Full Version: Bush "Man of the Year" - Time Magazine
Time magazine has chosem G.W. Bush as the "man of the year for 2004.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6734249/
Question to debate:
Does he deserve it? Why or why not.
If he doesn't deserve, why was he chosen?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6734249/
Question to debate:
Does he deserve it? Why or why not.
If he doesn't deserve, why was he chosen?
For starters, this is a magazine we are talking about, and an east coast magazine at that. No insult intended to you easterners, but I don't think you understand us westerners.
I am a registered Republican, but also a moderate, and I would not have given GWB the title of Man of the Year. Maybe "lesser of 2 weasels during the last 2 elections".
I am a registered Republican, but also a moderate, and I would not have given GWB the title of Man of the Year. Maybe "lesser of 2 weasels during the last 2 elections".
As I said in the other thread about this, it's a mistake to think of being chosen "Man of the Year" by Time as an honor. Previous "winners" have included Hitler, Stalin, and other bad guys. The "Man of the Year" is simply the person who was most newsworthy in 2004. By that criterion only, he's an obvious choice. Love him or hate him, he certainly dominated the news this year. Other nations of the world watched the US election with unusual interest, so he was a major figure in international news as well.
QUOTE
Does he deserve it? Why or why not.
If he doesn't deserve, why was he chosen?
If he doesn't deserve, why was he chosen?
We must be living in the age where being bolder outweighs making bad choices (Iraq, tax cuts, etc.) First the election on Nov 2. then Presidential medals and now this?? Why don't we just hold a parade for Saddam and Bin laden for being so bold. I mean really, this country is looking like the joke of the 21st century.
As I posted in the related thread. Bush is the person that motivates many in the world to react to his policies. It works with me. I think it works with the previous poster.
Man of the Year, to reiterate Victoria's point is not the same as the finest human specimen of the year.
This is the year of the Bush. His policies, wars, tax cuts, and campaign have been watched closely by the world and reacted to by that world quite strongly.
I think he is a great choice for man of the year.
Man of the Year, to reiterate Victoria's point is not the same as the finest human specimen of the year.
This is the year of the Bush. His policies, wars, tax cuts, and campaign have been watched closely by the world and reacted to by that world quite strongly.
I think he is a great choice for man of the year.
I agree with Victoria Silverwolf that the "honor" is more about newsworthiness than anything else. It would be a mistake to credit any winner of the Time award as being one who somehow "deserves" it through their actions or who overcame a great obstacle. Love him or hate him, you can't deny that he has irrevocably changed the world that we live in. Foreign policy wise, he has taken a different course than any other president in our history. Politically, he and his advisors are seeking to create a new wave of political dominance of the "ownership society" that will perhaps overturn and guide politics in the next fifty years, much as FDR's "new deal" has done.
I can't wait to pick up a copy of Time to read the article. When I read the blurb on the MSNBC website I thought the "honor" was a bit tongue in cheek. If Time lives up to its reputation they will portray the good and the bad points of Bush and let the reader decide. 
QUOTE(Vicky Silverwolf)
As I said in the other thread about this, it's a mistake to think of being chosen "Man of the Year" by Time as an honor. Previous "winners" have included Hitler, Stalin, and other bad guys. The "Man of the Year" is simply the person who was most newsworthy in 2004. By that criterion only, he's an obvious choice. Love him or hate him, he certainly dominated the news this year. Other nations of the world watched the US election with unusual interest, so he was a major figure in international news as well.
Will that stop his supporters from perceiving it as an honour though?
Does he deserve it? Why or why not.
Sure he deserves it. In a year thats seen American troops performing systematic torture, AND bragging about it, as well the detention of human beings against their fundamental human rights then its quite proper that GW Bush should join the Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin in this dubious honour.
I can't think of any one who deserves this distinction more than Bush does.
To bad there isn't a Nobel prize for war so he could be awarded that as well.
Does he deserve it? Why or why not.
There was probably no individual worldwide with a bigger impact on events and opinion, so I believe that he does, good or bad.
Given that the list of recent Nobel "Peace" prize laureates includes Yasser Arafat ... perhaps Bush qualifies for that award?
There was probably no individual worldwide with a bigger impact on events and opinion, so I believe that he does, good or bad.
QUOTE(moif @ Dec 20 2004, 04:02 AM)
Too bad there isn't a Nobel prize for war so he could be awarded that as well.
