Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Time Gets Serious Again
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Good for Time.

Its Person of the Year was Vladimir Putin, who has presided over the economic rebirth of his nation and reasserted Russia's role as a great power.

A first runner-up was Gen. David Petraeus, leader of the "surge" in Iraq that staved off what appeared a U.S. defeat and debacle, and helped revive the Bush presidency. Indeed, the antiwar Congress was arguably the greatest disappointment and biggest loser of 2007.

After its absurd choice last year of "You" as Person of the Year, Time seems to have returned to a tradition begun in 1927, when the first Man of the Year was Charles Lindbergh, the young American who was first to fly the Atlantic alone.

In those years, when Time was required reading for serious men and women, the magazine chronicled, with its annual Man of the Year selection, the seriousness of the times.

In 1932 the choice was FDR, who had just swept to power in the Great Depression. Two years later, as the New Deal was underway, FDR gained seats in both houses and was again Man of the Year.

In 1935, the Man of the Year was Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia, whose nation had just been invaded by Benito Mussolini, who sought to erect a New Roman Empire in Africa.

Italy's invasion brought League of Nations sanctions that enraged Mussolini, shattered the British-French-Italian Stresa Front against Nazi Germany, and pushed Il Duce into the arms of Hitler.

In 1936 the Person of the Year was the twice-divorced Mrs. Wallace Warfield Simpson, the future Duchess of Windsor whose affair with and marriage to King Edward VIII forced his abdication. George VI, father of Elizabeth, took the throne.

That was the year Hitler moved his army back into the demilitarized Rhineland, and hosted the Olympic Games.

In 1937, the Man of the Year was China's Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, whose nation was the victim of Japanese aggression in a war that would last eight years and be remembered forever for the Rape of Nanking on Dec. 13, 1937, just before the Time issue came out.

In 1938, Time declined to give the honor to Neville Chamberlain, who had won the plaudits of the world for Munich, but saw clearly the Man of the Year was Hitler. On March 9, Hitler had sent his army into Austria to effect an Anschluss. On Sept. 30 he had bullied Britain and France into informing the Czechs they must give up the Sudetenland to ensure the peace of Europe. Hitler had added 10 million Germans to the Reich without firing a shot.

The 1939 Man of the Year was Stalin. His achievements? The Hitler-Stalin Pact and playing the jackal to Hitler in the rape of Poland, which communists everywhere applauded as they condemned Britain and France for declaring war.

In 1940, Churchill was Man of the Year for the victory in the Battle of Britain -- after the debacle in Norway, for which Churchill had been responsible, the fall of France and the evacuation of Dunkirk.

Hitler might well have been chosen a second time that year, for from April through June, he occupied Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Holland, Belgium and France, an accomplishment the Kaiser could not achieve in four years of war from 1914-1918. Stalin matched Hitler, crushing Finland and seizing Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and a lost slice of Rumania. All had been ceded to him in his devil's pact with Hitler.

In 1941, the Man of the Year was, again, FDR. Understandably Time may have been reluctant to name Admiral Yamamoto or Gen. Tojo or Emperor Hirohito, though Japan was on a triumphant rampage in Asia and across the south Pacific after Pearl Harbor.

Stalin, now our heroic ally, was the choice in 1942; Gen. George Marshall in 1943; Gen. Eisenhower in the year of Normandy, 1944; Harry Truman in 1945. That year Harry became president on FDR's death in April, presided over the May surrender of Nazi Germany, met Stalin at Potsdam in July, and dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war in the Pacific in August.

For decades Time maintained the tradition, but, in recent years, appears to have lost its gravitas in a search for sales, an unwillingness to antagonize, and a casting about to catch the trend of the moment.

Will history really record that Peter Uebberoth, who ran the Los Angeles Olympic Games, where Russia was a no-show, was Man of the Year 1984; or Endangered Earth was Person of the Year in 1988; or Dr. David Ho in 1996; or Andy Grove in 1997; or Jeff Bezos in 1999? In 2001, Time went with Rudy, a safe choice, rather than Osama bin Laden or George Bush, who had rallied the nation and taken down the Taliban.

In 2002 it was "The Whistleblowers"; in 2005, Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono; and last year, "You." Time could not bring itself to name Iran's Ahmadinejad as Man of the Year. Too much heat.

As America is headed into serious times, perhaps Time, too, is getting serious again.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Right on
I was pleased (though surprised) by the choice too. It seems Time is once again willing to endure the hystria and outrage of those who can't (or won't) get it thru their thick skulls that Man of the Year is NOT AN ENDORSEMENT, it is the measure of the effect, good or bad, an individual has had on history.

