George W Bush - "Man of the Year?"

Well I am pretty surprised by this. I see the rationale behind Time Magazines man of the year, controversy and all that. Is it simply that he succesfully got re-elected. No one in the world has made a bigger impact of course than Bush but does he deserve that kind of credit? Being Time's man of the year is not neccesarily the kind of kudos you have from winning, say, a Noble prize. Still I think that the average newstand browser will see it as a positive thing. The association with a credible magazine, many people won't even read it but believe it's positive endorsement. The magazine

So who is the most important man in 2004? Perhaps Tony Blair should have got this, for endorsing Bush but Bush proved that being wrong , so long as it's done with conviction is a much better trait than being wrong when you have the grey matter to know much better.

A bad guy, who deep down knows he's bad and is in it for entirely different things to that which he kids his electorate, somehow is more integral than a sycophant who is so religilously bloody-minded he cannot spot downright wickedness - even when it drags him by the testicles around the oval office a few times.

So Bush deserves "Man of the Year" and Blair deserves "Most Gullible Man of the Year" - in my book.