Given that the list of recent Nobel "Peace" prize laureates includes Yasser Arafat ... perhaps Bush qualifies for that award?
Does he deserve it? Why or why not.
If he doesn't deserve, why was he chosen?
Amen. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Unfortunately, Time’s article starts this way:
What kills me is the positive attention this inept bungler constantly gets from the so-called “liberal” media.
Time goes on to rhapsodize: “He is loose, lively, framing a point with his hands or extending his arm with his fingers up as though he's throwing a big idea gently across the room.”
George W. Bush wouldn’t know a “big idea” if it jumped up and bit him on the posterior. Big mistakes and errors in judgment, maybe, but big ideas? I don’t think so.
I can only guess as to the reasons Time chose Bush. Obsequiousness? Fear?
If he doesn't deserve, why was he chosen?
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf)
As I said in the other thread about this, it's a mistake to think of being chosen "Man of the Year" by Time as an honor. Previous "winners" have included Hitler, Stalin, and other bad guys. The "Man of the Year" is simply the person who was most newsworthy in 2004. By that criterion only, he's an obvious choice. Love him or hate him, he certainly dominated the news this year. Other nations of the world watched the US election with unusual interest, so he was a major figure in international news as well.
Amen. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Unfortunately, Time’s article starts this way:
QUOTE
For sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years, George W. Bush is TIME's 2004 Person of the Year. Time
What kills me is the positive attention this inept bungler constantly gets from the so-called “liberal” media.
Time goes on to rhapsodize: “He is loose, lively, framing a point with his hands or extending his arm with his fingers up as though he's throwing a big idea gently across the room.”
George W. Bush wouldn’t know a “big idea” if it jumped up and bit him on the posterior. Big mistakes and errors in judgment, maybe, but big ideas? I don’t think so.
I can only guess as to the reasons Time chose Bush. Obsequiousness? Fear?
I think choosing Dubya as Time's Person of the Year is appropriate. The only thing I can think of that was more newsworthy is the Iraq War itself. Of course, the Iraq War is the crown jewel of Dubya's foreign policy, so it all leads back to Dubya anyway. The article is a bit obsequious but, hey, it sells.
Given that the list of recent Nobel "Peace" prize laureates includes Yasser Arafat ... perhaps Bush qualifies for that award?
I think the Nobel committee likes to award the Peace Prize "ironically". Arafat shared the prize with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin in 1994. And...um...Henry Kissinger shared the prize with Le Duc Tho in 1973.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
QUOTE(moif)
Too bad there isn't a Nobel prize for war so he could be awarded that as well.
Given that the list of recent Nobel "Peace" prize laureates includes Yasser Arafat ... perhaps Bush qualifies for that award?
I think the Nobel committee likes to award the Peace Prize "ironically". Arafat shared the prize with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin in 1994. And...um...Henry Kissinger shared the prize with Le Duc Tho in 1973.
QUOTE(logophage @ Dec 20 2004, 02:32 PM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
QUOTE(moif)
Too bad there isn't a Nobel prize for war so he could be awarded that as well.
Given that the list of recent Nobel "Peace" prize laureates includes Yasser Arafat ... perhaps Bush qualifies for that award?
I think the Nobel committee likes to award the Peace Prize "ironically". Arafat shared the prize with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin in 1994. And...um...Henry Kissinger shared the prize with Le Duc Tho in 1973.
You're reading my mind. I thought Kissinger / Tho was a bit obscure, but am with you in reasoning. Rummy / Zarquawi in '05???
Please remember that this thread is devoted to discussion of Time Magazine's "Man of the Year" choice. Nobel's policies which are based on a different set of criteria can be examined in a separate thread. Thank you.
TIME magazine made George W. Bush it’s Man of the Year? 
I wholeheartedly agree with their decision. Anyone who can blow a budget surplus, send over 1,300 soldiers to their deaths, fall off his mountain bike, despoil the environment, turn America into a rogue nation, lose three consecutive debates, dodge Vietnam, burn through money like a drunken gambler, have no plan to get us out of Iraq, survive Fahrenheit 9/11 and still get reelected is a guy who had one helluva year.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Dec 20 2004, 06:23 PM)
TIME magazine made George W. Bush it’s Man of the Year? I wholeheartedly agree with their decision. Anyone who can blow a budget surplus, send over 1,300 soldiers to their deaths, fall off his mountain bike, despoil the environment, turn America into a rogue nation, lose three consecutive debates, dodge Vietnam, burn through money like a drunken gambler, have no plan to get us out of Iraq, survive Fahrenheit 9/11 and still get reelected is a guy who had one helluva year.