Didn't Hitler win like, twice? Yet they still don't get it.

I haven't been paying much attention to Putin. But he's certainly the center of Russian politics right now. I'm nervous about the future of that area.

TIME FIRES TWO NEOCONS !!
Perhaps Buchanan is correct!! Maybe Time Magazine is starting to get serious?? I read just the other day that the magazine had fired Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, two of the most fanatical Jacobin/Neocons in America today.

http://www.observer.com/2007/kristol-krauthammer-are-out-ti me

***** COULD IT BE THAT NEOCONSERVATISM IS OUT OF TIME??
***** IS THERE A SHAKEUP AT NATIONAL REVIEW TOO? RAMESH PONNURU HAS BEEN APPROACHED TO WRITE FOR TIME.

***** COULD THIS BE THE START OF THE DECLINE OF JACOBIN/NEOCONSERVATISM IN AMERICA?

TIME IS OUT FOR JACOBIN/NEOCON DUO!!??
BUCHANAN might be right!!?? I just read the other day that Time Magazine fired two fanatical NEOCONS. Thats right! The Prince of the Neocon movement..i.e. Bill Kristol and his court jester Charles Krauthammer.


*****IS THIS A SIGN OF THE TIMES?? ARE THE NEOCONS ON THEIR WAY OUT?? HAVE THEY FINALLY BEEN EXPOSED FOR THE CONSERVATIVE IMPOSTERS THAT THEY ARE?

*****IS IT TIME FOR A SHAKE-UP AT NATIONAL REVIEW? THEN WHY IS TIME MAGAZINE TALKING TO RAMESH PONNURU ABOUT REPLACING THE DIRTY DUO?

AWE SHUCKS!! JUST WHEN THEY PLANNED TO SMEAR RON PAUL WITH SOUNDBITES AND ONE LINERS WITH TIM RUSSERT.

***** IS JONAH GOLDBERG, MONA CHAREN AND MIKEY MEDVED NEXT???? STAY TUNED FOR THE REST OF THE STORY!!!!! TO BE CONTINUED.

***** ONE THING THE JACOBIN NEOCONS NEED TO REMEMBER IF THEY START SHOOTING FROM THE HIP IS THIS: "YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET"

Time Man of the Year
Seems I remember something about a news magazine that did that a long time ago. Are they still around?

JACOBIN/NEOCON NIGHTMARE!!!
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL AND GOD BLESS OUR REPUBLIC!!

NOW STAY TUNED FOR THE NIGHTMARE OF ALL JACOBIN/NEOCONS:::::


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRTDynbHVYQ

Russian Economic Boom under Putin????
I have talked and emailed several friends I have in Russia and they have told me that Putin is not like any of their previous leaders because he appears to show some genuine empathy for the hardships that a lot of Russians have gone through.

They explained to me further that most of the shelves were empty under the other Russian leaders but since Putin has been President they have written me that all the shelves in the country are full and there is a lot of growth and building in the country that has taken place under his stewardship.

I mentioned the fact that Putin was a former KGB man and that some say he had some people poisoned but my Russian friends seem adamant in their belief that this was an attempt to frame Putin and make him look bad in the eyes of the West.

The last time they wrote me about Putin it was election day in Russia and they told me that everyone they knew was out in the streets and going to vote for Putin's Party.

Good selection.
Putin's popularity is due to a number of factors, among them being his imprisoning some who looted the nation in the aftermath of the fall of USSR when anarchy reigned, and also because oil price hikes have greatly benefitted the Russian economy.

Even as most Russians are not communists, they still look back fondly to the days when the Russian nation was among the preeminent world powers, especially military, and to the extent Putin is reasserting Russia's role as a major player on the world stage, his popularity among Russians will only increase.

Time's selection was a good one, even if neocons pitch hissy fits at the selection.

Putin Is Stalin's Protege
Putin may have been a good choice for Time magazine because he is all about power. But what the Russian people really need is a technocrat who can mobilize all this country's vast resources and turn it into a prosperous, democratic country. Despite Russia's declining population and the breaking away of its slave states, Putin's major goal is to restore it as a major player in the world and the welfare of the Russian people will be relegated to an afterthought. The Russian people are intelligent and industrious but they can't seem to throw off a heritage of centuries of autocracy. Ayn Rand would not be praising Putin.



I Never Thought I'd Say It...
...but I actually agree with Pat Buchanan on something. It must be Christmas!

Merry Christmas to all you folks!

