WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Stimulating Rewards for Staying Informed!
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Romney calls Time choice “disgusting”
Here’s a link to the transcript of Glenn Beck’s lively interview of Mitt Romney on the subject of Time’s choice of Vladimir Putin as Person of the Year. Key Romney quote: “Isn’t that something? . . . I guess Raul Castro will get it next.”
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
back to top82 Comments to “Romney calls Time choice “disgusting””
I guess diplomacy would not be one of Romeny’s fortes were he to ascend to the White House.
Report comment to moderator
I guess you would say the same of Ronald Reagan, cause you know his tough talk with rougue regimes only led to the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and the end of USSR. Adios has clearly thought out that statement and was not just looking for a chance to attack Romney for something. It was a great interview and he responded the way most Americans probably responded. We need to treat Putin the way Reagan would have!
Report comment to moderator
Au contrare, Biojosh, Reagan would not–did not–say it was disgusting when Gorbachev was TIME’s man of the year. While Reagan told Gorbachev to “tear down this wall” he knew how to romance the men in power, so to speak.
You are quite right that we need to treat Putin the way Reagan would have. Great lesson for Romney.
Report comment to moderator
Good for Mitt. Life is too short for pretense.
Adios, Putin was not Gorbachov. And Reagan did call the USSR an “evil empire.” Did that honest bluntness hurt his negotiation skills or influence?
I think not. But it sure did outrage our mainstream media.
Report comment to moderator
Oh yes I forgot how much world leaders feel romanced when told that they are the evil empire. Reagan told it like it was and called a spade a spade as did Romney in this interview. Putin is destabilizing the world, he is imprisoning innocent people because they disagree with his politics, he is running all the media in the country, and has put his KGB buddies back in charge of the country. Meanwhile Al Gore has made the world take a good hard look at what they are doing to the enviroment, General Petreaus has been working and successfully bringing order and stability to one of if not the most chaotic dangerous place in the world so yeah it is a little disgusting that Time gives the award to Putin who by the way is trying to do away with many of the reforms that Gorbachev fought years for.
Report comment to moderator
Should anyone listen what Time has to say?
Aren’t they all washed up these days anyway? Their choices of “Person of the Year” pretty much confirms it. Are their editors just idiots?
Report comment to moderator
Disgusting? That’s outrageous. Didn’t Putin march with Dr. King?
Report comment to moderator
Time chooses a person of the year not based on what a good person they are but rather on influence wielded. Putin this year affected Iran and China directly. He has bascially rebuilt Russian strength to the point where they are once again projecting power. He has found a legal way to set himself to remain in power. We may not like him, but he does wield influence.
Report comment to moderator
Sigh, praise God for Dr. Rice. When she goes, I’m thinking of reregistering as an independent.
I am fully aware of the differences between Putin and Gorbachev. I remember the evil empire line. I was the sole Republican in my college journalism department at the time so let’s just say it was “impressed upon me.” But calling an empire evil is not the same thing as calling TIME’s choice disgusting. For one it shows a bit of ignorance in how TIME makes that choice whether you agree with it or not.
Reagan knew how to play the diplomacy game. That is why he accomplished so much. Romney? I don’t think so.
Report comment to moderator
Tis a pity that a man who would be President doesn’t have a fricken’ clue as to how and why Time Magazine selects the “Person of the Year”. Perhaps Mormons are now allowed to read it.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think Reagan’s harsh words had that big of an impact on the downfall of the USSR. There were plenty of other factors at play that produced tangible results. I don’t think the Soviets were cowering over harsh words by Reagan.
And I really don’t think Putin cares what Romney thinks or says. Nor do many US citizens: he’s quite the flip-flopper (against abortion, then for it, now against it again) and as such, no one can really gauge what he believes.
Fred is the man.
Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and figured out he was OK. I wonder why all these conservatives are worried about him?
Putin is doing nothing but aggrandizing his power and his wealth. It remains to be seen if he will seize power and become a czar. I doubt it. He can still wield power behind the scenes without becoming the focal point of worldwide condemnation.
However, one must give credit where credit is due: Russia’s economy has grown (thanks to oil revenues) under Putin, who has privatized many of the state-run oil companies. Putin has also done much to privatize other sectors of the state-run economy. These efforts have been sidetracked by corruption, but this is to be expected. No one said it would be an easy transition.