I agree, but you forgot to add a few, sending the military to Iraq so his oil buddies can make a profit instead of focusing on the real problem which was in Afghanistan, let Bin-Laden escape at Tora-Bora, has deep ties to SA indicating a shady motivation for 9/11, blasting a decorated war hero when he himself dodged Vietnam, destroyed civil liberties with the Patriot Act, is a member of the illuminate that seeks global dominance, and rigged both of the elections.
After all that he still got re-elected (did I miss any?). This man is a pure evil genuis and a stupid idiot all at the same time!
What an accomplishment.
As stated the "award" is given to the most influential/news worthy person.
QUOTE
Does he deserve it? Why or why not.
It's entirely appropriate for a year that has been as rotten as this one.
From the standpoint of the audacity of Bush taking credit for the 9/11 Commission and the security measures signed into law recommended by the same commission that he steadfastly opposed, to the fact that he calls himself a conservative in spite of his spending like a drunken sailor to the point that there are Republicans who are ashamed of him; George W. Bush is truly a marvel.
Dubya deserves recognition, but not in a positive way. He is a tribute to every child of privilege who has squandered his education and spent his life in a careless manner, only to make it big because of his very influential family and a man named Karl Rove.
I think he deserves it, both for the reasons given above and for the more important reason of being the 1st American president since Reagan to actually go into a war with the idea of winning. If we run away, as we always do, do not expect the world to see us as anything other than weak.
The fact that the man was elected with over 4 million more popular votes after the 2000 election, 9/11 and 2 wars, says something about the fact that many see him as a leader.
I am sure this will be a very unpopular opinion here, having read all the nice things many of you have had to say about the man. Diversity of opinion, one of the things that makes the US a great place to live.
The fact that the man was elected with over 4 million more popular votes after the 2000 election, 9/11 and 2 wars, says something about the fact that many see him as a leader.
I am sure this will be a very unpopular opinion here, having read all the nice things many of you have had to say about the man. Diversity of opinion, one of the things that makes the US a great place to live.
Bush certainly was the most newsworthy man of the year in '04.
No one else even comes close.
Past winners:
The Man of the Year Winners
No one else even comes close.
Past winners:
QUOTE
1980 Ronald Reagan
1981 Lech Walesa
1982 The Computer
1983 Ronald Regan & Yuri Andropov
1984 Peter Ueberroth
1985 Deng Xiaoping
1986 Corazon Aquino
1987 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev
1988 Endangered Earth
1989 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev
1990 The Two George Bushes
1991 Ted Turner
1992 Bill Clinton
1993 The Peacemakers
1994 Pope John Paul II
1995 Newt Gingrich
1996 Dr. David Ho
1997 Andy Grove
1998 Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr
1999 Jeff Bezos
2000 George W. Bush
2001 Rudolph Giuliani
2002 The Whistleblowers
2003 The American Soldier
2004 George W. Bush
1981 Lech Walesa
1982 The Computer
1983 Ronald Regan & Yuri Andropov
1984 Peter Ueberroth
1985 Deng Xiaoping
1986 Corazon Aquino
1987 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev
1988 Endangered Earth
1989 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev
1990 The Two George Bushes
1991 Ted Turner
1992 Bill Clinton
1993 The Peacemakers
1994 Pope John Paul II
1995 Newt Gingrich
1996 Dr. David Ho
1997 Andy Grove
1998 Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr
1999 Jeff Bezos
2000 George W. Bush
2001 Rudolph Giuliani
2002 The Whistleblowers
2003 The American Soldier
2004 George W. Bush
The Man of the Year Winners
Yes, I believe he deserves the award,Man of the Year.
Also remember that in 1938, Stalin received it, and in 1942 Hitler received the award.
So I imagine there is a lot of similarity between those 3 people, like a bullying dictator.
Also remember that in 1938, Stalin received it, and in 1942 Hitler received the award.
So I imagine there is a lot of similarity between those 3 people, like a bullying dictator.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Dec 22 2004, 10:35 PM)
Yes, I believe he deserves the award,Man of the Year.