It may not be an endorsement...
but it certainly sounds like one. I doubt Time would have nominated Hitler for Man of the Year after 1941. This article is just more proof that Buchanan is an authoritarian to the hilt. To say anything admirable of Putin is beyond the pale -

"...Vladimir Putin, who has presided over the economic rebirth of his nation and reasserted Russia's role as a great power."

Putin and Buchanan are made for each other.

I'm surprised
Time didn't make Hillary person of the year; it would have been a fitting prelude to the sycophantic treatment they will heap on her during the run-up to the November election.

RickV404:
So...it doesn't matter if what Buchanan said is true? It "sounds like" an endorsement of Putin and, therefore, is verboten?

Sorry, your reasoning doesn't wash with me.

for ranjo65
ranjo65 writes: "So...it doesn't matter if what Buchanan said is true?"

It's a half truth. Putin's "reasserting" of Russia's power comes at the expense of worsening relations with the West (perhaps even a new Cold War), and a steady loss of political freedom inside his own country.

The full truth is that Putin is following in the footsteps of Mussolini: He's making the trains run on time, all right, but at a very high political cost.

Buch off

once again.

I'm
so amazed that Captain Planet (dba Al Gore) was not selected.

I really thought
that Dog the Bounty Hunter was on the short list. Maybe "Dog" could get a job from "Vlad."

TIME?

.....Who cares what Time thinks? .....COLOSSUS

REPUBLIC IN PERIL

.....Pat ...

...Perhaps next year we will see Hillarys face on Times cover ....2008 is a watershed year for the Republic ...the American people will decide if this experiment of a Republic founded on individual liberty will survive or if it will crumble in defeat after decades of Liberal indoctrination into Socialism ...

.....Who cares if Putin's face is on Times cover ...Time is a Liberal rag and is probably glad to see the resurrection of Soviet power .....COLOSSUS

Could Putin
have filled the shelves without the flow of oil in the country? Without it, would he be a great leader to the Russians.

Not Good For Time, Not Good For Buchanan
Both Pat Buchanan and Time magazine again show that they has lost their way. It is NOT good for Time to have recognioze Putin as Time's Man of the Year. That honor belongs rightly to General David Petraeus and the magnificnet American troops who have been under his command in Iraq; and Putin should not be honored, as he is a former KGB operative leading Russia back to an autocratic rule that will likely mean conflict with the West and not a better life for Russians.

The Left and the Paleocon Right
The reason why the Left and Paleocon Right have been applauding the recognition of Putin as Time's Man of the Year is that it avoids admitting that the Man of the Year award should have gone to General David Petraeus and the magnificnet American troops who have been under his command in Iraq, and that in turn would mean admitting error concerning Iraq.

Phil Byler
You're far from the first to make this error, but the sheer repetition of the error gets tedious.

Once more: Time's Man of the Year has NOTHING to do with an endorsement or praise--that has been true for some 80 years and will be true, hopefully, as long as the magazine lasts. The title, in theory, goes to the person with the most real-world impact on the planet--be it negative, postive or mixed.

By no stretch of the imagination did Gen. Petraeus have more impact, positive or negative, than Putin. Iraq is a small nation with less than one-half of one percent of the world's population. It has oil (albeit woefully under-exploited) but almost no power than can be projected. Russia, in contrast, still has a huge armed force, a massive nuclear arsenal, and the largest land mass of any nation on earth.

Now, we can certainly argue about whether Russia's resurgence from the pathetic beached whale it was ten years ago to a feared power is due to Putin's skills or the global increase in oil and gas prices.

But you cannot argue that the fate of Iraq is more important than that of Russia. It is not, never has been, and never will be.

Pat a coy schoolgirl?
I find it interesting that pat's columns, at least recently, have hinted provacativey sometimes that he leans in certain directions, but like a coy schoolgirl, he doesn't just come out and say what he thinks. He's a good thinker, but I think he may be afraid that we don't want to hear what he really thinks on some issues, and so he leaves himself clever outs in the wording he chooses.

Why, when describing Putin, include only the positives of his accomplishments, without also mentioning the autocracy, murder, and tyrranical aspects?

Methinks Pat kinda likes the idea of a dictatorship that gets the job done, but is afraid to come out and say that. The same way he pretty much says he's not fond of Israelis, just w/o using those words.

If you want an opinion column, speak your mind, don't hide behind the craftsmanship of words. It's a little cowardly.

Yankeeman
and what if the oil ceases to flow or world demand is diverted to alternative energy forces, has this great leader developed alternative industry to carry the country or is the curtailment of freedom also a curtainment of industry and innovation , the hallmark of capitalism?

