Time's Person of the Year: George Bush

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

>a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20001217/ts/ny_time_person_of_the_year_1.html">http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20001217/ts/ny_time_person_of_the_year_1.html

Sunday December 17 6:08 AM ET

Time's Person of Year: George Bush

By LARRY McSHANE, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - There will be no recount on this one: President-elect George W. Bush was named Sunday as Time magazine's Person of the Year.

As in this year's razor-thin presidential election, the Texas governor received the nod over Vice President Al Gore. According to Time Managing Editor Walter Isaacson, the magazine decided last week that the new president-elect - either one - would receive its annual honor.

Why?

``The survivor would not only be the next president but a symbol of a historic showdown that would be remembered and cited a century hence,'' Isaacson wrote in explaining the magazine's choice.

As for Bush, Isaacson wrote, ``He remade and united the Republican Party and defeated a talented Vice President who had the wind at his back after eight years of wallet-popping prosperity.''

``His amiable demeanor,'' Isaacson continued, ``tapped into a desire to end years of meaningless partisan rancor.''

Bush's victory, obviously, did not come easy. After 35 days of legal wrangling, a U.S. Supreme Court decision ended the Florida recount to lift Bush into the White House.

Bush became the first winner since 1888 to gain an Electoral College majority - at 271 one more than needed to win the presidency - while losing the popular vote nationwide.

In an interview with the magazine, Bush said he viewed the close election as a positive for his administration.

``It gives us a chance to show we can rise above a divided house, that there are some issues ... that are more important than that which has divided the house,'' the 54-year-old Bush said.

Time's first cover honoree was Charles Lindbergh in 1927; last year's winner was Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos. President Clinton was twice named as an honoree - first after his election in 1992, and again with special prosecutor Kenneth Starr in 1998 after the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Time editors choose the person of the year by deciding who had the greatest impact, positive or negative, over the last 12 months. The magazine has, in the past, cited Adolf Hitler and the Ayatollah Khomeini.

-- I'm Here, I'm There, (I'm Everywhere,@So.Beware), December 17, 2000

Answers

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20001217/ts/ny_time_per son_of_the_year_1.html

-- I'm Here, I'm There, (I'm Everywhere,@So.Beware), December 17, 2000.

Oooops, what if, tomorrow, there are 3 defectors from Bush's EC vote and Gore wins by a nose hair? TIME will be in the awkward position of rejoicing over the last-minute Gore coup while at the same time eating humble pie over their miscall on Person of the Year.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 17, 2000.

Time editors choose the person of the year by deciding who had the greatest impact, positive or negative, over the last 12 months. The magazine has, in the past, cited Adolf Hitler and the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Sure glad they clarified this one.

Lars, please take note of that clarification. It says impact; doesn't define "good" or "bad".

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 17, 2000.


Patricia:

"Impact" is easy. Good or bad is hard. Nobody questions that the USSC decisions had great impact, but we're evenly split on the good or bad part. And looking back at Clinton's accomplishments, there's no question they've had major impacts, but some people think any given result is a godsend while others consider it a horrible error.

Given the extreme similarities in policy and platform between Gore and Bush, and given the balanced Congress, I'd expect (1) Either would accomplish almost identical goals; and (2) Democrats who would have rejoiced if Gore had done it, will lament when Bush does the same thing! Whoever said love is blind never considered politics.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 2000.


Yep, just like I've been telling you over and over and over again! That DAMN LIBERAL MEDIA did it again!

Huh?.... They picked Bush?... oh!.... nevermind.

-- Uncle Slob (unclsl0b@aol.com), December 17, 2000.



Keep in mind, though, that TIME was prepared to go with either one -- depending on who won. Which would mean that TIME was prepared to suck up to whoever was worth sucking up to -- or that the candidates were much less interesting than the contest. Or probably both of the above.

-- I'm Here, I'm There, (I'm Everywhere,@So.Beware), December 17, 2000.

Or maybe Presidents tend to have more impact than losing candidates do?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 2000.

True. But just winning an election doesn't necessarily guarantee that someone will be TIME's "Person of the Year." Otherwise, every four years, TIME could dispense with all the hoopla, since we'd already know who it was going to be anyway.

-- I'm Here, I'm There, (I'm Everywhere,@So.Beware), December 17, 2000.

Person of the Year is nothing but a gimmick. It perfectly reflects the solemn admiration with which publishers and managing editors regard their own opinions.

Neither Bush nor Gore accomplished anything this past year, unless you count endlessly shmoozing with rich people, flying on airplanes, and repeating a half dozen speeches that contained very little of substance as accomplishments.

So, Bush and Gore give us dueling prescription drug plans and for this one of them ends up Person of the Year? ...Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 18, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