Also remember that in 1938, Stalin received it, and in 1942 Hitler received the award.
So I imagine there is a lot of similarity between those 3 people, like a bullying dictator.
Also remember that in 1938, Stalin received it, and in 1942 Hitler received the award.
So I imagine there is a lot of similarity between those 3 people, like a bullying dictator.
Sour grapes?...anyone?
Let's be constructive in our debates, please.
TOPICS:
Does he (Bush) deserve it? Why or why not.
If he doesn't deserve, why was he chosen?
TOPICS:
Does he (Bush) deserve it? Why or why not.
If he doesn't deserve, why was he chosen?
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Dec 22 2004, 08:35 PM)
Yes, I believe he deserves the award,Man of the Year.
Also remember that in 1938, Stalin received it, and in 1942 Hitler received the award.
So I imagine there is a lot of similarity between those 3 people, like a bullying dictator.
Also remember that in 1938, Stalin received it, and in 1942 Hitler received the award.
So I imagine there is a lot of similarity between those 3 people, like a bullying dictator.
To compare Bush to Hilter and Stalin is beyond the pale. In thirty years folks will be looking back on Bush as they do Reagan now and see how his firmness was very important at at decisive time in history. Does the DNC and those who follow the party line have nothing better to do than compare Bush to murderous tyrants? Moveon.org tried that in the election, and you can see the results. Best tend to your own candidates and policies the American people will acutally see as credible.
QUOTE(ThirdParty @ Dec 23 2004, 06:38 PM)
To compare Bush to Hilter and Stalin is beyond the pale. In thirty years folks will be looking back on Bush as they do Reagan now and see how his firmness was very important at at decisive time in history. Does the DNC and those who follow the party line have nothing better to do than compare Bush to murderous tyrants? Moveon.org tried that in the election, and you can see the results. Best tend to your own candidates and policies the American people will acutally see as credible.
While comparing Bush to Hitler or Stalin may be over the top, I find your assertion that historians thirty years from now will see Bush as another Reagan lacking. Bush has gotten us into much the same type quagmire in Iraq that Johnson got us in in Vietnam. Even former Republican Connecticut Senator Lowell Weicker thinks Bush is the worst. I think Dubya will be rated below average if not a total failure. But then that's why we have historians, so those of us who are still around a generation from now will see.
There is nothing quite as grand as having an “other-worldly” President who's follower's think he's some sort of political messiah. Surely Handel had Bush in mind. Everyone to their feet.
QUOTE(BoF @ Dec 23 2004, 05:54 PM)
QUOTE(ThirdParty @ Dec 23 2004, 06:38 PM)
To compare Bush to Hilter and Stalin is beyond the pale. In thirty years folks will be looking back on Bush as they do Reagan now and see how his firmness was very important at at decisive time in history. Does the DNC and those who follow the party line have nothing better to do than compare Bush to murderous tyrants? Moveon.org tried that in the election, and you can see the results. Best tend to your own candidates and policies the American people will acutally see as credible.
While comparing Bush to Hitler or Stalin may be over the top, I find your assertion that historians thirty years from now will see Bush as another Reagan lacking. Bush has gotten us into much the same type quagmire in Iraq that Johnson got us in in Vietnam. Even former Republican Connecticut Senator Lowell Weicker thinks Bush is the worst. I think Dubya will be rated below average if not a total failure. But then that's why we have historians, so those of us who are still around a generation from now will see.
There is nothing quite as grand as having an “other-worldly” President who's follower's think he's some sort of political messiah. Surely Handel had Bush in mind. Everyone to their feet.
While you are right that only the historians of the future will be able to judge, I don't think Bush has a messiah complex. To the contrary, he has been pretty humble, said what he means, and told folks, "this is who I am , vote for me or not, this is what I stand for". Many Americans liked that. He was not trying to be something other than who he was.
Secondly, if he really is the Dr. Strangelove liberals paint him to be, he would have leveled half the Middle East after 9/11 instead of being deliberate, and making it clear he was after Muslim extremists, not all Muslims.
And his quiet visits to Bethesda with the soldiers point out he does not seek the limelight. If that had been Clinton it would be all over CNN within minutes.
QUOTE(ThirdParty @ Dec 23 2004, 10:08 PM)
I don't think Bush has a messiah complex.
Read what I wrote again, that is, that his followers seem to view him as a Political massiah. While this isn't all of them, some seem to think Bush and Bush alone can "save" the world.