A feared power? Just how strong is the army after decades of the absence of money to keep up a modern army? Has he rebuilt it in just a few years? Yes, he has nuclear weapons, but isn't the theory of mutual destruction still intact?

The country still needs sustained investment in its aging infrastructure. Not only is the infrastructure aging but so are its people. A very low birthrate has characterized the Russian people for some time.

Feared power
At no time since the 16th century has Russia NOT been a power feared by her nearest neighbors. You had to be, well, the United States, to see Russia as a "beached whale" 10 years ago. Poland, Ukraine, Turkey, and the "Stans" have never had that luxury.

Putin is not as bad as some Russian leaders could potentially be. But Time's choice says more about Time than about either Russia or Putin, who is an old-style Russian oligarch.

Nothing much has changed with Russia. She still cannot tolerate neighbors who are not subjugated to her. From the Russian perspective, that situation is the same as having neighbors who are actively preparing to attack her. Given her history, this is somewhat understandable; but it's also true that the only thing that hasn't changed since the Mongol horde era, and Charles XII of Sweden, and Napoleon, and Hitler -- is Russia.

Everybody who thinks there is any possibility, today, of Germany, France, or Sweden invading Russia, please raise your hand so we can enjoy a good laugh. Oddly enough, the entity that guarantees this won't happen, by providing a security environment in which the European powers don't need to maneuver against each other, is the United States.

American activity in Asia waxes and wanes with our vision and commitment, but where it has remained constant, it is also a stabilizing factor. It inhibits Russia in seizing opportunities to play favorites, as a regional hegemon, but it also dampens the reverberations of adventurism by regional players, which would otherwise provide Russia a pretext for intervening.

I think Time actually chose Putin because he is strenuously opposing the collective missile defense program undertaken by us and our East European NATO allies. The folks at Time reflexively see that as a good, old-fashioned anti-American agenda, and applaud.

To Yankeeman
No, Yankeeman, I am not making an error. I understand that Hitler and a few other miscreants also received the award. I think rather that your assessment of the relative impact of Putin and Petraeus is badly mistaken.

Putin is making waves, but he has not rebuilt Russia. He can get notoriety for selling nuclear material to Iran, but Russia's economic situation is still not good and the political system is slipping into autocracy. In the long run, the Russians will suffer from the pursuit of dreams of world position without a political and economic system able to sustain it.

Petraeus, on the other hand, is leading the coalition forces to victory in Iraq. What that means is that an oil rich country strategically located in the Middle East will not be the home to radical Islamic terrorists, but rather be the place for an alternative democratic, peaceful model for Islamic countries. This is critical: the conflict of the 21st century will be between radical Islaimic jihadism versus Western democracy. Also, Iraq once had the 7th largest army in the world, larger than what Russia has now.

So I do argue that the rescue of Iraq is more important than what Putin is doing now in Russia.

I stand on my 11:44 AM comment.

To SemperVigilans
Your 3:16 PM comment is absolutely right on target.

Petraeus Vs. Putin
Both General David Petraeus and President Vladimir Putin are "impact players" on the world stage in 2007.

For America, Gen. Petraeus is the man of the year. He pulled America's bacon out of the fire.

If America had gone down to ignominious disasterous defeat, our military's morale and our nation's geo-political standing in the world would have taken a horrible blow.

But the jury is still out on the ultimate success of the Iraqi venture.

General Petraeus has done a professional soldier's job.

President Putin's impact is cumulative and is unlikely to unravel. Russia was flat on it's back; now it is a country to be taken seriously.

We need solid diplomacy.

Russia would be better to have as a friend than an enemy -- the jury is still out on that, too.

In a Photo Finish by a Nose to Putin
While Petraeus is man of the year for America, I have to give the nod to Putin for the world.

But it is extremely close -- by a nose.

In a photo finish at the wire, to Putin because of the lasting impact vis-a-vis a battle field success that has not turned, yet to a strategic victory.

God hope it does turn to lasting stability, thus victroy, and I eat my words at the end of 2008.

Mr B.Grabber @12:36
Patrick J. Buchanan is no coward, not even a tiny
little bit of one.
I don't think you have read all his books and
other published writings. I have.And I can tell
you that Pat is a brave and honorable patriot.

"Hinting provacatively",being "coy", etc are
legit. tools for any writer to use to drop ideas
in reader's minds. ALL writers do that. You do
it, I do it, and anyone who wants to stay out of
endless law suits for slander does it also. We
all imply that our most hated opponents are pure
$#@%$ %$#$% %$#$% %$#$%, but we don't come out and say it.
One last point. Fact: Buchanan is personal friends with several Israelis. It's a fact Pat's
enemies have admitted when some have charged him with anti-semitism.
Merry Christmas, my friend.
Jagman

Mr B.Grabber @12:36
Patrick J. Buchanan is no coward, not even a tiny
little bit of one.
I don't think you have read all his books and
other published writings. I have.And I can tell
you that Pat is a brave and honorable patriot.