Report comment to moderator
I was with Romney right up until the tired “mainstream media” quote at the end of the interview. You can debate the wisdom of Putin as Man of the Year (there were certainly more interesting candidates, and I for one am glad that it wasn’t Al Gore), but to imply that the media is deliberately lionizing Putin (for what purpose?) seems pretty specious to me.
Romney seems pretty good at affecting a persecution complex (see the Mormon “issue”), which is certainly not an attractive quality for a President to exhibit.
Report comment to moderator
#9 Adios,
I’m with you on thanking God every day for Dr. Rice!
And I do understand that Time doesn’t make their choice based on the fact that a person did GOOD, so much as s/he wielded power cleverly and had great influence. I was so relieved that Time didn’t pick Al Gore that I didn’t care much who they did pick.
Report comment to moderator
TIME’s selection was, by their stated objective criteria, absolutely the correct one. Those who can and choose to read understand that.
Romney’s reaction was at best, political opportunism insulting to the voters’ intelligence, or at worst, reflective of a very shallow mind.
Report comment to moderator
On a related topic, the Huckabee surge is making the Warbucks Wing of the Republican party begin to squirm. Robert Novak, among others, has been dispatched to divide and conquer the evangelical block before it coalesces around the Huckster.
Here’s the essential quote from Novak’s Washington Post article:
Shortly thereafter, bitterness was demonstrated during an interview with Zev Chafets of the New York Times. Huckabee was irritated that Richard Land, a prestigious Southern Baptist leader, had not endorsed him. “Richard Land swoons for Fred Thompson,” he said, though as a policy Land endorses no one. Huckabee appears to believe that everyone in the Southern Baptist Convention is obliged to support him: “If my own abandon me on the battlefield, it will have a chilling effect.”
Huckabee’s encounter with Pressler two months ago did not deter the judge from telling me this week much the same thing he said to the Journal’s Fund: “I don’t know of conservative appointments he made, and I don’t know of any contribution to the conservatives.” After Huckabee’s warm greeting in Houston on Tuesday, however, Pressler told me: “I would never do anything to hurt him.” But he did not go so far as endorsing Huckabee for president, and that sends a strong message to conservative evangelicals.
Report comment to moderator
We’ve heard over and over that TIME’s critieria is morally vacuous. So? Their critics understand that fully.
Just because the criteria is lousy and morally empty, doesn’t mean TIME’s critics can’t aver that their choice was also lousy and morally empty.
Gneral Petraeus was the Man of the year regardless of TIME’s shallow-mindedness.
Report comment to moderator
Yet every time I point out that Republicans don’t read nobody believes me!
Report comment to moderator
It never ceases to amaze me how people assume that their criteria is the only one of moral value, and everyone else’s is “morally vacuous”.
Also, Time Magazine isn’t a Christian magazine. It’s a magazine for all Americans (even non-Americans). It’s selections and choices are going to reflect that diversity.
If one is going to get so bent out of shape over Time’s selection of the “Person of the Year”, one wonders why they even bother to read it.
Time’s selection is not a theological or moral crisis. The sky isn’t going to start raining blood over it. I promise.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I think it’s obvious that people here don’t bother to read it! The more pertinent question might be, “If they don’t bother to read it, why do they get so bent out of shape”?
Report comment to moderator
Romney sure spends an awful lot of time pretending to be outraged these days. Tells you a lot about his target demographic.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
How is the selection criteria morally vacuous? The point is to select the individual who had an effect on the world for good or ill. I agree that Gen Petraues could have been an equally valid pick on the one hand. On the other choosing the General would have been such a USA-centric thing to do. The magazine is an international one, after all. And Putin will have a long term effect with the rebirth of Russian nationalism. Surely this has ocurred to you? I’m not sure what a morally correct choice on the wielding of world power would look like — have to exclude any bad actors from the mix and that would not be a reality-based look at the world.
Report comment to moderator
I’m with Adios. Romney’s words are just way too undiplomatic and completely different from Reagan’s evil empire words. Reagan’s words communicated moral outrage whereas Romney’s words only communicate disrespect and grandstanding. And there’s a huge difference between not respecting someone and disrespecting them. Though I’m no student of diplomacy my gut tells me that dissing Putin accomplishes absolutely nothing but grandstanding, which is extremely counterproductive.
Report comment to moderator
LOL! #17
Report comment to moderator
Well, Putin beat out two other socialists: Al Gore and Hu Jintao, leader of communist China.
