soma

Time magazine named George W. Bush as the person of the year. Although I'm not a big fan of GW, I can't deny that he has had a great influence on the events of 2004.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: http://www.time.com/time/personofthe...004/story.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suave

Oh goodie. Time has lost all credibility. Having a great influence is not the same as a positive one. That's awful, but then again, Time has always sucked at the whole "person of the year" thing anyway.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

gh0ti

Wow. History sure has a cynical way of repeating itself.

__________________
I ain't often right but I've never been wrong
It seldom turns out the way it does in the song
Once in a while you get shown the light
In the strangest of places if you look at it right

soma

The person of the year is chosen for his or her influence on the events of the year (positive or negative). This being the case, I can't dispute Time's decision. But I'm sure Time chose someone as loved and hated as Bush to stir up some controversy and more importantly, increase magazine sales.

Seaver

Just when you think the left is done with the Bush = Hitler...

connyosis

Well not that I like Bush, but we have to all agree that he has influenced a lot of what has happened the last year. I think it's pretty appropriate that he gets this title.

Oh and please, stop with the Bush = Hitler thing. Sure Bush is bad (IMHO) but he is not as insane as Hitler, honestly...

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

roachboy

lots of people liked fascism the last time out.
people who were worried about economic instability, about the status of the Nation. rather than look at the situation squarely--only communists do that---the problem was Resolve which can only be achieved through total mobilization, the leaking of military values into everything, becoming intertwined with psuedo-religious discourse about the Nation itself. this Resolve required an Enemy, preferably one that was not quite locatable...it worked out quite well for these folk..they liked fascism then.

of course, it was easier to like it before the story unfolded.
so we have learned from the past:
this time, folk like a parallel type of ideological "reality"
but they do not like the word fascism.
therefore, bushworld is totally other than fascism-lite.
because we do not like the name.
q.e.d.

curiously, i agree that the bush=hitler equation is not helpful.
it is too inflammatory: it is not quite accurate.
but i do not think that you can erase the underlying matter--whether and how bushworld resembles a kind of fascism--by objecting to the superficial equation of bush with hitler.

as for time magazine.....what is there to say, really?
it is time magazine.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ARTelevision

I'm pleased that this good and decent human being and, IMO, great leader is the focus of this important story. Seeing him recently in person, reinforced my admiration for his human qualities.

__________________
create evolution

Manx

That gave me a chuckle.

If Time was going for the impressive master manipulator, they should have chosen Karl Rove. I mean, why focus on the figure head when you're supposed to be delving deep into the issues?

edit: I bet they'd sell more magazine's with pretty boy George than stodgy old Karl. And isn't that the nature of the biz?

Tex

Wow, I guess nowadays it doesn't take much to qualify as a good and decent human being. I'm glad to know that If I ever send 1,000+ Americans and thousands upon thousands of innocent foreign civilians to their deaths for no apparent reason, I'll be looked upon as a good person.

__________________
"All I know is that I know nothing..."

ARTelevision

The reason stated in the post above has nothing to do with my previous statement regarding my assessment of the humanity of the President of the United States.

__________________
create evolution

Fourtyrulz

From the Time website...

I think it would be hard to argue that Bush hadn't been the most influential figure of 2004.

Tex

Oh really now? Then what in your view constitutes a decent, "humane" person?

Surely it's someone who doesn't kill? Surely it's someone who doesn't steal from the poor to give to the rich? How about someone who doesn't lie? Maybe someone who doesn't destroy the very habitat in which he lives in?

__________________
"All I know is that I know nothing..."

ARTelevision

I'm not aware that this man ever killed anyone. I'm not aware of any conviction for theft, either. I do believe he clears brush from his ranch. But I do that too and I'm a pretty decent and "humane" person.

I acknowledge the fact that not everyone shares my assessments here. They are, in fact, my own.

__________________
create evolution

Ilow

Bush=Hitler IS too inflammatory and somewhat innaccurate, however, there are enough similarities to add a touch of irony to Time's selection. Some parallels do exist. For instance, each believed/s that if the world were shaped in his image it would be better, each relied on recent historical events in an attempt to drum up domestic support, and each was/is impressively successful at painting non-supporters as heritical or un-patriotic.
Time magazine has become the Cosmo of "news" periodicals. You only have to look as far as their regular cover stories on the bible and christianity to see where their bias originates from.

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

Seaver

So did... pretty much every leader in history. I cant wait for the Eisenhower = Hitler things now...

Ustwo

Don't forget Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, they ordred men to their deaths as well.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Konichiwaneko

my god, seeing you guys try to attack Art like vultures is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

What dictates that your belief of a better human is more worthwhile then his? He didn't step on your feet by saying the person you believed in was an absolute failure. It's pure illogical hate like that that makes things bad.

Even if you don't agree with Art, or other forum members doesn't mean you are intellectually or morally superior to them. How crass.

I can honestly say some of the members in this thread are absolutely pathetic.

__________________

Kadath

"The ironing is delicious." -- Homer Simpson

Can we stop bickering, please? I am (as Art will attest) one of the worst offenders on this board and I came back to the forum after the weekend and was literally exhausted by the bickering and ad hominem attacks on people. If I think it's too much, we have really sunk pretty low.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Mobo123

it's really too bad there isnt a smilie for throwing up. shrub is the tail of the dog. All those who put him in office are the dog.

I dont know which was the bigger gut shot. Cal losing the rose bowl to inbred texas coaches or watcing these inbred southerners put shrub back in office.