"Hinting provacatively",being "coy", etc are
legit. tools for any writer to use to drop ideas
in reader's minds. ALL writers do that. You do
it, I do it, and anyone who wants to stay out of
endless law suits for slander does it also. We
all imply that our most hated opponents are pure
$#@%$ %$#$% %$#$% %$#$%, but we don't come out and say it.
One last point. Fact: Buchanan is personal friends with several Israelis. It's a fact Pat's
enemies have admitted when some have charged him with anti-semitism.
Merry Christmas, my friend.
Jagman

You are right Jagman
Buchanan is the antithesis of coward. He speaks and writes his mind, often in contradiction to the the "party" line. There is nothing cowardly about his views or his writings.

NO NO NO up-thread @ 1236
PJB is a brave patriot. You have not read, I do
not believe, enough of his books and other published writings. I have.

Being "coy", as you put it, is a legit. tool
used by all writers. All of us who write have a
list of people we particularly find ultra-
disgusting, eg. many find Billary so ultra-
disgusting that they use the "coy" method to
"say" without actually saying it that Billary
is/are nothing but $#@#$ %$#@#$# %$# %$#. But
they never come right out and say it. Law suits,
etc.
PJB has been accused of anti-semitism by many.
But even Pat's enemies have admitted that he is
personal close friends with many Jews, which is
pretty hard to square with the charges of anti-semitism.
Happy New Year, and read more on PJB ~~ you might
change your mind, unless of course, you're one of them liberals that haunt the TH, in which case
$#$% %$#$% %$%$# %$#@#$% %$#$ %$.
Jagman.

JESUS
WHEN JESUS COMES BACK ,IN THE RAPTURE ,
DO YOU RECKON THAT TIME WILL NAME HIM
"MAN OF THE YEAR " , OR WILL THEY WAIT
7 YEARS , AND THEN NAME HIM , WHEN HE
COMES BACK AGAIN ,IN THE SECOND
ADVENT ?

HUCKABEE WINS NOMINATION & PRESIDENCY!!!
ANN COULTER AND RUSH LIMBAUGH BOTH THREATEN LOSING THEIR LISTENER BASE. They both are an embarrassment to the Republican Party and Americas conservatives. They are becoming more out of touch with their base every day. Perhaps they are connected among the political masons. Their ship is sinking.

The Shift in Momentum IS FOR PRESIDENT HUCKABEE in 2008

Mike Huckabee is presidential material and is alone able to defeat Hillary & Obama. I am now convinced that those wealthier donors to Romney's, Giuliani's, and Thompson's campaign have wasted their money and if they continue, are wasting their hard earned money on candidates who do not have voter appeal or substance. As a member of the younger generation, I will tell you point blank, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson DO NOT connect with us.

ROMENY has run out of gas. He has been the worst investment money could buy. His persecution complex makes him so defensive, weepy and wimpy that he cracks under pressure. His fake, calculated tears make him look like a BIG weaning before now Czar Putin in mother Russia and rest of the world. Romneys negative campaigning reveals his unprofessional desperation and that he is really an unkind angry old man. BOTH Romney's and Giuliani's flip flop past makes them a liability and not an asset for republicans in 2008.

Every time Huckabee is heard his approval amongst Republicans and Democrats increases even WITHOUT major financial support. Just imagine what would happen if he got the major financial support. He is the Republican's secret weapon in the 2008 election. Huckabee's proven leadership can help bring America together as a team.

Huckabee is the BEST candidate because he not only attracts republicans but also democrats to his side without compromising his principles. Both side support is needed to win this election in 2008 and he has it.