Time defended itself, stressing that Person of the Year was not intended to be an honor. The magazine said Putin had achieved his aims at “significant cost to the principles and ideas that free nations prize … Putin had been chosen for his role in creating stability in the country and ensuring that Russia had re-emerged in 2007 as a major world power.”
Oh goody. But if creating stability is all that is required, they could have chosen Fidel Castro, Mahmoud Ahmajinidad, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il and any number of ruthless dictators.
Report comment to moderator
Romney’s comment was less about Putin and more about the fact that Time is useful only for lining bird cages or getting the wood stove started.
Report comment to moderator
Even if his target was the editors at Time, he still dissed Putin along the way, and to no small extent.
Report comment to moderator
#18, Anlir,
Please re-read the posts by those critical of this choice.
No one said that “their criteria is the only one of moral value,” Anlir. But obviously (with Hitler, Khomaini and others on TIME’s list), TIME’s criteria is morally vacuous.
No one said that “everyone else’s” is morally vacuous either. You just made that up to traffic in an unfairly broad generalization.
Report comment to moderator
#19, please re-read the posts by those criticizing TIME’s choice. You clearly misunderstand what they (we) are saying.
Report comment to moderator
What evidence does HAMACHITWO have that Romney is “pretending?”
Could it be that HAMACHITWO is judging something he/she cannot possibly know (namely, Romney’s heart)?
Report comment to moderator
COYOTEBLUE asked, “How is the selection criteria morally vacuous?”
Hitler… Khomeini… Putin… Others…
Morally “vacuous” is the kindest term one could use for their criteria. To have an effect on the world “for good or ill” makes my point. “Vacuous” in context here, means zero regard for either “good or ill” impact.
And I do NOT think that a Gen Petraues selection would be “equally valid.” Petraeus is more valid, in my view.
Report comment to moderator
Putin was a communist. Shouldn’t communists and communism be condemned at all times and in all places? Communism was truly an “Evil Empire.” Who reading WotW doesn’t know someone who left a communist country? Why did they leave? What do they say about the communists? People in all parts of the world ran and are still running away from the communists. Communists and communism are evil. Always! Everywhere!
Report comment to moderator
Joel
The point of the person of the year is in part to educate. Who is this guy. What did he do? What impact can he have? We need to know about Putin in this country and we need to know more than that he seemed like a good guy to the President when they met. Maybe you prefer to whistle through life not realizing that bad guys can be quite important, wield a good deal of power and we need to be educated about them. Me, I’d rather know my enemy for obvious tactical reasons.
My point here is that morals have nothing to do with the selection and the idea that they should is kind of absurd. It’s like judging the best acapella choir by saying you hated it because there was no instrumental accompaniment and there should have been, even though the competition is acapella.
Report comment to moderator
Coyote Blue, taking Time’s criteria of influence wielded, Putin is a stretch. Petraeus and Sarkozy probably wielded far more influence than Putin. Of course, the very idea of some news magazine deciding on “the Person of the year” is a rather pretentious conceit.
Another point is that a magazine with selection criteria that could end up with a Hitler, Mao, or Putin is morally questionable, however cute.
Romney’s visceral and thoughtful reaction to this is to his credit.
Report comment to moderator
Did you guys see where Romney lied about his dad marching with MLK?
It hit the corporate media today; it’s in the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. It’s all over the blogs.
Good. Someone has to call this guy guy out when he’s slinging Bull-Doodie.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt,
“Romney’s visceral and thoughtful reaction to this is to his credit”
I’d hardly call using the word “disgusting” and repeating yourself and being shocked an example of thoughtfulness. Disgusting is usually a word used to describe an emotional response (or visceral), not a thoughtful one. You can’t be both visceral and thoughtful at the same time. One means the opposite of the other. I’m not impressed by Romney’s response.
I think Putin is a better diplomat and tactician than Bush, that’s for sure.
Bob says “Putin was a communist.”
Report comment to moderator
I’d suggest Joel re-read his words in #16 and then come back and tell us how he didn’t use the words “morally vacuous” and “morally empty” to describe Time’s pick. It’s right there in black and white.
Report comment to moderator
For goodness sake, Anlir,
I certainly did use the words “morally vacuous” and “morally empty” to describe TIME’s pick. And I explained why they fit perfectly as descriptions. I never said or hinted that I didn’t use those words that way.
Please read and respond more thoughtfully.
Report comment to moderator
Right back at ya’ Joel. Arrogance wins no points with me.
