Faint praise: In the Yahoo story,
President Bush Named Time's Person of 2004, we read that Bush was chosen:
- "for sharpening the debate until the choices bled"
- "for reframing reality to match his design"
- "for gambling [our] fortunes ... on his faith in the power of leadership"
- [And who remains] "a polarizing figure in America and around the world"
In other words:
For bullying political opponents in order to gamble our fortunes on policies not grounded in reality. And pissing off half the country and most of the world in the process.
UPDATE:
Time also cites Bush's "clear-cut election victory." But it wasn't that big a victory. A 3% margin of the popular vote. A 286 - 252 Electoral College
result. One that could have been reversed if one medium and one small state went for Kerry instead of Bush (i.e. 18 EV). Clear cut? No.
posted by Quiddity at 12/19/2004 09:16:00 AM
You realize of course that if Kerry had won with exactly the same margins of victory the "libera" media would always precede any comments about him as:
"President Kerry, who, with a small margin of victory beat Bush, is attempting to ....(fill in the blank), in spite of lacking a clear mandate."
But then again, there is a liberal bias in the media so what can one expect?
Woe is me.
I was as appalled as anyone about this, until I heard Time's Europe Editor James Geary on BBC's World Update this a.m.
He explained that it's not a prize or an award for doing something good, but rather an acknowledgement that the person chosen has had the most far-reaching and important influence on current events. That influence may be entirely horrible. And in this case, if you read the explanatory comments by Time on the reasons Bush was chosen, they look pretty damning, if not outright sardonic.
But even knowing this, it doesn't change the fact that most everyone of every intellectual level who sees that mug on the front page is going to assume it's a valentine.
