Hugh Hewitt writes that “Time magazine can–should–must name George W. Bush “Man of the Year.” So they probably won’t.
By the way, note who’s on the panel. Hugh Hewitt includes a link to a blog post by Andrew Sullivan:
I just got back from a fun luncheon for Time magazine, where a panel of me, Al Sharpton, Brian Williams, Alessandra Stanley and Coleen Rowley (the 9/11 FBI whistle-blower)
With the possible exception of Rowley, that’s quite a convention of (irony mode on)moderate and conservative red staters that Time has assembled to help choose their “Person of the Year” (/irony). As Hewitt writes:
Time is nothing if not contemptuous of Henry Luce’s original audience, and the tastes of Manhattan and the left side of the Beltway would love nothing more than to amuse themselves with the idea of successfully insulting George W. Bush and his red state supporters.
* * *
Why would anyone expect Time’s editors to escape from the fevers that have swept the left this year, fevers which have only grown worse post-election? To do the obvious thing and recognize 2004 as a year of Bush would be in some way to capitulate to the obvious center of gravity of American sentiment, and the left would rather talk insanely about secession than capitulate.
Since it’s likely to be anybody but the president, Hugh has a few modest suggestions to help ensure that Time “goes way off the rails–again”.
Of course, as Jonah Goldberg notes, Time has long passed its freshness date.
Update: Tim Graham also noticed the diverse panel that Time assembled to help make their choice:
Most of those are yes, Kerry-loving media liberals (this year including Sullivan), but…Al Sharpton? How on Earth does everyone have to include this guy in their little plans? Is he really an objective journalist at heart? No. He’s still a Tawana-fraud-pushing, violence-urging, racial-ambulance-chasing embarrassment. Time should try a more reputable POY judge — Anna Nicole Smith, or the host of “Fear Factor,” or someone responsible for messing up the flu vaccine.