Should Petraeus have been Time’s man of the year?
posted at 12:30 pm on December 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
You betcha, says Barnett. He’s the sentimental choice, for sure, and I dare say his accomplishments are more impressive than narrating a documentary about climate change and throwing a big concert that nobody watched. But even so — more influential than Putin? We’re not even sure yet if the peace in Iraq will hold. Putin’s consolidating power in Russia, expanding his borders, and pimping nuclear tech to Iran. The man’s got his own jugend, for heaven’s sake. He’s a tsar in the (re)making and poised to restore the country to its old place as a key counterweight to U.S. power, this time in triangulation with China. I gotta say, it was his year.
If the peace in Iraq does hold, it’s Petraeus’s year next year. As for Dean’s point about Ahmadinejad, it’s true that he looms even larger in the western imagination than Putin does. But for all its excuses about how the award reflects no moral judgment, Time doesn’t like to get too far on the wrong side of American popular opinion with these things. There’s no question who the most influential person in the world was by the end of 2001, and it wasn’t Rudy Giuliani.
Follow that link to the Gore item, incidentally, and note the byline. As usual, it’s all about celebrity.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
“The man’s got his own jugend, for heaven’s sake” – and he’s buff, so he got the ladies’ vote.
Apeking on December 19, 2007 at 12:35 PM
(Russia of course does not have homosexuals)
Apeking on December 19, 2007 at 12:36 PM
YES.
Didn’t even read the post, just the title.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2007 at 12:40 PM
This is like crying about who gets nominated to the Pro Bowl or voted into the MLB All Star Game. They’re all popularity contests, this included. Who cares.
World B. Free on December 19, 2007 at 12:44 PM
I seem to remember that bin Laden was Time’s choice for 2001 and the country rebelled so they chose Rudy. Am I remembering wrong?
Sue on December 19, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I see your points ,AP. But ,this being Time magazine,I don’t think their selection process had anything to do with your points, or that any such reason went into it on their part. No way, at any time, do they give this to Petraeus.
tomk59 on December 19, 2007 at 12:45 PM
They’re holding onto Petraeus for “Man of the Decade”.
jdpaz on December 19, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Bono? Gravitas!
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Putin’s selection is likely to be highlt prescient, ala A. Hitler. I’m not implying his future atrocities will equal Adloph’s (but with Russia’s history, it is possible), but he will likley transform Russia into a significant threat. Expansionist designs on former Soviet states will increase tensions across Europe. Putin’s impact on the owrld will unfortunately be substantaial.
Petreus over Gore- No brainer.
Alamo on December 19, 2007 at 12:48 PM
1939 Time Man of the Year: Adolf Hitler….need I say more?
reppac122 on December 19, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Without taking anything from Petraeus, no way. Putin is more influential, even to the point of changing our approach on Iran, I much prefer Petraeus to Putin as a man, but Putin is the more influential.
Gore falls far below Petraeus, of course.
Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 12:51 PM
In 70 years, I truly don’t expect anyone will have ever heard of Al Gore. He’s simply a charlatan, nothing more, nothing less.
JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Of course Time voted for the (neo/paleo)commie.
baldilocks on December 19, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Who reads Time, except to thumb through the pages in the dentist office.
Kini on December 19, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Of course he should have. But since naming him wouldn’t fit Time’s preferred narrative regarding Iraq, there was no chance he’d get it.
thirteen28 on December 19, 2007 at 1:05 PM
What joke TIME Mag is..but it doesn’t surprise me.
j0 on December 19, 2007 at 1:07 PM
I agree. Though his ghost maybe kept alive in school textbooks.
Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 1:07 PM
I still vote for Britney Spears. I know more about the minutea of her life than I know about my own. She’s on the news every ten seconds, for goodness’ sake. I even know that she took her kid to a dentist to attempt teeth whitening. And I don’t watch entertainment shows.
If that’s not a “newsmaker”, I don’t know what is.
P.S. I do think Putin, that Russian thug, was a newsmaker. Kind of like Hitler was.
Petraeus would be too, but not in such a big way.
mjk on December 19, 2007 at 1:10 PM
That is so true except, Gore will be remembered only in the context of
“Chicken Little” & “The Boy that Cried Wolf”.
TheSitRep on December 19, 2007 at 1:16 PM
I agree that Petraeus would have been better, but is there anyone other than Putin who has so totally fooled Bush about his intentions? Putin’s soul, and all that. (Comic version here.)
