It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: President Bush Named Times Person of 2004

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 06:03 PM
The editors of Time magazine has named President George Bush as their person of the year for the second time. Citing a variety of reasons including: 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. They also took into account the fact that he remains one of the most polarizing figured in the world. Bush in the interview for the article said that he relishes the fact that some people dislike him, stating that he takes delight in the people who oppose him.
NEW YORK - After winning re-election and "reshaping the rules of politics to fit his 10-gallon-hat leadership style," President George Bush for the second time was chosen as Time magazine's Person of the Year.

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."

Time's 2004 Person of the Year package, on newsstands Monday, includes an Oval Office interview with Bush, an interview with his father, former President George H. W. Bush, and a profile of Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Time in the past has made some controversial choices, and this will remain no exception. Part of it no doubt is to sell magazine and this will do so in spades. Like him or hate him, people will buy the magazine just to see what it says. It is a good choice no matter what your feelings are. His effect on America and the world is profound and its good or bad depending on perspective.

Related Discussion Threads:
Bush is to be awarded ..Man Of The Year..

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 06:09 PM
I like the discussion on this topic better over here:

It's five pages long already.

Bush joins Hitler, Stalin and the Ayatollah Khomeini in this coveted cover spot.

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 06:26 PM

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Bush joins Hitler, Stalin and the Ayatollah Khomeini in this coveted cover spot.

Also, Ghandi and others. However, as I stated like him or not, its a good choice. Yes, by all means the link is posted in the story if you did not notice for the active ATS thread.

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 08:12 PM
Bush didn't do any of that. Karl Rove should of been 'Person of the Year'.

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 08:32 PM
I believe the underlying agenda is to give Bush recognition, accolades, and an all around thumbs up to distract from the fact that he is an inadequate leader at best, has no real opinion past the unspecific, vague rheotoric he passes off in his speeches(seriosly, listen to him the next time he speaks, all of his words are meant to convey an emotive meaning rather than state a fact).

I'm sure the few but powerful people who control the media, and thus communicate the information we use to derive our opinions about people we don't interact with(hint, hint) have decided to help balance the negative image with positve, uplifting messages. How else to explain the "success" of an elitist who lied about his reasoning to wage war against a SYMBOLIC threat?

I am very disappointed in this particular news decision, the election, etc....

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 08:44 PM
I feel like I should quote Sauron in this case;

Originally posted by Sauron
Does it sound like that statement belongs in 1984
Bush man of the year why do I choke when that passes through my mind. This is the cover I would like to see

[edit on 19/12/2004 by Sauron]

So any chance that Fox made some last minute donations to Time Magizine? I can't believe Dubyas man of the year. The only magizine were he should get that title is Super Villian Monthly.

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 09:04 PM
When I opened my browser this morning, I was in total shock to see Bush win the Man of the Year Award at TIME magazine.
Wasn't it mere weeks ago that the election was being talked about in the media, and in not the best of lights. Before the election, most of the media seemed to be against Bush and his policy.

He seems to epitomize the direction the country is leaning, and is a good choice in that respect. And, he is a far better choice that these three:

Kelly said other candidates included Michael Moore and Mel Gibson, "because in different ways their movies tapped in to deep cultural streams," and political strategist Rove, who is widely credited with engineering Bush's win. Kelly said choosing Rove alone would have taken away from the credit he said Bush deserves.

complete story

(for the record, I voted for Bush...twice)

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 09:54 PM
Love or hate Bush there is some merit in giving him man of the year award. Like it or Bush won re election in a divide America that must count for something.
As for the likes of Iraq well unless miracles happen the next president will inherit the problems.

posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 12:11 AM

Originally posted by curme
Bush didn't do any of that. Karl Rove should of been 'Person of the Year'.

I agree with you there and time does have an interview with him. Rove made it happen.

posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 10:03 PM
... to the forces of corruption are the forces of anti-corruption.

For those who know the POTUS is no POTY:

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:25 PM
TIME responds to reader furor over picking Bush as person of the year

Time Magazine has issued this form letter to all readers who complained about the magazines choice of President George W. Bush as person of the year.

Dear Reader:

We regret your disappointment over the selection of President Bush as TIMEs Person of the Year.

But perhaps we should remind you of the traditional standard by which the editors make their annual choice. The Person of the Year is not an award or a tribute. The question at the center of the selection process is, Who or what, for better or worse, has affected the way we live today? The answer to that question could be a force for good (for example, Winston Churchill, Man of the Year, 1940; Dwight Eisenhower, 1944) or for evil (Adolf Hitler, Man of the Year, 1939; Ayatullah Khomeini, 1979).

And to the latter, President George W. Bush must be added for 2004 there is no one else whose agenda and actions in the past year had such universal impact. As managing editor Jim Kelly noted in his Letter From the Editor, Bush has had his highs and lows over the past four years, but in the end he prevailed in the 2004 election by persuading a majority of voters this time around that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years.

Thank you for writing. We appreciated having the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

Best wishes.

TIME Letters

and a reader responds again to Time magazine:

Dear Time Magazine,

With all due respect, a significant number of us do not for a minute believe that Bush prevailed by convincing a majority of voters he deserved a second term.

If you would turn your attention to recent developments in both Ohio and Florida, you may have chosen your person of the year differently.

Hearings, forums and numerous published data, including statistical analysis by at least three Ph.Ds suggest there was indeed voter intimidation, supresssion and tampering in both Ohio and in Florida. Several lawyers have filed charges in state courts. This is not conspiracy theory dialogue, mind you. Nor are they the the ravings of Internet bloggers. Every day new developments come forth and all are confirmed.

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 07:47 PM
As usual, thank you, Masked Avatar.

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 07:56 PM
We now will have to change Mr. Bush picture for the magazine.

He should be on leader straps and with a whip on his hand, also Cheney should be in his knee on the floor with a black hood on his head, while Rumsfled is in the background taking pictures

That is the ideal picture.

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:52 PM

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I like the discussion on this topic better over here:

I took this to mean that you would not be gracing us with your further presence on this thread oh Masked one?

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 10:07 PM
No, you misread.

I prefer the discussion over there. But I will discuss here too. Freedom is a wonderful thing - be careful that you don't lose it.

Time's response to disgruntled readers was interesting.

Thank you for providing the topic, and sticking to the knitting.

[edit on 21-12-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 10:14 PM
Yes, back to the topic: No doubt they knew that this would spark a good deal of unrest hence greater readership and the small price that they pay in canceled subscriptions will no doubt be worth it. They may also be making a concerted attempt to court more red state readership and we at ATS should keep tabs to see if thier editorial slant begins to change.

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 12:18 AM
They chose Hitler as 'Man of the Year' once, so Dubya is in good company.
Hitler - Man of the Year 1939

Hitler Cover

Meanwhile, heres the original 'Dubya cover'

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 12:18 AM
Thats a good point about Time wanting to increase readership. Who knows maybe this will get people to actually learn about what happens in the real world. I'll bet the Time is going to milk this cow as long as possible. Then next year they'll choose some other unpopular person.

Sounds a bit like how Bush beat J.K. Rowling one year. A lot of people liked Rowling yet Bush won. There was a lot of heat about that, maybe Time wants to use Bush as much as possible to infuriate people for the sake of attention.

new topics

top topics


log in