POLL: Who Should Be Time Magazine's "Man [or Woman] of the Year?

Howie Carr Show ^ | November 29, 2001 | Howie Carr

[Republic]

Bush, Pataki and Guiliani should all share the honor. One took the lead and showed courage, one brought his state up and took the lead in elevating the needs of NY and one, on a daily basis, with the kindest of hearts, has seen to the constituents in his city with an attention and caring presense that is unparalleled by anyone. This trio is so inspiring to our nation, that whether any of them are elected for this honor, or all of them are, in my heart it will ALWAYS be the three of them...what fine men.

[Nineteen_Kilo]

Time's MOTY has always been the person who has had the most impact, for good or ill. Although GWB would be my emotional choice, I have to admit that OBL is probably the correct choice under that definition. As pointed out, past "winners" have included Hitler, Stalin and I believe Khomeni

Hmmm. While OBL would be the obvious choice (he did, after all, kick off World War IV), I still would think GWB is the more appropriate choice.

My reasoning is thus: What's more newsworthy?

1. Inciting 19 thugs to kill thousands of civilians in an effort to provoke the United States to lash out
2. Leading a fractious nation of 280 million people to slowly, methodically uproot and exterminate the international networks of terrorists, while lining up the regimes that sponsor them to knock 'em down, one by one, like the villians in karate movies, thus preserving for future generations the blessings of liberty?

Number 2, for my money, is the more newsworthy of the two.

[Surge-on]

Don't forget Tom Burnett!

[US_MilitaryRules]

Vote as often as you wish. FREEP IT!

[LouD]

Bwaahahahahaha! That's awesome!

[meridia]

OH, NO!!!

Sacramento Bee reports that OBL *is* among a short list of a half dozen contenders for TIME Man of the Year - how DISGUSTING!

CLICK HERE for the "great" news...

[Steve_Seattle]

Did Time provide a starter list of nominees? Hard to believe Giuliani didn't get some votes.

[tgiles]

Hitler being man of the year served its purpose. Please read the excerpt from Time in 1938: Hitler: Man Of Year 1938

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I think that it is much better to highlight the activities and effects of these maniacs than to sweep them under the rug like the Clintons and their complicit media cronies did. Hitler was affecting the world in 1938 and Time tried to get fat, lazy Americans to see this, to no avail.

In my opinion, Osama bin Laden should be Man of the Year 2001. And hopefully it will be a posthumous award in dishonor of his notoriety.

[walrus954]

Considering that Man of the Year is the person who had the greatest effect on the news this year. Yes, the Passengers on Flight 93 were heroic, but I think the title (Its not an award) should go to Bin Laden. He set this whole thing in motion, and it definately affected this year.

[ChemistCat]

Is Bin Laden, like Hitler, a man so vital to events that they would not have happened without him? I think something like 9/11 was going to happen sooner or later, and when Bin Laden is gone, terrorism is still going to be a problem. Taking out Hitler may well have prevented the horrible excesses of fascism from taking the tragic shape they took; perhaps Germany would have found a gentler and less destructive way out of its problems than invading its neighbors again. I hate to say it, but Bin Laden is a monster but he's not the mind and soul of terrorism. Sooner or later, somebody was gonna get us good; he just happened to be the first. It is Islamic fundamentalism, not Osama Bin Laden personally, that provided the impetus for these attacks against us.

But I don't believe that Bin Laden is that necessary to the shape of things that are happening now. However, Todd Beamer and the others who fought back on the Hero Flight were necessary. They took the right action at the right moment and completely changed the year. They set an example for all of the rest of us that makes FURTHER attacks of this sort less likely to succeed. They reinforced the image we have of ourselves as a brave and heroic nation, an image that has taken one heck of a battering during the wussy years between Reagan and G. W. Bush. More than that--the hero flight may well have saved our orderly government and its capacity to respond to the very crisis they were part of. IMAGINE if we were still trying to put an effective government back together! That to me is the most important event so far. We're not out of year yet, of course.

[Ann Archy]

Knowing how SILLY and Irrelevant Time Magazine is they are liable to put HARRY POTTER on the cover just to sell some copies of their ragmag.

[VOA]

All the rescue workers who lost their lives 9/11.

And passenger/crew on Flight 93.

Maybe put them together under the general heading of
"Wo/Man of the Year: Each American Who Gave All"

[Iowegian]

While OBL would be the obvious choice (he did, after all, kick off World War IV)...

I gotta ask, did I fall asleeep and miss WWIII? I would have thought it would have made the newspapers.

[ChemistCat]

You're right. Perhaps we need a FREE REPUBLIC PERSON OF THE YEAR. Then we would know who best deserves the honor.

Would it be possible to somehow collect the votes of the FReepers without permitting anyone who has "just" registered to have a voice? Otherwise, no doubt, Hillary Clinton would somehow be found to have won. (Gee, I wonder how THAT could happen?) /sarcasm

[Nineteen_Kilo]

Oh, it made the papers. We just called it something else. World War III was, in my estimation, the Cold War (by another name). It was global, lasted a looooong time, and involved numerous nations.

I suppose the historians will sort out what we call this war. I'll call it WW IV until we all settle on the nomenclature. "The War on Terror" sounds to precious, IMO.