Time Magazine: Person of the Year 2004
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.
Wonderful!
I had heard rumblings earlier this year that Time would announce “bloggers” as the Person(s) of the Year — however, I think that was just the pajama people being hopeful. Personally, I always think that during war time – American soliders and their families should be named Person(s) of the Year. However, naming President George W. Bush to this does encompass all of that, and more. He fought a helluva campaign and won in a country that is so divided on some pretty major issues such as war, terrorism, national security, taxes, education and health care.
He has stood hard and fast on his policies – - love him or hate him, you always know where this man stands.
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.”
An extraordinary man!
Interview with the President
The Rove Warrior
Don’t Call it a Dynasty
The Benetton-Ad Presidency
Galleries & Graphics: A President’s Life
Path To Power: President’s Family Tree
Paying Homeage: The President visits wounded troops
People Who Mattered: People Who Made the News
In Memorandum: People who Died in 2004
I agree with you Lisa! Another picture to add to my collection.:grin:
Rock on! The man deserves it!
Absolutely, peejz – - he photographs well, too!
I constantly find myself thinking the same thing you said; you always know where the man stands. If he says he is going to do something, it gets worked on. And he is correct; you can measure a man’s sucess by his critics. I don’t think it is yes people that he surrounds himself with. I think they are people that were hired to do the job he laid forth for them.
And man is that man nice on the eyes:smile:
there’s an interesting element of eroticism and romantic love i’ve detected over my last 3,000 or so visits, that appears to show up on little kiity feet towards this fellow, every once in a while.
Just a Girl – your last sentence might be a general statement, but certainly true. [in trackback] what’s a trackback?
shiloh – that Just A Girl is always right
g’morning Lisa. i think i understand what you mean in 6.
but remember, i’m ‘just a guy’.
‘the man of the year’ in Time in ’82 was a computer.
1935 Haile Selassie
1938 Adolf Hitler
1939 Joseph Stalin
1957 Nikita Krushchev
1958 Charles De Gaulle
1971 Richard Milhous Nixon
1972 Nixon and Kissinger
& my two favorites:
1988 Endangered Earth
1992 Bill Clinton
& just for my own amusement…
1995 Newt Gingrich
i guess the lesson here is, be careful of what club you wish to become a member of.
6- You’ve got that right!
I don’t think anyone ‘wishes’ to become a part of it – - it just happens. Time Magazine picks the person who was most newsworthy in the year – - not necessarily good or bad . . but the person who generated the most news.
In 2002 they were considering UBL.
Time just made a very good choice this year. Their choice last year was a good one too.
Excellant point Lisa! 2 years in a row of good choices!
i should have said: be careful of celebrating membership. i appreciate the clarification of the objective nature of being named.
good or bad is not the criteria for the ‘honor’.
peejz – you imply it was a ‘good’ choice. was Hitler a ‘bad’ choice?
and if the choices are so rife with ‘bad’ ones, who cares what a silly magazine says when they’re ‘wrong’ so much of the time?
smenatics. i’m done.
i wonder what the level of interst will be in Time’s selection vs. Sports Illsutrated swimsuit selection.
they’re both pulp entertainment.
that and people’s sexiest man alive, shiloh.
i had heard this year’s time person of the year would be “the american voter.” which would have been kinda cool.
but i do love president bush!
shiloh, “justagirlintheworld” is lisa’s personal blog. and a trackback is a link to another site.
g’morning K. i figured out who Just a Girl was in post 6.
my all time fav is:
1998 Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr.
thanks re: trackback.
I think Bush probably was the most newsworthy person of 2004. As for his steadfastness, its there for a lot of things, but when it comes to others (the assualt weapons ban that he ‘supported’ but wouldn’t lobby for is one example). Its hard to think of a more stubborn, close-minded response to the gay-marriage issue than a constitutional amendment; and its hard to consider another country ordering UN weapons inspectors out of a second country so it can be invaded by the first country. Steadfastness vs. stubborness, I guess; only a value judgement seperates them.