Mojo_PeiPei

^^^

"French Stewart, your answer? Threive, a combination of the numbers three and five. And your wager? Texas with a dollar sign."

"Simply Shocking."

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

pedro padilla

excuse me while I vomit......

ARTelevision

I don't think I've been personally attacked here.

Of course the group collectively known as "Bush supporters" is one of those groups that is often the target of fascinatingly clumsy and quite transparent generalization.

__________________
create evolution

pedro padilla

Time also picked Stalin for the years 39 and 42 and ayatollah Khomeni in 79. I vote for Dick Cheney. Emperor of the world.

Rdr4evr

How true. Here is a smiley for you by the way......we can share this feeling.

Konichiwaneko

Yea I may have overreacted Art but not to a point were I would even think of an appology to anyone I offended. I still stand strong that in your post you didn't find a need to put down anyone, while seeing others take stabs at a person they don't even personally know (in this case our president).

There are liberals on this forum who stand for what they believe in and give great evidence, and their are conservatives the same. It's those (on both side) that demean people and their point of views that irk me so.

__________________

pedro padilla

There are liberals on this forum who stand for what they believe in and give great evidence, and their are conservatives the same. It's those (on both side) that demean people and their point of views that irk me so.[/QUOTE]

Huh? sorry, maybe i did one too many bong hits. But what?.....

Manx

So we can't take stabs at someone (the Prez.) we don't even personally know, but you're allowed to praise the same person (the Prez.) you don't even personally know?

How does that work?

Konichiwaneko

OH you could say what you want, thats your right. Me personally I'm not going to spend my time and life trying to put down and make fun of others only because I don't agree with them. There's a difference in defending what you believe in and attacking those who don't believe the same as you. I mean read the few post above us Manx, look how many people (mostly on the left in this thread) start immediately with a snide comment meant to demean either our President or the right.

Doesn't it strike you odd that they start that way? Even after people saying that TIME releases this based on whoever changes the world the most that year. I think a majority of us could agree that Osama is probably bad, and didn't he get on the cover? I bring that point up because some of the reponses on this thread is written by people with complete emotional hate just because of one simple event.

Heh I can't believe in the year 2000 how I too wanted to leave the united states because George Bush won, how I hated our massive alliance with Israel, and how I thought the world was going to end. I remember well blaming Bush in his early years on all our trouble with the economy and with the 9/11 issue. Then I realize I didn't have all the answer, that I was stupid myself. I was cutting down anothers point of view with one I thought was superior when I didn't even have all the answers. I realize then that if I had a healthy discussion and got both sides of the fact, I could come to my own personal realization of the matter and be comfortable with myself. Through personal research and casting emotional feeling aside I've come to realize that "Hey that George Bush guy isn't so bad". This is from a HUGE Clinton fan. I absolutely adored Bill Clinton, and now I'm a George Bush fan.


I really wish those who were nuetral would come out and talk. I wanted at first to show that I was open minded to both sides, but I guess some people may assume I'm too right now. Really do I want someone neutral to come and take a active study and compare the debate style of those on this forum who are left and who are right.

I would put a lot of money on the fact that left debate style would be more Insulting and abusive then the Right.

__________________

alansmithee

You could make this claim about any politician. The democratic messiah Bill Clinton would have fit this profile perfectly. Actually Clinton would form a better parallel to Hitler: after both came into power people who supported them and might have incriminating info about them mysteriously started killing themselves.

Manx

Not really. I see it as a method of release of built up frustration at the effectual banging your head against the wall process of dealing with conservatives.

Maybe it isn't the kindest, most gentlest thing - but kindness and gentleness seem to have no place in politics, of either ideology.

Manx

I'd take that bet in a NY minute. Alas, any neutral study that swings my way would be denounced by conservatives as liberal bias.

pedro padilla

no, it´s not the bong hits. You are definately way more high than I.

Seaver

'

um... off topic, and VERY insulting.

Konichiwaneko

Why thank you Pedro for being so enlightening.

Now tell me in what ways has any of your post on this thread been helpful rather then harmful?

__________________

Konichiwaneko

Well that's a pity, I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

I just find it interesting that the traits that some people say come from those "Inbred Southerners" show in your point of view. You know like being offensive, being irrational, and being angry show so glaringly.

__________________

Manx

I have most certainly not been irrational.

splck

Osam Bin Laden should have been man of the year in 2001 (based on the above quote) instead of Rudy Giuliani, but if picked, I would imagine the people of the US would have set thier hair on fire.

Having picked Bush as man of the year, Time has shown they are willing to pick someone based on the negative influence aspect IMO.

__________________
nice line eh?

host

I am dismayed that such a poor excuse for a human being, and, IMO, the
worst president that this country's government has ever been subjected to,
has been chosen as Time's "Man of the Year.

I recognize that the truth about Bush's decency and his humanity probably
lies somewhere below Art's opinion, and somewhere above my opinion. One of
us has an opinion that is much closer to the truth than the other. Here is
some information on historians' opinions:

stevo

A polling of historians is hardly a random sample. Its perhaps as biased a sample as one could get. Most historians are self-proclaimed liberals and anti-war to begin with. Nice find.

A lot of the members in this thread are pretty harsh. You can't base your opinions on someone because of a SNL skit or propaganda passed off as a documentary. Cynicisim can blind. Got PRK?

In 3 generations Bush will be viewed as one of the most (positively) influential presidents this nation ever had.