Report comment to moderator
Coyote Blue, taking Time’s criteria of influence wielded, Putin is a stretch. Petraeus and Sarkozy probably wielded far more influence than Putin. Of course, the very idea of some news magazine deciding on “the Person of the year” is a rather pretentious conceit.
Putin cut off gas supplies to Western Europe. The whole continent took notice. Putin has protected Iran while arming China with modern weapons. Putin influences all the former SSRs greatly - in their day-to-day affairs as well as world ones. He has had far more influence on the world stage than General Petraeus.
Sarkozy? Who outside of the conceited French care what the French do?
General Petraeus as Time’s American of the Year? I’d say yes, although Bush might have something to say about that. He did put Petraeus in his position, OK his plan and give him the political and military funding he needed.
Petraeus as Man of the Year for the whole planet? That’s a bit of a stretch.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Sarkozy, along with Angela Merkel, signify that Europe is trending toward a more free economy and stronger national security, which is a far more important development than the Putin’s taking Russia back to some form of autocracy. As soon as the oil bubble bursts and Putin’s crony capitalism is exposed, he will fall like a rock.
As to Petraeus, it his brilliant execution of a counter-insurgency strategy that he formulated and that bids fair to turn the Iraq War around which places him far ahead of Putin in terms of influence.
Report comment to moderator
“Right back at ya’ Joel. Arrogance wins no points with me.”
You’re very generous, Anlir. I take away points for arrogance. I actually have a little score card I keep in my wallet specifically for Joel’s comments. It has a “0″ written on it. Sometimes he makes a good point and I reluctantly reach for my wallet to change the number to a one. Of course by the time I reach the bottom of the post I always have to subtract, so the zero never gets changed.
Report comment to moderator
PL-
Here is a fun video of Bush and Merkel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dfrHT8o-0A
Report comment to moderator
Remember the story about Romney claiming that his father marched with ML King? Well, his campaign said today that Romney’s statement was figurative, not literal. Sort of like his previous pro-choice and pro-gay stands were figurative, not literal. Make you wonder what else is figurative.
Report comment to moderator
Peter
See what Lester said. Neither Merkel nor Sarkozy will fundamentally alter world politics. Your assertion that they will move Europe to a more “free economy” and stronger national security positions is not untrue, but both of them will stay within mainstream French and German thinking and both are bounded by the strictures of the EU.
Putin is already altering world politics fundamentals. See this week’s headline of Russia selling nuclear fuel to Iran, for example. See his policies toward China, for example. He has put Russia back on the authoritarian track — not so much Soviet as Tsarist. And the Russians seem to love him for it. Watch this space, Russia is coming back and China is not far behind them. In the face of it Gen Petraues’ worthy accomplisments for the year do pale as his is a project which may or may not succeed, as he notes himself, Iraq is fragile.
Report comment to moderator
#38,
I honestly don’t know what you mean. Care to explain?
Report comment to moderator
#43 But at least he has anchorman hair!
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue, In the long haul Putin has set Russia back in terms of being a world power. Russia, during the Gorbachev and Yeltsin years showed some signs of developing a free economy and a rule of law. Putin, however, popular, has set this process back.
On the index of economic freedom Russia ranks 120 out of 157 countries and on the index of global competitiveness it ranks 58 out of of 131.
In the long run what really counts in terms of influence in world affairs is a combination of economic freedom and moral authority, both of which Russia seriously lacks.
Time Mag may regard itself as clever in choosing Putin as Man [person] of the year, though those who understand realities in the world regard him and his country as a rather pathetic player. If you doubt this take a look at foreign investment figures for Russia. Most economic players regard Russia as as an exceedingly poor place for investment.
Report comment to moderator
I’d have gone with Al Gore, myself. But I can certainly understand choosing Putin, who has put Russia back on the map as a force to be reckoned with over Petreaus who has had, what, six months of relative and perhaps fleeting success in reducing violence in one country.
Report comment to moderator
I looked at the entire list here since 1927 and I don’t see any pattern to it.
George W. Bush has actually been selected 3 times (once with his dad). Gorbachev only twice.
In 2006, all of YOU won. Weird!
Report comment to moderator
As for the world stage, I could have gone with any of these three:
Putin
Iran’s leader
Gore
A case could be made for any one of them to have won Time’s “Person of the Year”.
Perhaps people are confusing Time’s pick with Keith Olbermann’s “Worst person in the world” award. Now that would be a real dog fight.