12-15 – wow, look how bitter you sound. buzzkill.
i think it’s a great honor. good choice. great man.
and to think barbara walters chose karl rove as this year’s most fascinating person – pfffft.
Did anyone else get his Christmas card (I think most people did if they contributed to the campaign)? I thought it was so cute how it was postmarked from Texas.
was hitler a good choice? Clinton? as stated, it for those who generate the most news and action.
it does not imply value judgements/success or even positive results.
it just is what it is. i was attempting to communicate that to peejz. i think it objectivity you’re objecting to.
Yes, Hitler was an excellent choice, as was Clinton (as Monica would have been as well). Who do you think was most newsworthy this year shiloh? Because you obviously have another choice in mind.
I had also heard they were considering Mel Gibson along with Michael Moore.
I think THK would have been pretty funny.
i’ve always thought the man of the year should be a ‘peacemaker’. not a proponent of war.
Top 11 Reasons Time Magazine Named Bush Man Of The Year…
11. The CIA insisted.
10. He bought 100,000 subscriptions in the Publisher’s Clearinghouse Sweepstakes.
9. Editors making up for overlooking Barbara Bush as Man of the Year.
8. Doug Flutie turned it down.
7. Just another example of the liberal media conspiracy.
6. Four Words: Contributing Editor Antonin Scalia.
5. Dick Cheney’s photograph scares children.
4. Confusing ballots split vote between Al Gore and Pokemon.
3. Newsweek double-dog-dared them.
2. Time confused him with his father, too.
1. He was nearly elected President!
could it be a woman too shiloh?
Mohammed Mossadegh (Persian: Ù…Øمد مصدق‎) (May 19, 1882 – March 4, 1967) was prime minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953.
he was Time’s man of the year in 1953. he fought against American & British policies that intended to install the Shah as head of government and control oil.
his overthrow by us & the Brits led directly to Islamic fundentalism that is so destructive, & the unrest that led us into Iraq and continues to have disasterous implications.
perhaps, in retrospect, Eisnehower & Dulles should be the men of the year, 50 years later, because i draw a weird historical line bewteeen their decision and 9/11 and Bush being out into the position he finds himself.
this does not change my opinion of the wrongness to invade Iraq.
Queen Elizabeth II was ‘man’ of the year in 1952.
after that, women evidentlly ceased being productive, according to Tieme.
25 – #1 makes no sense now, i admit. on January 20th [?], 2005, i agree America will have it’s first legitimately elected president since Bill Clinton left office.
well, i am off to go watch the pack. hear it’s nice and chilly today for jax
c ya
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.”
link
The winner must be “the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year, for better or for worse.”
Jim Kelly/ Time Magazine, Managing Editor
to who sees this…the slow loading that happened yesterday just started happening again.
—————————————————————————————————
Do you think President Bush was a good choice for Time magazine’s Person of the Year?
Yes 33% 28686 votes
No 67% 58041 votes
Total: 86727 votes
from cnn.com
i imagine fox might have different numbers
33,
By that definition, shiloh, I think that Bush should have been the person of the year last year, moreso than this year. But I think its fair. At least its not Donald Trump. God, I am sick today. Ugg.
Wow 35 rplys total and 18 by shiloh. Who would have guessed.
sandy, sick as in ill, or politically?
sorry peejz. is there a limit i wasn’t aware of? but congragulations on finding another way to insult me.
hope you feel better, sandy.
i am sick of brett favre and interceptions.
as i said, i’m not a football fan. i give sundays to God & current events.
K- are you going to your party?
current event: I hate football again.
only 4pts K.
who are you supporting, football-wise, lee?
42- why is that lee?
I’m a Bears fan. dammit.
But my basketball team won by 37 points. That means #1 for the third straight week!
peejz – i asked you an objective question earlier & you chose to ignore it. that’s not the problem. the problem is in the mirror. go to it & read #36 again./
45- The score was 24-5. Guess who got 5