WHY HUCKABEE WINS THE NOMINATION and the PRESIDENCY

http://evolutionfacts.townhall.com

Balance of Power
The moves Putin has made have reasserted Russia's position. We may not like it, but he has done far more than simply take advantage of high oil prices. He has chosen to use Russia as a counterweight to American policies in some parts of the world. This has forced Americas to take him seriously and to deal with him. He deals with Iran - and has the ability via the veto to take the UN out of that equation if he chooses. He deals with China - who is emerging on the world stage as a coming economic heavyweight, and who is steadily increasing it's presence throughout Asia - at our expense. Dealing with China and Iran, as well as Turkey, has enabled him to increasingly reassert traditional Russian influence in Central Asia and to counter American attempts to remove many of those countries from Russia's sphere of influence. Oil has become a weapon, but Putin has also taken advantage of Russia's geopolitical position as a country that faces west towards Europe, East towards China, and South towards Central Asia. America pushed into these areas, and now Russia under Putin is pushing back. Like some on this board, I believe that this is far more important to our future, than Iraq. This doesn't mean that Iraq is unimportant. However, Russia, via Turkey and Iran, whose Shia's have extensive connections to the current leader's in Iraq, can and will exert influence in Iraq and through-out Central Asia. Putin has shrewdly reasserted Russian influence, and demonstrated that Russia has a sphere of influence - and forced us to take that into account. This has changed the balance of power in the world.

Yes, person
of the year. Consumer Reports uses a "grid" system and "dots" to rate products. All we have to do is agree on the grid, then we can measure anything. If we rate a sports car, desirable traits normally include: 1. handling 2. acceleration 3. Looks (somewhat subjective)4. comfort 5. and maybe price. If we can just agree on the grid, we can rate.
Now, to the task of "person of the year." Yankeeman seems determined to assert, "The title, in theory, goes to the person with the most real-world impact on the planet--be it negative, postive or mixed." Now there's an easily quantifiable criterion... "real-world impact." So, haul out Jack the Ripper (still looking for him, but maybe in TIME we'll see) and paint his face on TIME.
Some criteria that might better qualify in the category of "person" is someone who affirms other persons. Measurable, positive impact for the betterment of people seems appropriate. Good for a start anyway. Additionally, that "person" might do well if he/she removes impediments to the happiness, or pursuit thereof for other persons. Now, about Vlad... let's ask those who are currently imprisoned that were formerly creating an actual ecomomy. Hmmm, well, TIME can say what they want, it's their mag. And Buch can give them laud.

ML DOGGIE
WE REPS dont question the first part either. Lets see DEMS running around the world getting PHOTO OPS with COMMIES/DICTATORS that sounds about right.

I agree with STALIN

ML GOGGIE
Lets see I say round up MLDOGGIE and all his DONT ASK DONT TAIL SQUADRON and send them to Iran because we know that Iran dont Have Gays their because WHY? THEY EXECUTE THEM.

Pat's right
Putin inherited a real economic mess from Yeltsin and succeeded in cleaning it and the oligarchs up. I'd say a 7% rate of growth and replacing the tax system with a flat 13% tax are noteworthy. Putin has been a net plus for Russia.

When I consider that Richard Perle is holllering about Putin and wants the Russians removed from the G-8 I know that Time made a good choice.

Buchanan idiot writes:
"...presided over the economic rebirth of his nation and reasserted Russia's role as a great power. "


Economic rebirth? LMAO! Oil is the only commodity keeping Russia afloat now. The last time I saw the economic stats (about 3 years ago) Russia had an economy the size of the Netherlands. In terms of inefficiency, non productivity, and criminality the Russian economy is exceeded only by the Arab and African world. Russian society remains, as it always has, neurotic and immature, looking toward autocratic, centralized control, while locally overwhelmed by criminal, gangster lowlifes. Russian society is still several centuries behind a modern, futuristic society.


Great power? LMAO twice over! Russia's few "allies" traditionally remain the scum of the earth, e.g. Iran. Russia's East European neighbors hate Russia, as always. Red China is playing Putin for a fool with its "brotherly" overtures to Russia to counter U.S. influence in the short term, while in the long term Red China has its avaricious eyes on Siberia.

Nothing has changed. Russia is a primitive, inefficient giant, mired in its sordid past, making noises like a barking chihuahua. It is still the Land of Cold Death.

MLDOGGIE POOH
Well WELL you think you know alot about Russia Ive been there have you. If so why didnt you bring up all the poverty and crack houses and whorehouse and all the homeless sleeping in the streets and dupsters . The problem with Russia is that the KGB will never give up their power. Thay are the ones running all these people into these situations.

Education is Russia is ran totaly different there than in America. They dont let Professors teach opinionated subjects becase if they did they would be executed. To bad America doesnt do that. The Republic of Russia education system is stronger for that reason. They are their to educate their students to compete with the world and our Professors are here to teach our children POLITICAL PROPAGANDA and one would wonder why they are smarter. LIBS rule when it comes to corrupting our students and their EDUCATION

MLDogg
I have been to Ukraine, pal. I married a woman from there. My parents are from East Europe and my family is well familiar with Russia and Russians. I have studied the language and the history of Russia. I am well aware of the artistic and mathematical accomplishments of Russians. Science and math by themselves do NOT make a modern society. "Smoke us in math and physics"??? LMAO! Hardly! The bulk of scientific achievement still rests with the West. Google the top 100-rated universities in the WORLD and see how many of them are in Russia. (For that matter, see how many of the top 10 are NOT in the U.S.)