Report comment to moderator
In yesterday’s post, I also stated that Putin was an obvious choice. For Joel to crtitize the choice to be morally vacuous and then claim his criteria is more than just the moral one, leaves alot to explain - to begin with his criteria. Sarkozy will have an effect on EU politics and economics and may even bend the French unions, but the constraints placed him by the EU will stop him from any dramatic changes. Petreaus is a US-centric choice. Al Gore is a sentimental favourite but Putin has made more measurable changes.
I think Anlir has the right idea — we would have far more canidates for worst person of the year award. Who has had the worst influence in the world this year?
Bush, Mushraaf, the President of Iran, Putin,
Bush is no longer in the running — he’s begun his lame duck status early despite his ruminations about Iran. If we ran this contest in 2003 maybe but he’s past his nadir thankfully.
Putin has actually provided some much needed stability and minimized revolts. Despite his authoratarian means, his influence is not entirely bad. And in his opposition to ABMs in Eastern Europe he’s provided some counterbalance to American overreach. I don’t think I need to regurgiate the negatives on this site.
The president of Iran possesses a large mouth but not nearly the power he wishes he had. In fact, both the moderates and the mullahs back home have tired of his act.
Mushraaf then has my vote. A next to useless American ally has so enraged his own people that Taliban like poltical parties appear to become major players. He’s retreated from the Afghan border leaving the Taliban in charge and providing safe haven for hit and run attacks on NATO. He’s so badly fumbled the succession process and any attempt to democratize Pakistan, it now appears that Islamic parties are ready to step in to stem the chaos. His own intelligience service counter-acts his military. He tried to use his American friends and only further lowered American credibility.
Report comment to moderator
As always, HRW, I appreciate the viewpoints of a non-Ameri-centric person. We Americans think we’re the center of the world, power, and influence. Really we’re not though. We have a big “stick” (the military/industrial complex), which we wield rather wildly and indiscriminately sometimes (especially the last 7 years. It makes the rest of the world not like us.
I can see your point about Musharraf. However, I think his influence is not much beyond Pakistan and it’s immediate borders. Whereas, the President of Iran (Ahmadinejad) has caused the world to sit up and take notice. He may not be long in power or neutralized in the coming year, making him a “meteor” on the world stage. But for 2007 he did command center stage or pretty close to it.
Report comment to moderator
Peter
One word:China
Here’s another for ya: Germany pre 1939.
It is nice to see your utter faith in our systym, and I agree, but the argument does not undercut Russia’s ability to make quite alot of trouble. You have an oddly touching naivite about this.
Report comment to moderator
Matt’s #22 strikes me as a good comment. I don’t know Matt, but he gets one free twee flame at my expense.
Report comment to moderator
#2-5, etc.
I had an uncle-in-law who told me once that he was the youngest child of ten children in his family. From time to time, his family would have trouble opening a jar. It would go around the (large I presume) family table with everybody trying to twist the lid. By the time it got to Uncle Jack and he tried, it often yielded to his twisting.
Within his family, he gained a reputation as a youthful strongman. His theory was that he just came along at the right time after all the other twisting had reached the point where the lid was about to yield, and he was the right young man at the right time and right place. He never admitted that until telling me many years later.
Whether this has anything to do with all the credit that Ronald Reagan gets for almost single-handedly bringing down the evil empire of Soviet Communism, I have no idea.
From: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hst/g.htm
Arranged along the walls of the gallery are text panels, photographs, and exhibit cases dealing with The Berlin Airlift, the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and the formation of NATO.
In addition, an exhibit titled “Architects of Containment” highlights the roles of George C. Marshall, Dean Acheson, Averell Harriman, and George F. Kennan in the formation of Truman’s policy of containment. Directly overhead in the center of the room hang crates, car doors, and supply bags representing shipments of materials within Europe as part of the Marshall Plan.
Below these are two flipbooks. The flipbooks “In His Own Words: Dealing with the Soviets” and “Dissenting Views: Was the Cold War Necessary” provide visitors with insight into and criticism of key Truman-era foreign policy initiatives, such as the Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan, and the creation of NATO.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Connally wrote (#22), “Reagan’s words communicated moral outrage whereas Romney’s words only communicate disrespect and grandstanding.”
Actually, the mainstream media lambasted Reagan’s “evil empire” comments as disrespectful grandstanding.
They were wrong about Reagan. And there is no reason to suspect that Rmoney is expressing anything but sincere moral outrage. Don’t vote for him if you wish, but don’t impune his sincerity on this without cause.
Matt Connally continued; “And there’s a huge difference between not respecting someone and disrespecting them.”
