Oh, my.

[Mike Teezie]

I'm speechless.

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041219/ap_on_go_pr_wh/time_person_of_the_year)

[zimv20]

not necessarily a good thing for bush:

The magazine's editors tapped 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."

The magazine gives the honor to the person who had the greatest impact, good or bad, over the year.

Asked on ABC's "This Week" how Bush reacted when he learned of Time's decision, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said the president was "not worried about what pundits might be saying."

other candidates included Michael Moore and Mel Gibson

[Thomas Veil]

Mike, I just got through reading IJ's thread about Bush's Alternate Reality Economic Summit. That left me angry enough.

What're you trying to do, make me go postal?

[Sun Baked]

If it wasn't for Bush, Michael Moore would have had a movie... :p

But this is quite funny, I wonder how the Political Forum will react -- probaby time to close it for another week. :D

Teriffic Christmas present for Bush, and a major slap in the face for everyone still working to invalidate the current election results at this late date. :o

[zimv20]

anyone who thinks this a good thing for bush should read the article. Time gave this to bush because of his impact, not because that impact is positive.

i'll requote from the article:

The magazine's editors tapped 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."

that doesn't sound positive to me.

[Steven1621]

As much as I dislike the man, I agree with the choice. Perhaps Karl Rove might have been another possibility, but he is more so the "puppet master," so to speak.

Bush ran a great election and knew how to get elected. It is a testament to him that he could get elected with all the holes in his policies (at least from my heathen liberal position). Quite amazing that after his terrible debating and Iraq mistake and "more of the same, more of the same" mentality that it still worked out for him.

And who else would be deserving? Michael Moore noooooo.

[3rdpath]

don't forget these other Time people of the year:

1938 Adolph Hitler

1979 Ayatullah Khomeini

[zimv20]

also:

1942: joseph stalin
1957: nikita khrushchev
1998: clinton and kenneth starr

whole list here (http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/stories/).

[MattG]

Yep, scary place we're living in when GWB is "Person of the Year."

[blackfox]

meh.

Churchill was Time's "man of the half Century". FDR was runner-up to Einstein as "man of the Century", an honor he shared with Gandi.

I find those men to be great.

[Mike Teezie]

Mike, I just got through reading IJ's thread about Bush's Alternate Reality Economic Summit. That left me angry enough.

What're you trying to do, make me go postal?

Sorry about that TV.

I sort of did a spit-take when I saw the headlines, followed by a "WHAT?" really loudly.

After reading it more carefully though, I don't feel like its a good thing for the Dub - like Zim said. Definitely not a glowing report of the first four years of Dubya, like I imagined the article would be.

[IJ Reilly]

Yep, scary place we're living in when GWB is "Person of the Year."

Every president since FDR has been named "Man of the Year" by Time at least once. It is no great distinction and certainly not an endorsement.

[solvs]

It's just to sell magazines. Neo-cons buy it cuz Bush is on the cover, Liberals will buy it because it also mentions his mistakes, and above all it gets them publicity. I hate to be so cynical, but it seems pretty obvious. They do have a point though. Love him or hate him, he has made an impact on this country... and the world. For better... or worse.

I'm hoping I'm wrong and it's better, but so far it doesn't seem to be the case.