Time Magazine has selected George Bush as "Person of the Year."
Enough said ....... :mad:
Printable View
Time Magazine has selected George Bush as "Person of the Year."
Enough said ....... :mad:
I think considering he won the election and the majority of America has spoken that Time made a great choice.
Yeah, everyone has their opinion. It just dissapointed me when I read the article. I have publically stated several times that I am NOT a Bush fan. To each his own.
Neither am I . I cant stand Bush. I dont think he deserves this. JMO
Renewing my subscription to TIME magazine!!!
:) LOL!
Amazing, how these decisions get made.
Well, I suppose there wasn't anyone else that had caused more world problems.
Must have been a bad year. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. :rolleyes:
Well, lets see ......
Man of the year, a guy with the worst Napoleon complex I have ever seen. Well, I guess there is no accounting for taste.
(if reading this has made you think, then I have done my job)
darn you pretzel daaarrrnnn you! :D
I agree. How many people on the cover of Time can boast that over half of America likes them at all? ;) He earned it, he deserves it and I may just have to become a subcriber myself..lolQuote:
Originally Posted by justme23
Great choice.....couldn't have been better.
I am so disapointed! stupid choice I think, very stupid
That's ok, I heard he was up for the cover of "Mad" magazine as well. :eek: LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by EricsnKy
ooooooooooh, just got an offer for 10 more years!!!!!!!!!
Not Bush..... TIME wohohoooo!!!!!!!!!!!
not a bush fan at all.and my honest opinion is someone else deserved this award more then him.dont flame me everyone,this is jmo!! ann
He deserves it! He has a job only a very few could/would handle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme23
ITA
Time for me and other family members to cancel our subscriptions now.
He ruins everything for us. :mad:
Bummer, I just knew my DH was gonna make the cover.I guess the Bush's have more money then us..hehe..
Ok, not an opinion, just stating a fact. It doesn't neccessarily mean that they meant he was a "good" person of the year. Adolf Hitler was Time's person of the year in 1938, and Joseph Stalin was their person in 1939. So, think of it as you may.
Michelle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damnifiknw
And oh how I wish he could and oh how I wish he wouldn't.
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlewis23
Hitler won the popular vote too....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linus1223
LOL ! ;)
EXACTLY!!! It just means he was in the news a lot. I mean, wasn't last year or the year before someone like Osama Bin Laden??? (maybe I am wrong...?)Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlewis23
LOL, Bush won the election but the only thing that makes me feel better is knowing he can't run again....
I could go on and on and on and someone stated the majority of the United States voted for him....I just don't get it, it seems the majority of the people that posted to this thread were not for him...the majority of the people I talked to were not for him but then again Kerry won Maine....
Well anyhow I have sucked it up and realize that bush is president for four more years....but doesn't mean I agree with the majority of the United States and yes I do have morals....
I think it should have been a mosaic of all the lost soldiers this year in the war. I dont think Bush deserves Person of the year, those people do. Must be the People who do the thinking for Time didnt really want to think about it
I don't even wanna go there... all these boys are over there fighting and dying for our country and then I pick my son up from the bus station for Christmas, and he says to me, " Mom, I don't wanna sound dumb or anything but who won the election?, we don't even know who the president is, I mean we have heard rumors, but they haven't told us"???????? What the Flip???????????
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...how/965585.cms
this says it all for me
VIEW: Bush is Time magazine's man of the year
[ TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2004 12:00:00 AM ]
Poll victory doesn't justify bad policies
Democracies, or for that matter opinion polls, can seriously err in assessing an individual or a situation. Sadly, the US has elected a man who has wreaked unprecedented havoc on the world. George W Bush is a product of what noted historian Eric Hobsbawm called the clash between middle and coastal America. Middle America is a threatened peasant society that lurches towards aggression and fascism in its search for an anchor. Bush represents its coarse, conservative and nationalist cravings. After 9/11, he managed to convince his people that his country was in a state of siege and needed a strongman like him to take care of them. Armed with the ideology of neo-Conservatism, he let loose his armed hordes on Iran and Afghanistan, seeking to replace their 'despotic' regimes with 'democracy'. It takes staggering arrogance to believe that resentment against a local leader will translate into approval of a foreign power. Bush has run into a bog of problems in Iraq, with the people dead set against his puppet government, even as they had no love lost for Saddam Hussein.