Fine but you have no idea which one Romney was doing, or Reagan for that matter. What we do know is that Reagan’s rhetoric was honest and it didn’t hurt his negotiating skills or impact.
Report comment to moderator
I vote for the guy (Russian) who wasted away with mysterious poisoning and reportedly suspected Putin as his killer before he died.
HRW wrote; “Putin has actually provided some much needed stability and minimized revolts.”
I suspect he has indeed. How dare anyone demonstrate or revolt? So, mark Putin down for HRW as a candidate for the person of the century.
Report comment to moderator
I suppose this is an attempt at guilt by association . Stability and virtues are usually seen as conservative virtues but in the case of Russia I would make an exception since somebody had to clean up after the mess made by the drunken bum, Yeltsin. I wish it would have been different but at this point in time any means to bring stability to a nuclear armed state will have to do.
As for person of the century; its a little early for that. Time picked Einstein for person of the previous century.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #30:
COYOTEBLUE asked, “How is the selection criteria morally vacuous?”
Hitler… Khomeini… Putin… Others…
Morally “vacuous” is the kindest term one could use for their criteria. To have an effect on the world “for good or ill” makes my point. “Vacuous” in context here, means zero regard for either “good or ill” impact.
Yes, and they are not trying to identify someone who should be a moral role model. They’re trying to identify someone who had a significant impact on the world this year.
As they do every year.
Sometimes, very evil people are also very powerful. They need to be visible and understood, so that we can better fight them.
Since you don’t seem to understand the purpose of the Person of the Year, your admonishment to Anlir in #37 is particularly ironic.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “Stability and virtues are usually seen as conservative virtues…”
Yes, and so are faith, freedom and family. But conservatives do not approve of KGB methods or abuses of power to achieve our aims–regardless of the mess Yeltson lieft.
What kept Russia from making better progress under Yeltson was widespread mafia methods in the cutlure. Under Putin, the mafia methods became institutionalized.
General Patraeus has made more of an impact for good than Putin has made an impact for evil, and that took a lot of doing on Patraeus’ part.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG, you don’t seem to understand what words mean in the same way I do.
I fully understand the purpose of the Person of the Year citation and it is morally vacuous. And TIME has every right to be morally vacuous in their purpose.
So, what did I admit to that I did not state fully from the start? Please think, then feel free to disagree with me intelligently.
Report comment to moderator
The Soviet Union (where Putin cut his teeth) had a pristine and idealistic Constitution. But they always seemed to be “cleaning us messes” that required an iron fist and the control of the press and so on. That’s why in reality (rather than on paper) they were, as Reagan rightly pointed out, an “evil empire.”
But I am speaking morally here so my comments do not pertain to TIME’s purpose.
Report comment to moderator
Being called “Person of the Year” can have its drawbacks. For one, something like that can give you a big head. And secondly, what do you do for next year? Where do you go from being person of the year? Person of the decade?
Report comment to moderator
Russia is still an evil empire.
Have you noticed where the weapons come from for all of America’s enemies around the world? Every oppressive empire on the planet is supplied by Soviet munitions. If a US serviceman is shot, it is usually with Russian bullets.
Putin has made deals with every murderous dictator. He supplies Kim Jong Il. He just sold nuclear material to Iran. He has people who disagree with him assassinated.
You can be sure that any dirty bombs or attacks on America will be with weapons supplied by Putin.
Nice guy!
Report comment to moderator
Joel, post 62: absolutely agree with you.
Xion, post 64: Mostly agree, but on the oppressive empire munitions comment, well, we are one of the biggest arms dealers on the planet. It is a bit of tragedy that sometimes our soldiers are killed by munitions sold by U.S. companies. France and Israel are also pretty high on the weapons dealers list.
Report comment to moderator
No matter the actual criteria, choosing someone as “Person of the Year” seems like a positive thing, a pat on the back, no? It seems they are praising his policies and power, even if that isn’t the intent. Not a good idea.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
The USA has done it’s share of helping out some pretty nasty leaders and their countries. Don’t forget - at one time Sadam was our friend and we gave him arms and money. We support Musharraf in Pakistan who is no friend of democracy. We gave arms to certain war lords in Afghanistan, who used them to kill innocent women and children. We supported several corrupt governments in S. Vietnam. We’ve supported numerous bad guys in Central and South America down through the years. We’ve given arms to all sorts of unsavory characters, war lords, and militia groups over the years. We’ve supported coups, helped assassinate leaders, and meddled in the internal affairs of other nations. So we don’t really have much room to rag on Russia.
