Bush 43 is the logical choice for "Man of the Year". Keep in mind that the award is for the person who most affected, or had the greatest effect on, the world and people for that year, good OR bad. Some here will say it was for the good. Others will say for the bad.

Everybody's entitled to their opinion. I'll say this,though: He was "misunderestimated" yet again.

Tony

Substitute "logical" for "only" and I agree. I think only vs logical is probably the same thought process, but one is for the willing and one for the reluctant.

Frankly, who else is there?

Certainly no one individual who had as much of an impact on world affairs this past year as he did, for sure. I imagine the discomfiture in Europe will go up another couple of notches over this one. But they didn't go for the popular choice. As you say, the went for the ONLY choice.

T.

In recent years Time has considered making Sheik Usama Bin Ladin the "Man of the Year" since, during that time frame, he did influence the news more than any other person.

I think the editors made a judgement call not do that since it may have been so inflammatory.

I certainly like the "American Soldier" as Person of the Year. That was very nice.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

There is no way I would call him Person of the Year. Let's not forget about certain biases the mainstream media has when it comes to covering anything "newsworthy". I would bet, there are plenty of people who have been doing things all over the world that would be far more newsworthy than Bush choosing a new cabinet (or whatever else he actually does).
Just because your face is plastered all over the news doesn't mean it is there for a reason. The love/hate relationship the public has for their President, dictates he be on the news no matter if he has really done anything globally or not.
What has he really done that is newsworthy this year. Sure he won an election, however, what has he done to make himself Person of the Year globally?

Good lord, man. Your hatred for this guy drips from every letter of your post. He's set out to completely remake the face of the Middle East by FORCING democracy into the region. He's invaded and conquered two foreign countries so far, and he's forced Europe into an "us or them" decision. He's also helped alter the balance of power between Republicans and Democrats in the United States. He's done more to polarize politics in this country than any President since Nixon. The list is endless. And all very, very memorable. He was the ONLY choice.

His name is probably pretty much on the lips of every person on this planet. For good or bad, he inspires more emotion from more people than anybody so far in the new millenium, and he's certainly been the most memorable President to come down the pipe since FDR.

T.

Actually, not really. I like and dislike various things about him. But that really is a whole seperate thread. :)

I think my issue stems more from the side of how people are perceived by the media and who actually are the newsmakers. I will give you the fact that it appears as though he is doing all of what you stated below, however, how much of it does he REALLY have his hand in. To me, politicians are just a step above a total figure head. They stand there, sometimes talk a good talk, but really they don't have too much say in what actually gets done. It is everyone underneath them that really is newsworthy to me.

I will agree with you though that he does/is inspires more emotion in people than I have seen in a long time. But I think he is getting a lot more credit than he deserves.

I think my issue stems more from the side of how people are perceived by the media and who actually are the newsmakers.

Interesting take on it. Who'd be your candidate for person of the year?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

i'm confused ... are you categorizing the things you're saying about him good things? i'm seriously inquiring, not taunting.

i personally think that the guy has been an abysmal failure who has weakened our economy, our esteem in the world community, and threatened civil rights in new and inventive (unconstitutional?), ways. would this be a possible resume' for a man of the year?

again, i'm not making an argument against it, just asking ... is "international impact" all that is required, as in could it be Nelson Mandela one year and Saddam Hussein the next?

i always had the impression that "Man of the Year" was a laudatory award presented to the person that did the most positive or courageous or innovative whatever ... not just made the most noise, good or bad.

Great question Vitus. To be honest, I hadn't thought about it. If I think of someone I will post it for sure.

M~

So was Hitler.

He is in unique company along with Adolf Hitler, Chiang Kai Shek, and Josef Stalin, who actually got the award twice.

It's not like this is some sort of award. They don't get a trophy or a prize, and past recipients have included Chiang Kai Shek, Hitler, Stalin, Krushev, Ayatollah Khomeini, Sadat, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, and Arrafat. it's also not like GWB hasn't already been on the cover. He was person of the year for '00. Also, other things that have made this cover have been the computer, people under 25, the American Soldier/Fighting Man, the Earth, and even Ted Turner. Virtually every President since the 20's has made the cover at least once.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

 

I think the editors made a judgement call not do that since it may have been so inflammatory.


One might also look at the the current choice and say that Time magazine is brilliant at selling it's product. All the Bush supporters will buy the magazine and all the Bush haters will buy it so they can read it and bitch about what it says. So I would have to say bravo to Time for knowing what sells. :) Pretty smart marketing in my opinion.
I am still trying to come up with an alternative....