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on December 19, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on December 19, 2007 at 1:22 PM
I think the evidence has shown he is very committed to his country (or his vision of it) and he has pursued those interests despite our concerns. What Bush said was diplomatic, but got spun by MSM as ignorant or foolish. I don’t buy that theme.
Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Actually, Hitler was MotY in 1938. Stalin took the prize in 1939. (Churchill and Roosevelt were men of the year in 1940 and 1941, respectively).
Remember, the Man of the Year title is not about who we love the most but who, “for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year.” In this sense, Hitler in 1938 was a much better choice than, say, Haile Selassie (1935), James F. Byrnes (1946) or Pierre Laval (1931).
factoid on December 19, 2007 at 1:41 PM
If it’s just based on influence then I say Bush is more influencial based on how the world has changed over the past 5 years. Putin just kills off his rivals and critics and anyone who investigates too closely. How hard is it to get the enemies (China, Iran) of your enemy (USA) to cooperate with you (Russia/Putin). The real influence is changing/shaping the world to your advantage, which Bush has done a pretty good job of doing thus far.
Laddy on December 19, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Has anybody heard or read what Solzhenitsyn thinks about Stalin, Jr.?
OhEssYouCowboys on December 19, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Time’s Person of the Year contest is for players (or is it playas) who have been influential. In a good or bad way. It’s not necessarily an endorsement of said Person of the Year. So I don’t understand what’s the big deal. Most people here probably don’t subscribe to Time magazine anyway.
mram on December 19, 2007 at 1:56 PM
I would say Yes! … AND I am no big fan of Time magazine, but – they have laid out a pretty good case as to why Putin was chosen. I personally
thinkfear the future will be filled with much more of Putin than anyone could imagine or are just not talking about at this time. From the article- “Now that Putin has solidified his grip on power, he no longer seems overly concerned with courting Western approval.” Not to throw Biblical Prophesy in the face of any unbelievers but I would think you will find it interesting in how clearly it is being fulfilled. Throughout all of history, Russia and Iran have never been allies before just recently. Ezekiel 38- 39 is coming into focus as clear as day. Is Putin Gog? only God knows and time will tell but Jesus did tell us Mat 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh: …..Also, I’m sure most of you have heard this ditty- …..Red skies in the morning, sailors warning-Red skies at night sailors delight. Mat 16:3 And in the morning, [It will be] foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O [ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not [discern] the signs of the times?a short interpretation of Ezekiel 38-39
abinitioadinfinitum on December 19, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Gore is wearing a winter coat in his runner-up picture! Does someone at Time have a sense of humor, or is this the start of re-positioning “global warming” into “global cooling”, as a stop along the way to “global pretty much doing what the weather always does – change”?
I have to hand it to the Dems. I didn’t figure any party could figure out how to blame their opponents for the weather, but they did it. Practically owning the “gullible twits” constituency probably helped, of course.
drunyan8315 on December 19, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Yesterday Ahmadinejad was on the short list, Putin is just the biggest hypocrite America opposer jerk that Time thought they could get away with.
Time becomes more despicable every month, I just let them keep sending me a free issue so I can throw it in the trash unread, where it belongs.
Speakup on December 19, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Not by a long shot.
Putin’s mark on history will be as much more than Petraeus’s as Petraeus’s is more than mine.
MB4 on December 19, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Putin is perfect for Time’s anti-American leanings. Ba$tard$!
oldernslower on December 19, 2007 at 2:37 PM
I like the Putin selection, but I think they’re jumping the gun a bit. Methinks he’ll have much bigger years to come, which is scary. Petraeus would have been a good selection as well, but hey atleast AlGore didn’t get it.
Patriot33 on December 19, 2007 at 2:44 PM
I would submit that within 20 years the term “being gored” will take on whole new meaning, such as: Gored,verb; “to fool or be fooled; being duped by a self-serving, self-righteous charlatan with dubious “facts,” and shrill rhetoric.”
Rod on December 19, 2007 at 2:44 PM
In my book, Times Man of the Year is right up there with the Academy Awards and Nobel Peace Prize – all pretty much meaningless and politically driven.
Rod on December 19, 2007 at 2:53 PM
If you look at all the people that came in before Petraeus, there was no way he would have made the top of the list even though he’s the only one that represents the struggle for freedoms to allow a craptastic publication like Time to stay in print.
Gore was in second place. I mean, come on.
Hening on December 19, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Remember that Time’s “man of the year” doesn’t mean “best man of the year”.
Entelechy on December 19, 2007 at 3:30 PM
“Actually, Hitler was MotY in 1938. Stalin took the prize in 1939. (Churchill and Roosevelt were men of the year in 1940 and 1941, respectively).”
