U.S. President George W. Bush’s bold, uncompromising leadership and his clear-cut election victory made him Time magazine’s Person of the Year for 2004, its managing editor said Sunday.
I guess it’s not as bad as Kissinger’s Nobel Peace Prize, right?
by
Tags:
I never really understood why Time’s Man of the Year is such a big deal. It always seems like not much thought goes into it. 1982’s Man of the Year- The Computer. 1988- Earth. Ummm, ok thanks for the insight. Deep, very deep.
As for this years winner, President Chimpy W. McSmirkster, their reasons for choosing him are “for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his … style and for persuading a majority of voters this time around that he deserved to be in the White House.” Under that criteria, shouldn’t the President always be man of the year, whomever it is? Despite their half assed reasoning, remenber the title should not be assumed to be an honor. Time named Ayatollah Khomeini Man of the Year in 1979, Adolf Hitler in 1938, and Osama bin Laden was a finalist for 2001.
My vote for 2004 Man of the Year: Janet Jackson’s right boobie.
More evidence of the Leftist Media, naturally.
I am going to be physically ill. For a long time.
YEAH – congrats President Bush ! Christmas is coming so soon. You got your shopping done yet ?
Stalin made it twice.
I can’t believe Time magazine would name Bush Person of the Year, further reenforcing his dangerous messianic delusions. Essentially Bush was awarded this honor for managing to be reelected despite his abysmal job performance. Is this a means of placating the neo-cons and relegious right? I don’t get it?
Leave a Reply