QUOTE(BoF @ Dec 23 2004, 09:18 PM)
QUOTE(ThirdParty @ Dec 23 2004, 10:08 PM)
I don't think Bush has a messiah complex.
Read what I wrote again, that is, that his followers seem to view him as a Political massiah. While this isn't all of them, some seem to think Bush and Bush alone can "save" the world.
I would say you are incorrect. Most intelligent and rational people don't agree with everything a political leader does. For example, I voted for Bush because of the War on Terror issues, by far the stronger candidate, and his tax policies. I don't care for some of his social policies, nor spending policies.
There are zealots in any political party, right or left, that will turn a blind eye to their candidates weaknesses. Certainly, The President has those who think he can do no wrong. However, most would say that he is not a Messiah. He doesn't need to save the world, just defend the USA and our way of life from a bunch of murderous thugs who think nothing of killing women, beheading innocents, or using children as suicide bombers.
This is the third and final warning before this thread is closed. There are specific questions that have been posed for debate regarding Time magazine's choice of Bush for Man of the Year:
Does he (Bush) deserve it? Why or why not.
If he doesn't deserve, why was he chosen?
Does he (Bush) deserve it? Why or why not.
If he doesn't deserve, why was he chosen?
QUOTE(BoF @ Dec 23 2004, 07:54 PM)
While comparing Bush to Hitler or Stalin may be over the top, I find your assertion that historians thirty years from now will see Bush as another Reagan lacking.
I'm not sure about thirty years from now, but eventually - if America regains its sanity - I think ThirdParty is quite right: both Bush and Reagan will be viewed similarly - as among the worst things ever to have happened to this country.
For that reason, yes, of course Bush merits Time's Person of the Year. I think they put it best themselves in response to a letter written to complain of Bush's "honor":
QUOTE
Dear Reader:
We regret your disappointment over the selection of President Bush as TIME's Person of the Year. But perhaps we should remind you of the traditional standard by which the editors make their annual choice. The Person of the Year is not an award or a tribute. The question at the center of the selection process is, Who or what, for better or worse, has affected the way we live today? The answer to that question could be a force for good (for example, Winston Churchill, Man of the Year, 1940; Dwight Eisenhower, 1944) or for evil (Adolf Hitler, Man of the Year, 1939; Ayatulllah Khomeini, 1979). And to the latter, President George W. Bush must be added for 2004 -- there is no one else whose agenda and actions in the past year had such
universal impact. As managing editor Jim Kelly noted in his Letter From the Editor, Bush has had his highs and lows over the past four years, but in the end he prevailed in the 2004 election by "persuading a majority of voters this time around that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years."
Thank you for writing. We appreciated having the opportunity to respond to your concerns.
Best wishes.
TIME Letters
We regret your disappointment over the selection of President Bush as TIME's Person of the Year. But perhaps we should remind you of the traditional standard by which the editors make their annual choice. The Person of the Year is not an award or a tribute. The question at the center of the selection process is, Who or what, for better or worse, has affected the way we live today? The answer to that question could be a force for good (for example, Winston Churchill, Man of the Year, 1940; Dwight Eisenhower, 1944) or for evil (Adolf Hitler, Man of the Year, 1939; Ayatulllah Khomeini, 1979). And to the latter, President George W. Bush must be added for 2004 -- there is no one else whose agenda and actions in the past year had such
universal impact. As managing editor Jim Kelly noted in his Letter From the Editor, Bush has had his highs and lows over the past four years, but in the end he prevailed in the 2004 election by "persuading a majority of voters this time around that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years."
Thank you for writing. We appreciated having the opportunity to respond to your concerns.
Best wishes.
TIME Letters
The emphasis is mine - but their characterization of Bush as "a force for evil" strikes me as wholly appropriate. Frankly, I saw no forces for good this year - and I cannot think of a greater force for evil. While, technically, it should have been "the Bush administration", I guess they had to single out the figurehead. This administration - as a force for evil - earned that cover.
I think Bush is the clear winner for the award. The war in Iraq, his re-election of the the most powerful nation in the world, the controversies, the changes. I really don't have a lot to say on this besides that regardless of one's personal feelings of Bush he has had significant impact on the world and news coverage. Wow, I love being liberal, I wonder how many conservatives thought Bin Laden was the clear winner a few years back... he got robbed, though ... and the Time's Man/person of the Year lost a lot of credibility to me.
