in the running. Or Osama. Or Arifat, for that matter…
We live in strange times.
Maybe he figures it’s easier to get things done if someone else takes the blame for them. Presidents can only serve two terms, but advisors can stick around a lot longer…
I think Time is moderately balanced, though I’m rather peeved that the last-page editorial usually ends up written by either Krauthamer or Sullivan. Can’t say I really find a conservative bias in the rest of the magazine, though.
Needless to say Jean-Lopez at NRO and some of the morons at freerepublic have both concluded that the fact that only three of the last five people of the year have been conservative Republicans is proof of Time’s liberal bias. Which tells us all we need to know, I think, about what conservatives really mean when they complain about the liberal media.
Okay, objectively speaking, why on earth would Howard Dean be a viable candidate? Heck, why would he even be Time’s “Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Year”? Surely he wasn’t as important as John Kerry? I don’t even think he’d be in the top hundred People of the Year.
Remember, it’s not supposed to be for who you like the most, it’s supposed to go to the person or people who affected the news the most. Osama really should have gotten it in 2001, but 2004? We barely heard from him. Arafat? Nah; the PLO is marginalized. Israel’s running the show these days; it’s their actions and the pullout from Gaza that are the big changes right now. Arafat got into the news for dying, but he didn’t have much effect on anything by doing so. Dean? Shit, does anyone even know if he’s still alive?
No, the numero uno newsmaker this year was Bush. His vision - for better or for worse, and I admit I think it’s for worse - is THE driving force behind what’s going on in the world right now.
Nope, in four years, Americans will elect another Republican President! 
Why don’t Team Coaches go out and play the football field themselves then ?
It’s one thing to push around Bush’s buttons and control him… its another to show your face in public and have people sympathsize with you for whatever reason. Karl Rove is the mastermind… but he doesn’t have the political “looks” or “ways” probably to do it himself.
I agree that in the end Bush is the “man” and the face… but Karl Rove was the architect of it all. Putting him as man of the year would jolt people into realizing that there is much more behind Bush than “strong” rhetoric and a homely way. (Not necessarily what TIME magazine wants of course… ) Hopefully some Brit magazine will take care of giving Rove more than his accustomed share of the spotlight.
You’re using two different phrases here that mean two entirely different things, and applying them to one set of criteria.
Yes, Bush made a lot of news, and influenced a lot of news. But Time’s rules for POTY are:
Bush is still a decent pick under that set of criteria. But I think Rove is more appropriate. He alone has vastly altered the political landscape and the political campaign, for many years to come. His influence on this past election is singularly unique. I think you can also argue that since Rove had such an effect on getting Bush re-elected, you can also attribute a portion of Bush’s policies and what some read as Bush’s mandate to Rove himself. THAT is affecting the news, affecting our lives, and is a perfect snapshot of the happenings of the year 2004.