Should DUers consider voting for Bush as Time's Man of the Year?

[jgraz]

Remember, this is the magazine that picked Hitler in 1938.

If they were to pick one of our party favorites, I'm not at all convinced that we'd be happy with the results. I'd be especially concerned about getting an entire issue devoted to Nancy Pelosi's wardrobe and alleged "cat fights".

On the other hand, there's only one reason to pick Bush: to point out that the man is an abysmal failure. Even Time can't spin it any other way at this point. There are worse ways to ring in the new year than watching the entire MSM discuss what a pathetic loser this man is.

Vote here:
http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2006/walkup/

Full disclosure: I already voted for Gore ;)

[Hoosier Dem]

1. Why not???

It could be argued that Dumbya, more than almost anyone else, siongle-handedly engineered the Democratic take-over of Congress. :toast: (I just realized that this smiley could be the avatar of the Bush twins!)

[madrchsod]

2. i voted several days ago

i`m glad to see my pick the youtube guys are still ahead of bush

[Kelly Rupert]

3. Nah. The world is full of small men of little import.

Ahmadinejad got my vote.

[jobycom]

4. Too much nuancing and strategizing. Vote for someone who casts a positive

image for the world. Gore, Pelosi, Hillary, Spike Lee, Angelina Jolie, Tony Romo... Okay, not really Tony Romo, that's sort of an inside joke about the Romo love fest going on in the sports world... Forget it.

I'd just as soon forget Bush and have him fade from relevance as give him more negative pub. he's done, move along, wake me up when he's on trial for war crimes, treason, and 655,000 counts of capital murder.

[bowens43]

5. No.

[madinmaryland]

6. I don't think he had too much influence this year.

as evidenced by November 7th.

[niyad]

7. you have GOT to be kidding!!

[jgraz]

9. I'm not completely serious, no

Just pointing out that if Time picked him, we probably wouldn't mind so much.

[KamaAina]

8. Absolutely!

[Ian David]

10. That's a good point, but I voted for Gore. Only because Stephen Colbert wasn't on the list.

Who Should Be Person of the Year?
TIME's Person of the Year is 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. Who do you think fits the bill this year?

34% Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
14% The YouTube Guys
13% George W. Bush
12% Al Gore
11% Nancy Pelosi
7% Condoleezza Rice
4% Kim Jong Il
4% Hugo Chavez

I have a feeling that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is winning only because Kamal Ataturk wasn't nominated.
http://askpang.typepad.com/relevant_history/2004/01/poll_pushed.html



I like GORE! Bwahahahahaha!

[jgraz]

11. BTW, anybody wanna guess how long it will take before someone calls me a freeper mole?

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Technically, he is a good candidate

The "award" isn't necessarily an honor. It goes to the newsmaker who, for good or ill, most influenced events.

This is the year Bush became irrelevant, but the President of the United States -- or presumptive president, as is the case -- is usually always someone to consider.

Time has had a nasty habit in recent years of simply picking safe, inoffensive and more often than not anonymous or collective persons of the year. They're too chicken to consider Bush or Al Gore.

This probably reflects my judgment on the times in which we live, but my own choices for "newsmaker of the year", defined as Time would define it, for the last several years are:

2001 - Osama bin Laden
2002 - George W. Bush
2003 - George W. Bush
2004 - Karl Rove
2005 - Cindy Sheehan

Note that in four of the five cases, I consider that the person of the year to be malicious.

This year is a little more difficult. I don't think any single person can take credit for the Democrats' victory in November, although Howard Dean comes closest in that respect. Bush did not control events; events picked him up and slammed him to the ground, and the same goes to other White House aides and cabinet members.

Perhaps this would be a good year to pick an anonymous or collective person. In that respect I would choose Internet bloggers.

[jgraz]

13. Internet bloggers -- great suggestion!

I hadn't even considered that. Apparently neither has Time.

[ContraBass Black]

14. Man of the year is not an honor. It goes to the people who have had

The greatest impact. By the strength of the disasters they have wrought, he, Cheney, and the Republican Congressional leadership should be the Men of every Year.

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. The "people's choice" has little to no impact on who they pick

Time admitted this a few years ago. The acutal choice is made by the chief editors, and because of lead time for printing, they have their selection already by the time the web poll is made available.

[ContraBass Black]

16. They do include a mention of the People's Choice.

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. Yes, but it is just a mention

The actual Person of the Year comes with photographs and usually a lengthy article as to why the person was selected by the editors. This takes time to get put together, much longer than a sidebar that can be preassembled except for vote percentages.

[dtotire]

18. What about Nancy Pelosi?