While I agree that Bush has earned the distinction, I would have spiced up the
cover by including all of the key figures in the Bush administration, as well as
John Kerry
.
When you look at the cover you'd see a holograph of Bush, and barely noticeable,
underneath his image, would be Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Kerry, etc. All of
these individuals were part and parcel to Bush's "success" and notoriety.
cover by including all of the key figures in the Bush administration, as well as
John Kerry
.When you look at the cover you'd see a holograph of Bush, and barely noticeable,
underneath his image, would be Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Kerry, etc. All of
these individuals were part and parcel to Bush's "success" and notoriety.
QUOTE
Does he deserve it? Why or why not.
Oh sure, given the rationale the Time editors put out. Hey, it's not really an honor, you see? Very bad people have been on this cover!
I'm chewing on that, over and over. Not an honor. Not an honor.
Still can't swallow it. GWB's face plastered across the land, at every checkout line in every supermarket, most folks only seeing the cover and not the rationale.
It's an honor. Pure and simple. Now, regarding the Time editors' reasons for picking GWB? I'm pretty jaded here -- keep job, get bonus, maybe an award.
Sell more magazines by both attracting and jarring? I can see the marketing brilliance in that idea. Bush supporters might buy the rag and frame the cover. Bush detractors might buy the rag and use it for dart practice. Either way rags sell, ads sell, and that's the business.
In this sense, GWB is a perfect choice, the one I'd make if in the business.
Gosh..looking at that list of winners posted previously, I was rather shocked to notice it truly is Time's MAN of the year.
Well, TIME's selection of G.W. Bush has not encouraged me to buy their magazine. Those of us who don't like it merely won't buy or haven't bought this edition.
I will say one thing about the man: he is consistent. When he was out clearing brush on his Crawford ranch he took his sweet old time responding to the tsunami catastrophe, which is similar to the time he spent musing over The Pet Goat
in a Florida elementary school classroom while the nation was under attack.
I will say one thing about the man: he is consistent. When he was out clearing brush on his Crawford ranch he took his sweet old time responding to the tsunami catastrophe, which is similar to the time he spent musing over The Pet Goat
in a Florida elementary school classroom while the nation was under attack.
Well, for anyone who found TIME's choice of Man of the Year objectionable, I might suggest that you try the most recent issue of NEWSWEEK featuring Illinois Senator-elect Barack Obama on the cover as one of the "Rising Stars" of 2005.Obama is one of the freshest faces on the political scene and a true hope for a Democratic Party in search of new blood. I hope Senator Obama finds common ground with the President when he can, but provides "loyal opposition" where he feels necessary.
Though I don't think I needed to know that in a recent Will & Grace episode, Grace dreamed of being in the shower with Obama who was 'Ba-racking my world!.'
Errrr....
QUOTE(Antny @ Dec 19 2004, 10:48 AM)
Time magazine has chosem G.W. Bush as the "man of the year for 2004.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6734249/
Question to debate:
Does he deserve it? Why or why not.
If he doesn't deserve, why was he chosen?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6734249/
Question to debate:
Does he deserve it? Why or why not.
If he doesn't deserve, why was he chosen?
Of course President Bush deserved to be named "Man of the Year" by Time. He won the biggest election conducted in the world in 2004 and his reelection will have more impact on more people than any other comparable contest.
I'm sure some will resent the choice though. The level of hatred, most of it irrational, that has been aimed at this president is quite staggering.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Dec 31 2004, 11:36 AM)
Well, for anyone who found TIME's choice of Man of the Year objectionable, I might suggest that you try the most recent issue of NEWSWEEK featuring Illinois Senator-elect Barack Obama on the cover as one of the "Rising Stars" of 2005.Obama is one of the freshest faces on the political scene and a true hope for a Democratic Party in search of new blood. I hope Senator Obama finds common ground with the President when he can, but provides "loyal opposition" where he feels necessary.
Though I don't think I needed to know that in a recent Will & Grace episode, Grace dreamed of being in the shower with Obama who was 'Ba-racking my world!.'
Errrr....
Obama certainly is the media's "flavor of the month". For a guy who has accomplished nothing in the US Senate, he sure is getting a lot of hype. The rookie has served exactly zero days and already he's been annointed as a "star".
One speech does not make a career. Just ask Mario Cuomo.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.