And bear in mind that the cover for that issue was hardly flattering of Hitler:
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/hitler/sources/30s/391time/391timemanyear.htm
“From the unholy organist, a hymn of hate”. Sadly the page does not note if Hitler had read that issue of Time magazine, or indeed any issue of Time magazine.
It ends with:
“To those who watched the closing events of the year it seemed more than probable that the Man of 1938 may make 1939 a year to be remembered.”
which is only true in Europe; for the US, 1939 was an unexceptional year.
Apeking on December 19, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Considering that Times man of the year is supposed to be based on how much their actions have changed the world Times still shows itself as biased idiots.
I can maybe see how you could say Putin or even Gore has affected more history lines (I don’t agree but for debates sake) BUT how the hell does the Harry Potter writer effect anything? Does anyone believe that if even Harry potter was never even written that the world time line would be blip? And I seriously doubt she will be even mentioned in any history book short the Times biased BS.
C-Low on December 19, 2007 at 5:11 PM
I disagree with your interpretation here. The attack on Israel by Gog and Magog in the Bible is I think carried out by 72(?) hostile nations.
I think if Russia falls on hard times and breakaway Muslims republics form then 55 nations Islamic nations (the prophesy excludes Saudi Arabia iirc but I am counting Kosovo for practical purposes) combine with former Russian territories turned Islamic republics then you’d be on firmer ground.
However I don’t like to interpret these things on general principle. I think its blasphemous (not sure where I read that) and in any case we won’t know until it’s happened.
aengus on December 19, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Oh but I will make one prediction (not supported by the Bible): if Gog and Magog appear and the apocalypse is upon us the State Department will try to frame their actions in a moderate/extremist dynamic. /snark
aengus on December 19, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Simple. Putin won because a couple of sane people prevented the kooks from bestowing the title upon Gore. Petraeus was right out because… well he is evil!
bains on December 19, 2007 at 5:31 PM
I’m old enough, alas, to remember the national disgraces of the Carter years and how Reagan gave us our honor and pride back. We Americans of all people should be able to understand what Putin has done for his country and why he is so popular there. He is their Reagan.
Russia has had a strange and violent history, but the world is a dirty ugly place and the USA is going to need powerful and mean friends. The gentle philosophers of the EU won’t cut it, not against threats like China and islam. We need Putin and Russia. And Putin and Russia need us. Doesn’t matter whether we like one another, there’s a better glue for this relationship. Self-interest.
One final point. Recently some twerp in the Seattle School System decided students should be told that Thanksgiving should be a day of mourning because of what the US did to the indians. That’s what our kids are being fed. Meanwhile under Putin Russian kids are being taught to honor their country, its past, its traditions and its institutions.
So tell me somebody, Conservative to Conservative, tell me why I should dislike Putin.
dhimwit on December 19, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Yup and its in the self-interest of both parties to deny independence to Kosovo. You have the workings of an alliance right there.
aengus on December 19, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Like, but verify if you know what I mean. He’s still an unknown quantity after all this time, keeps his cards close to his chest. I’d like him if I was Russian but I wouldn’t want a nuclear Iran on my borders, a farcical repeat of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact if you ask me.
aengus on December 19, 2007 at 6:02 PM
He’s a thug. He persecutes those who oppose him. He poisoned a KGB agent who ‘defected’ (allegedly). He’s selling nuclear material and intelligence to Iran. He’s about ten seconds away from becoming the dictator of Russia again. They’re talking about putting him in a position of power when he stops being Prime Minister or President or whatever. He talked about attacking Israel.
He’s a KGB thug who became what he is through intimidation and consolidating of power. He’s not good.
mjk on December 19, 2007 at 6:15 PM
The rise of someone like Putin is our fault. We missed out on a golden opportunity with Russia and all but ignored them when the USSR collapsed. We didn’t support them in the ways we should have. Once again we reap what we sow. I don’t believe a Russian counterbalance is such a bad thing, maybe it will make us pull our heads out of our a**es and start acting like grownups in this country. We have had it far too good for far too long, did anyone really think it would last? At this point China and Russia are not our worst enemeies, we are our worst enemies. I believe in Biblical prophecy myself, but I won’t scream end times, since there is no way I could know for sure when that would be, but if you look at it, what is happening during this decade is downright scary viewing it in biblical terms. I just wish we could choose a president who had some b**ls, heck I wish our citizenry as a whole would grow some.
gator70 on December 19, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Comment pages: