Love Him, Hate Him President (Check out the cover of TIME)

TIME ^ | 11/23/03 | JOHN F. DICKERSON AND KAREN TUMULTY

[Brian Mosely]

There is an axiom in American politics that says whenever a sitting President is running for a second term, the election is more a referendum on him than a judgment on his opponent. President George W. Bush has taken this truism to a new level. With just under a year to go before Nov. 2, 2004, Americans are already finding ways to show how passionately they feel about their President.

In August, KB Toys rolled out its George W. Bush Elite Force Aviator doll, a 12-in. action figure in full naval flight gear. At $39.99, it has set the sales record for collectible action figures on KB's website. There's also brisk traffic on the Web for donations in memory of Sally Baron, 71, of northern Wisconsin, and Gertrude M. Jones, 81, of Mandeville, La. Obituaries for both women contained requests that money be sent to any organization working for the removal of Bush from office. And in Jefferson County, Colo., West Jefferson Middle School teacher Martha Swisher sparked a furor by wearing a he's not my president button on her coat during a sixth-grade field trip.

Republicans in Colorado's state legislature honored the family that lodged the complaint; the teacher now wears a lapel pin to class that features an American flag and a peace sign. But there is little evidence of peace out there in an increasingly restive electorate. If Ronald Reagan was the Great Communicator, Bush is proving to be the Great Polarizer. Reagan and then Bill Clinton ushered in the modern age of the acrimoniously divided electorate, but George Bush has cleaved the nation into two tenaciously opposed camps even more than his predecessors. He is the man about whom Americans feel little ambivalence. People tend to love him or hate him without any complicating shades of gray. Shout "George Bush"

In a crowded theater, and people dive into two trenches. A new TIME/CNN poll shows that Americans are almost equally divided in their support for President Bush, with 47% suggesting that they are likely to vote for him and 48% saying they are not. For Bush, some of the signals are ominous: the poll shows his job-approval rating stands at 52%, down from its peak of 89% in October 2001, and his disapproval has reached a new high for his presidency of 43%.

But those numbers do not reveal the intensity on both sides—the zeal of those who regard Bush as the very ideal of American presidential leadership and those who regard him as an embarrassing and dangerous usurper. Nor does it take full account of a more paradoxical group: those who like his personality but loathe his policies and want him out of the White House. Fully 81% of Republicans say they like the job that Bush is doing; only 31% of Democrats do. "The President is a strong leader. He's very determined. He doesn't seem to be swayed too quickly by polls," says Jerome Kohel, 59, an accountant from Richland, Mich. But another fellow of the same age in that same crucial electoral state, car hauler Jim Carothers, fumes, "I think he's doing a horrible job. You'll never convince me (Bush) didn't know he was lying about the pretext for war."

[buffyt]

If we are insulted by this cover it is fine. There is nothing wrong with us for being insulted by a mag. cover. I am insulted by a lot of magazine covers. Perhaps that is the reason I no longer subscribe to ANY magazines, period!

[DumpsterDiver]

Time Magazine's Curious Habit -- "When Time Magazine featured the mug shot taken shortly after O.J. Simpson's arrest, a great many people were deeply offended by the way Time altered the photo. The editorial staff and art department drew heat from all corners for darkening O.J.'s skin. It was theorized that Time believed Simpson would appear more "sinister" if he looked darker."

[Drango]

Was it Time or Newsweek that ran a cover of Newt as the grinch who stole Christmas?

Doesn't matter....I don't read either one....

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

He's not a polarizer?

The screaming nitwit lefties bark at the moon when you mention his name. You can't even point out to them that he's pushed their agenda further than Algore ever could.

On the other hand, the henhouse here on FR goes gaga over him like a rock star.
If you criticize his slightest action, they go postal.

Guess I'm the only one who finds him utterly boring.

[Rockiesrider]

When you read the article, it is summed up by stating the question: "Is Bush the reason or the product for our divisiveness"? Come on! Clinton gets impeached for purgeous activity, is wholely defended by the Democrats and Time has the balls to ask whether this President is the reason for our divisiveness??

The Dems need to ask themselves why are they losing their majority? In stead of cranking up their animosity with each failed political move. There is a littany of hardball political actions initiated by the Democrats trying to counter the conservative juggernaut. Blaming others for their own failures is a major reason why their losing. Keep up the good work Time. I'm sure this piece will bring back the lost subscribers...not!

[Irene Adler]

"There is an axiom in American politics that says whenever a sitting President is running for a second term, the election is more a referendum on him than a judgment on his opponent. President George W. Bush has taken this truism to a new level. "

I have followed politics and political history for about 30 years, and I am entirely unfamiliar with any such "axiom" or "truism". In any case, it is Clinton who would have "taken" this "truism" to the highest level, not Bush. Typical lamestream presstitutes, making it up as they go along, and right from the first sentence, too.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I haven't picked up a copy of TIME since their nasty attack on the RKBA (the suicide issue). They drew their line in the sand back then.