As I said, the boom in oil over the past several years has been the principal factor in Russia's economic growth. Its GDP is now on the order of Brazils, 1/12 that of the U.S., 1/8 that of China, and 1/4 that of Japan. Its GDP per capita (a much more useful statistic) ranks 82nd in the world and is NOWHERE CLOSE to Western countries. Sure, Russia has a phenomenal current economic growth rate, kind of inevitable considering where it started from. It has a high literacy rate, coupled with one of the lowest life expectancies in the developed world. The POTENTIAL is there, but as long as Russia insists on an autocratic system ruled by a combination of ex-Communists and mafia, it will always lag behind modern economies. Most of the country remains primitive peasants, miners or factory workers who have no comprehension of or interest in the rest of the world. Furthermore, the insistence of Russian foreign policy to resist the West and the U.S. inevitably works against it, as Russia's "friends" are the scumbags and leftovers of the world.

Russia with Putin had its chance to align with the West and thereby help itself immensely. They've blown it.

Demographic Disaster
A 1.1 birth per female birthrate (meaning each generation will be half the size of the last) and a male life expectancy of 56 years ensures that Russia is a land without a future. Already a third of the population of Moscow is of non-Russian, Islamic heritage (Muslim birthrates inside Russia 4.7 per) which means that Russia soon (2025) will become a Muslim power with nuclear weapons--just like France if trends continue.

(statistics from Mark Steyn's 'America Alone')

Buzzcat
Isnt this just great for people who have never been there to think that everything they need to know is on the internet. I dont think so. I have been to Moscow and even though Reagan brought down the Wall and Russia became Independant that the RUSSIANS sure were not ready for freedom like anyone else. Ive seen the homeless,druggies and crimanls all over. The KGB is alive and well still in Russia. It all isnt great there like some would want you to believe, but that is just the LIBS who hate AMERICA who always think other countries are better off thasn we areso I say to them. MOVE TO THEM COUNTRIES if you think you can live better. Hell I'll even help them pack.

Man of the Year
I agree that Putin was the 'most influentual person of the year', but 'Man of the Year' has a humanitarian sound to it. Maybe the title should change.

The mirror on the cover and the 'You', was beyond stupid!

chuck
I spent time both in Kiev and in the boondocks of eastern Ukraine ten years ago. Most of Kiev consists of ugly, gray, Stalinist apartment blocks, built with no building codes. Hot water in these apartments is available for an hour or two each day. Telephones (when they work) are a luxury. Most people walk to work or take public transportation (which admittedly is very good). There are no grocery stores or malls as we know them in the West. Food and some other goods are sold out of stalls set up near subway and bus stations. There is an open air market near the center of Kiev where one can get cheese, dairy products, and meat. No hygienic standards exist at this place, it is like a medieval bazaar. Many of the lucky few who own motor vehicles (of substandard Soviet vintage) hire themselves out as taxis. The below-street tunnels connecting subway platforms are full of homeless indigents. What few restroom facilities exist (e.g. in the Art Museum in Kiev's center) are filthy and stink. Much of Kiev is dominated by gritty, dirty factories. In eastern Ukraine in the small towns, bread lines still exist. TV is limited to a few on-air primitive stations. I can go on and on. Let's not even talk about political freedom as we know it, although it is better in Ukraine than in Russia. The former Soviet Union may be an interesting place to visit for its other-worldly experience, but it is NOT a modern vacation spot.

Of Pride and Prejudice
I have pride in America -- I care about its welfare above all else. That requires sizing up challenges and potential threats. America needs to take Putin "...seriously and deal with him (Eben)." Sure, Russia has pathologies and cultural decay, but Buzzkat's comments suggest his animosity toward "Ivans" is based on family member's life experiences under Ivan's boot has colored his judgment. Prejudice leaves him under apprecating the challenge of Russia; a challenge that can lead to respectfull competition or dangerous rivalry. Whatever happens to oil (How many of you think the price will precipitously drop?), Russia will continue to be a "impact player" because of it's natural resources and geo-political position in the world as summarized by Eben. Iraq is stategically important. Cooperation with Russia on a basis of common geo-political interests is also stategically important. Let's not lose sight of the big picture because the last time you went to Russia some prostitute offered you a crack pipe in Moscow, or an "Ivan" made a crude joke to a family member during the Cold War. That kind of thinking will rob us of the opportunities that exist with a strong, stable Russia in the future.