He carries on regardless because he sees the world through the eyes of Samuel Huntington and Bernard Levin. Hence, he is convinced that he is waging an apocalyptic war between the Islamic and western civilisations. That the world's richest country should be led by a colonialist, with no respect or understanding of other cultures and nationalisms, rather than one who stands for America's liberal and inclusive traditions, is distressing. Bush will leave behind a world that looks askance at America. The people of Europe were appalled at the manner in which he chose to invade Iraq, without even a figment of a reason — the weapons of mass destruction never materialised. He walked out on the Kyoto Protocol, again showing no concern for liberal, informed opinion in Europe and his country. As for the economy, he is gradually turning it into a war machine. Does the world want such a person as 'man of the year'?
ya, but remember, we didn't give it to him 4 years ago!Quote:
Originally Posted by Damnifiknw
i know i know I'm evil!
heh.
Everyone has their own opinion.
And, I am of the opinion that that's what makes this country great.
Even though some of you here are wrong. (and that's MY opinion) :P
Well if he was "selected not elected " four years ago thats great cause then he CAN run again in 08.
Seems like 5 feet 11 inches is a tad tall for Napoleon complex. But then again I guess in Texas that's not all that tall!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tisky67
I like that idea...It's a very nice thought. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dlwt
http://a740.g.akamai.net/f/740/606/1...oybush1218.jpg
HIS DOMAIN President Bush in the Oval Office in early December
Person of the Year
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
Eagles rather than doves nestle in the Oval Office Christmas tree, pinecones the size of footballs are piled around the fireplace, and the President of the United States is pretty close to lounging in Armchair One. He's wearing a blue pinstripe suit, and his shoes are shined bright enough to shave in. 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.
"I've had a lot going on, so I haven't been in a very reflective mood," says the man who has just replaced half his Cabinet, dispatched 12,000 more troops into battle, arm wrestled lawmakers over an intelligence bill, held his third economic summit and begun to lay the second-term paving stones on which he will walk off into history. Asked about his re-election, he replies, "I think over the Christmas holidays it'll all sink in."
As he says this, George W. Bush is about to set a political record. The first TIME poll since the election has his approval rating at 49%. Gallup has it at 53%, which doesn't sound bad unless you consider that it's the lowest December rating for a re-elected President in Gallup's history. That is not a great concern, however, since he has run his last race, and it is not a surprise to a President who tends to measure his progress by the enemies he makes. "Sometimes you're defined by your critics," he says. "My presidency is one that has drawn some fire, whether it be at home or around the world. Unfortunately, if you're doing big things, most of the time you're never going to be around to see them [to fruition], whether it be cultural change or spreading democracy in parts of the world where people just don't believe it can happen. I understand that. I don't expect many short-term historians to write nice things about me."
Yet even halfway through his presidency, Bush says, he already sees his historic gamble paying off. He watched in satisfaction the inauguration of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. "I'm not suggesting you're looking at the final chapter in Afghanistan, but the elections were amazing. And if you go back and look at the prognosis about Afghanistan—whether it be the decision [for the U.S. to invade] in the first place, the 'quagmire,' whether or not the people can even vote—it's a remarkable experience." Bush views his decision to press for the transformation of Afghanistan and then Iraq—as opposed to "managing calm in the hopes that there won't be another September 11th, that the Salafist [radical Islamist] movement will somehow wither on the vine, that somehow these killers won't get a weapon of mass destruction"—as the heart of not just his foreign policy but his victory. "The election was about the use of American influence," he says. "I can remember people trying to shift the debate. I wanted the debate to be on a lot of issues, but I also wanted everybody to clearly understand exactly what my thinking was. The debates and all the noise and all the rhetoric were aimed at making very clear the stakes in this election when it comes to foreign policy."