Report comment to moderator
What magazine will be first to nominate Non-Person of the Year?
Report comment to moderator
#67 So then … Putin is a good guy and America is the evil empire, right? The moral equivalence argument isn’t workin’ for me.
#68 Well, whoever nominates an aborted child will be first.
Report comment to moderator
Romney certainly isn’t my choice for President, I don’t agree with his religion, however, I DO AGREE with Romney regarding Putin, it is “DISGUSTING” -
Report comment to moderator
Xion
For a while there, one could have said there was moral equivalence. Our thugs were not better than theirs. Right-wing death squads are no better than their left-wing counterparts. But Carter did change that when he made human rights part of US foreign policy. Reagan advanced changing the way we treated our thugs when his Administration realized that their torture and general mayhem undercut stability and fomented rebellion and sympathy for the lefties and that rigged elections fooled no one. The policies have had some real success stories. Colombia, for example, the government isn’t perfect but its record is much improved.
Report comment to moderator
#71 CB True. The US must strive for the moral high ground, in deed not just in word.
Also, Anlir is right about Pakistan. We are propping up a terrorist state on the brink of collapse. But collapse would be worse I think.
I am really starting to hate Saudi Arabia with a passion. It was just announced yesterday that 41% of the foreign terrorists in Iraq are recruited from universities in Saudi Arabia.
My son is becoming a Marine and many Marines have been killed by Saudis Islamofascists.
Saudi terrorists hit us on 9/11. Saudi will not allow Bibles into their country. Christians are persecuted there. Apostasy from Islam in Saudi Arabia carries the death penalty.
So what do we do? Do we make them our enemies (as if they weren’t already)? If we do, then they will simply buy from Putin and most of the oil producers in the world will side with Russia.
I for one try to only by gas from Sunoco, which is has no Middle Eastern suppliers. But what should US policy be? America must become energy independent immediately. I will only vote for a candidate that makes this a priority.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
The Kingdom is complicated for lots of reasons, oil of course being a prime one. When the House of Saud took the throne with the considerable help of the Brits, the arrangement was that he would keep things in order. We kind of inherited that arrangement and turned a blind eye to the Wahabism, which is among the more radical of Islamic interpretations. It suited us to do so because the Sauds are also rabidly anti-Communist. The Sauds being Wahabist, funded mosques and madrassas throughout the Islamic world. In addition the Sauds don’t do much by way of economic development. So the sheiks live quite well, doffing their strict Wahabism when they visit the west. But of course most of the people in the Kingdom are not sheiks. It’s taken 80 years for them to get to where they are.
The most progressive of the leadership perceive that they have created a huge problem. They are afraid to liberalize, that is, democratize because they fear the most radical would be in charge. That’s a legitimate fear. Additionally, when they are repressive and that is frequent, they need a scapegoat. Israel is any easy target for that. The other easy target for those who oppose the Sauds and are radical is the US as the argument is that we keep them in power. It has taken 80 years for this mess to develop, making it better may take another 80. (Which on a whole different topic is why I have problems with our illegal combatant policy as well as some of the national security measures in the patriot act and the use of torture, this is a long, long, long, slog and if we are not careful at the end of it we won’t be America, but something else, something closer to Time’s man of the year’s country.) But, the President is right about the freedom agenda. The Kingdom, though, requires a go slowly approach, incremental in the extreme.
I respect that you use Sunoco. I don’t patronize Citgo. But regretfully for both of us, it doesn’t make a huge difference in the global oil market. What we need is a new source of cheap energy. Drilling in ANSCA won’t do it — not enough oil there to tip that balance. I do agree with you on energy independence which makes it unlikely I’ll vote for an establishment candidate.
Pakistan is a little different. Pakistanis will tell you that the hill country became radicalized when the muhajadeen were empowered. And that the US turned a blind eye to it because of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. I know one expert, who I respect and is Pakistani who says that Mushareff for the most part is content to not mess much with the hill country (this is the border area with Afghanistan) because he relies on the clerics to keep power and it is that which prevents the moderate upper and middle classes from removing him. It is a thicket and one I think even our own experts do not entirely understand as tribal loyalties intermix with sectarian ones in the border area.
Please tell your son, that Americans are grateful for his service. Even libs (I know folks across the spectrum of politics) honor service. They have issues with how and where the President sends them, but that’s also a whole nother conversation.