[RoseofTexas]

So, are we to take this sitting down, or are we willing to fight back?! Where is the times building located? How about some freepers picketing outside the building? C'MON we have to do something!! I'm sick and tired of these bastards from HELL always have the upper hand!! LET'S BRAINSTROM and raise some HELL!! This is one of the most despicable pictures of a president in a time of war! WE NEED TO RENT SOME BILLBROADS ACROSS THE NATION AND START NAMING ALL THOSE RAGS AS ANTI-AMERICAN...if anything what the liberal bastards hate the most is being labeled ANTI-AMERICAN!! Is there a billbroad near the Times Building where we can rent one?

[Paleo Conservative]

I am so angry about the cover. WHY didn't TIME do an ugly cover like that about CLINTON~!??!?!?!?!

"Because Time magazine was and always on the Clinton's side"

Such a magazine would be in the porno section of the news rack.

[BlueAngel]

TIME is desperate for sales. They started sending me their liberal rag magazine unsolicited. I wrote and told them to cancel it PRONTO.

[kinghorse]

We are at a turning point in Iraq in terms of credibility and Time Magazine does it's best to put the President in a weak light? I don't get it. Time Warner AOL wants soldiers killed?

Oh I forgot. They owe the Clinton machine big time for all the favors AOL received from Clinton. That's right boys and girls, there's a reason AOL's HQ is on the Beltway. MSFT is in Redmond Washington and they certainly didn't feel the love from Clinton. Maybe they didn't pay the protection money like AOL? Maybe that's why Clinton's apparachik went after Microsoft?

And now Time magazine makes Bush look like Afred E. Newman on their cover instead of the leader of the free world. No surprise really.

[Godfollow]

I think it was also Time that had on their cover, "How (VP) Chaney Sold the War On Iraq." The assumption being that they pulled a slick sales job on the American public, pulling the wool over our eyes.

I am an ordinary man. I saw no illusions on 9-11. Even before the word was spoken, I knew we were going to have to go in and remove Saddam. No sales job was needed to convence me of what was going to have to be done. I am greatful for the leadership of the Presidend and VP. I wonder however about the State Department.

[RobFromGa]

This is disgusting. And a new low even for Time. How can we give them a black eye?

[JediJones]

Here is my response to TIME...

You embarrass your magazine with laughably biased articles such as this. The writers need to be fired so they can follow their true calling as campaign organizers for Howard Dean.

Is it objective reporting to continually proclaim that Bush has "nothing like a mandate," even when his presidency soared to record heights of public approval as high as 89%? The fact that support for the Republican party has swept the nation's polls during Bush's term, giving Bush the clearest version of a mandate, that of a Republican-controlled legislature granted to him by the public to lend the necessary support to his initiatives.

Is it fair to repeatedly describe Bush as having a divisive, "us-and-them" attitude? I failed to find a paragraph where you lay out the proof of this supposed fact. It's almost amusing to see your pundit reporters single out Bush as divisive because he suggested freedom has been granted to all people by God. Imagine that, a president actually quoting the values this country was founded on as stated in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. What a radical, divisive point-of-view indeed.

In fact, Bush has reached out to America and the world with countless brave, powerful, and positive messages like that one. Sadly, it is not Bush, but the Democrats and international liberal establishment who have attempted to divide us. While the foreign establishment tries to steal America's success from us just for spite, the domestic liberals try to tear down all of our country's fair-minded anti-drug, anti-abortion, anti-terrorism, and anti-tax policies. The only people for whom liberals have less respect than Bush are themselves. Why else would they want to create a society where they can do nothing and get away with everything, including stealing money from America's successful, hard-working people, no matter how destructive to our country and demeaning to the human spirit their selfish desires are? In fact, as liberals have been rejected by America like never before in a genuine anti-mandate, they have become so desperate to divide our country that they even attack their own policies if Bush happens to support them, like the prescription drug bill, just for the sake of dividing America. That's the kind of behavior you don't see from Republicans, because we want America to be united behind what is right. We do not try to divide the country just for political points as Democrats are so desperately doing right now. Republicans are uniters. Democrats are dividers.

You have no idea the backlash this increasing barrage of condescendingly biased articles from the elite media is causing in the electorate. Think L.A. Times and Arnold. When liberals like these writers have such a powerful media voice and use it to wantonly bash our president, it only makes the average folk more motivated and mobilized to get out there and counteract it with the only voice we have, our votes.

[Cobra64]

Good idea. Sign up for a subscription and stick it to 'em in the pocket-book (don't pay).

[Polybius]

I am so angry about the cover. WHY didn't TIME do an ugly cover like that about CLINTON~!??!?!?!?!

[tgslTakoma]

WE NEED TO RENT SOME BILLBROADS ACROSS THE NATION...

Bill Clinton rents his broads now?

;-)

[CaptainK]

If it wasn't for doctor's waiting rooms, would Time even be in business?

[DustyMoment]

Try this for polarization:

Bill Clinton

Hillary Clinton

Osama bin Laden

Hans Blix

Saddam Hussein

Emperor Hirohito

Adolf Hitler

Mao Tse Tung


Now, compare George Bush with the polarizers on that list.

Doesn't rise to the same level as Time's bias, does it?