In that respect and throughout the 2004 campaign, Bush was guided by his own definition of a winning formula. "People think during elections, 'What's in it for me?'" says communications director Dan Bartlett, and expanding democracy in Iraq, a place voters were watching smolder on the nightly news, was not high on their list. Yet "every time we'd have a speech and attempt to scale back the liberty section, he would get mad at us," Bartlett says. Sometimes the President would simply take his black Sharpie and write the word freedom between two paragraphs to prompt himself to go into his extended argument for America's efforts to plant the seeds of liberty in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.
An ordinary politician tells swing voters what they want to hear; Bush invited them to vote for him because he refused to. Ordinary politicians need to be liked; Bush finds the hostility of his critics reassuring. Challengers run as outsiders, promising change; it's an extraordinary politician who tries this while holding the title Leader of the Free World. Ordinary Presidents have made mistakes and then sought to redeem themselves by admitting them; when Bush was told by some fellow Republicans that his fate depended on confessing his errors, he blew them off.
For candidates, getting elected is the test that counts. Ronald Reagan did it by keeping things vague: It's Morning in America. Bill Clinton did it by keeping things small, running in peaceful times on school uniforms and V chips. Bush ran big and bold and specific all at the same time, rivaling Reagan in breadth of vision and Clinton in tactical ingenuity. He surpassed both men in winning bigger majorities in Congress and the statehouses. And he did it all while conducting an increasingly unpopular war, with an economy on tiptoes and a public conflicted about many issues but most of all about him.
The argument over whether his skill won the race and fueled a realignment of American politics or whether he was the lucky winner of a coin-toss election will last just as long as the debates among historians over whether Dwight Eisenhower had a "hidden-hand strategy" in dealing with political problems, Richard Nixon was at all redeemable and Reagan was an "amiable dunce." Democrats may conclude that they don't need to learn a thing, since 70,000 Ohioans changing their minds would have flipped the outcome and flooded the airwaves with commentary about the flamboyantly failed Bush presidency. It may be that a peculiar chemistry of skills and instincts and circumstances gave Bush his victory in a way no future candidates can copy. But that doesn't mean they won't try.
In the meantime, the lessons Bush draws from his victory are the ones that matter most. The man who in 2000 promised to unite and not divide now sounds as though he is prepared to leave as his second-term legacy the Death of Compromise. "I've got the will of the people at my back," he said at the moment of victory. From here on out, bipartisanship means falling in line: "I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals." Whatever spirit of cooperation that survives in his second term may have to be found among his opponents; he has made it clear he's not about to change his mind as he takes on Social Security and the tax code in pursuit of his "ownership society." So unfolds the strange and surprising and high-stakes decade of Bush.
For sharpening the debate until the choices bled, for reframing reality to match his design, for gambling his fortunes—and ours—on his faith in the power of leadership, George W. Bush is TIME's 2004 Person of the Year.
Well, at least has brought back some integrity to the oval office...unlike Clinton.
I think Time made a good decision, I gotta say I almost voted for Kerry just so I wouldn't have to deal with him as my senator anymore!
It's not tall anywhere I've lived (LA, SC, NC and GA)Quote:
Originally Posted by cavemtmomma
The thing above about Hitler and Stalin gave me the first grin of my day. :D Thanks!
Wonder which picture they will go with. The one with the halo or the crucifix saying Bush is Lord. :rolleyes:
Their advertisements will probably start being for free bibles and Chevy trucks.
I only read it at the doctor's anyway and he's only up to the 1999 issues.
:D look at it this way, in 5-6 years when he gets caught up... we'll have a new president and you can read it and laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by cleaningla