Report comment to moderator
Saudi Arabia? I hear you, Xion. It’s a tangled web, but I suggest you look into the connections between the Saudi Royals, the Bush family, bin Ladens, and Carlyle Group.
Sorry if this makes you throw your monitor at the wall.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050425-8.html
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for posting again Xion, but I realized that I should have added vis-a-vis the Sauds that their arrangement with the Clerics, the Wahabist ones, also is crucial to their hold on power. It is a complex web. Make the clerics too angry and the House of Saud will fall. And this is part of the reason that the crackdowns they have to deploy become brutal which only angers the population more and gives the Clerics and until 9/11 the Sauds a good reason to vent anger away from them and to an external source. You guessed it Israel. In addition to keeping the Sauds in power, the USA has a strong association with Israel (regardless of the party, anyone really think the dems, with so many liberal constituents who are also Jewish and with party powers like Lantos and Waxman, are not pro Israel?) so, the Arab street, makes the connection and what we have is a vicious circle. The hard part is trying to figure out how to break that cycle without bringing down the whole House of cards.
Report comment to moderator
#73 CB. That was a very thoughtful and fact-filled post. Thank you for that.
#74 H2 You’re right. I threw my monitor at the wall and it got it lodged there. Now I have to buy some drywall tape and paint to cover my sin.
Bush says, “The United States respects Saudi Arabia as the birthplace of Islam, one of the world’s great religions, and as the symbolic center of the Islamic faith as custodian of Islam’s two holy places in Makkah and Madina. Saudi Arabia reiterates its call on all those who teach and propagate the Islamic faith to adhere strictly to the Islamic message of peace, moderation, and tolerance …”
Ugh! Now I’ve through my coffee mug into the wall. More paint …
On the other hand, if your worst enemy is willing to pretend he is your friend, is carrying on a feigned friendship more peaceful than being honest?
It’s too painful to contemplate …
Anybody feel like going out and getting some Christmas cheer to forget this mess for a few days? Come on over to my place! Eggnog all around!
Report comment to moderator
Xion
And one last bit I should not have left out of post 75. In order to placate the clerics, the Sauds have allowed an ever more strict enforcement of Wahabist edicts. All of the things you cite, including laws that forbid conversion from Islam and more. Saudi Arabian women, older ones, say that they could drive back in the seventies without fear of reprisal. And that leads to another thing long-time observers of the middle east tell me (I am not a middle east expert by any means, I just know a little, just enough to begin to comprehend questions to ask, but not enough to know if those are the right questions) that pressures to modernize are also fueling the conservative reactionaries. The whole place is a thicket and the politics of it even harder to untangle and begin to understand.
Report comment to moderator
LoL Xion, you might want to put some rum in that eggnog! Merry Christmas!
OK, I am willing to cut the Administration all kinds of slack on the quoted statement. As I said the more progressive of the Royals do see what a problem they have. So we have to figure out how to help them fix it. If really nice words help, well, that’s not bad. From what I understand there, the alternative to the Saudi royal family is well and truly awful. Don’t be too hard on President Bush for doing the needful there.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, Xion!
I didn’t think you’d believe me unless I linked to the WH. I know it’s aggravating and disheartening. So many competing interests, and I’m not altogether sure they are ours.
I’m leaving for the evening or I’d join you for some virtual eggnog–with extra rum! I’m setting politics aside for a few days. I hope.
Cheers! and best wishes for a good Christmas!
Report comment to moderator
#78 CB - You read my mind. You too H2 #79.
Merry Christmas!
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #61 criticized my criticism. I’m grown-up enough to admit when I’m mistaken, and I am here. I took your use of the term “morally vacuous” as a value judgment rather than just acknowledging that Time picks its person without regard to whether the impact is for good or evil. Reading your comments more closely, I see I was wrong about that.
For the record, I agree that the title “Person of the Year” does sound like an honor, and you have read their explanation to understand why it’s not. It is a poorly chosen title.
I do think there is some value in identifying a person or persons who had a major effect on the world stage in a given year. But the title should not imply that it’s necessarily an approval of what they did.
I don’t know whether I agree with their choice of Putin, but I don’t strongly disagree either. While there are a few other people who arguably had an equally strong effect, Putin returned Russia to its former status of being a serious threat. Cold War II may be in the offing, largely due to his influence.
This is not a good thing, but it is an important thing.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG,
You seem like the kind of person I would not mind knowing, whether we agreed on politics or not. Enjoy the holidays.
Report comment to moderator