Question: China or Russia?
For the sake of argument, say Russia is or does become the third most powerful large landmass country in the world.

America, China, and Russia (You could reverse order between China and Russia.), all have long range geo-political interests and objectives.

If America had to pick between China and Russia for closer diplomatic relations (And you had to make that choice.), which country would you choose and for what reasons.

My choice is Russia because if diplomacy is smartly conducted, long-term geo-political interests are likely to coincide for decades. China on the other hand has geo-political interests that are likely to collide with America's in the not to distant future.

Also, America and Russia would need to balance off a resurgent, expansionist China hungry for natural resources, and "justice (revenge) " for past Western imperialist actions against China.

Russia, while powerful, is less likely to be a stategic threat to America than an expansionist China.

What say you?


Buzzcat
Goes to show how adverse our Media is when it comes to Blaming America for others failures. If they really knew PUTIN they wouldnt say what they have about how he has turned Russia back into poverty and mislead the World on how great it is there.

Phil Byler
The economy is nonetheless much better than it was when he arrived, and the slippage into autocracy was exactly what Putin intended--so from his point of view, that was a success.

"In the long run, the Russians will suffer from the pursuit of dreams of world position without a political and economic system able to sustain it."

I completely agree, but for now, the Russians see a much better situation than they had when Putin took the reins. Meaning, the present-day, real-world impact has been huge. Ask the West Europeans, who are dependant on Russia for gas during the winter. Putin has fully exploited that dependency for Russia's gain.

"Petraeus, on the other hand, is leading the coalition forces to victory in Iraq."

Define "victory." I have asked this question to dozens of people, and have received an equal number of answers.

"What that means is that an oil rich country strategically located in the Middle East will not be the home to radical Islamic terrorists"

That is a very .... optimistic prediction. Iraq has gigantic borders relative to its size and the U.S. armed forces have had difficulty controlling them. When they leave, will the new Iraqi government be able to control them? If not, will we still be victorious?

"but rather be the place for an alternative democratic, peaceful model for Islamic countries."

That, again, is a very optimistic prediction. But note what you are doing--you think the general should receive the title based on what you PREDICT he MIGHT achieve in the future--not on what he has done already. Nor can you, because all he has done is reduce violence in Iraq from the appalling levels of 2004-6. That is good, and he deserves praise and awards. But minor compared to what the huge nation of Russia has ALREADY become.

loco
Your points are well-taken, and I don't particularly disagree with any of them. Be that as it may, Russia's position, compared to its pathetic status when Putin took office, is still vastly improved--from their point of view.

Yes, that might change in the future, but TIME had to make its decision based on what they see now. And it was a justifiable decision.

Jim in Oregon
I don't disagree with you at all. If you read my post again, you'll see that I mentioned that Russia has huge potential. I was merely pointing out that in many ways it remains a backward society, surrounded by suspicious neighbors, and is still underachieving its potential because of the instincts of the Russian populace toward autocracy. Thus this type of society can devote all its energies (but quite inefficiently) toward huge endeavors such as its military or space program, but always to its economic detriment. The economic detriment is set off somewhat by the willing Russian propensity for a lower standard of living, suffering if you will. Russians are extremely proud nationalists and quite paranoid as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Putin has taken advantage of this to consolidate his own power. Had he taken Yeltsin's approach to increase ties with the West, the country would be better off but at the expense of his own power. Let's face it, Putin IS ex-KGB. Ultimately he is a fool for cozying up to China, which is Russia's ONE AND ONLY threat long term. (Fundamentalist Islam can't be ignored either by Russia, but only at its fringes). Perhaps sooner or later Russia will see the light and realize that fundamentally it is a European (Western) society, not Oriental, and that its best interests lie in aligning with the West. The U.S. and the West are NOT Russia's bogeymen, but until they realize this, to some extent they will be a bogeyman of the West.

Encourage Russia to Look West
Buzzkat, I gree with you about Russia's long term interest and the potential threat to Russia from China.

America's challenge is to have policies that protect American interests, and at the same time encourage Russia to view the the West as a better bet than China.

As you point out, we in the West must recognize Russia's historic struggle of consciousness: "Is our country, Russia a Western country or an Eastern country?"

Russia's conclusion will be greatly impacted by American policy and diplomacy.

America's current diplomatic policy, while professing a desire for closer and more amiable relations with Russia, has failed to make Russia feel more welcome in the West.

To these untrained eyes, that signals a failure in diplomatic policy: Professing one goal and achieving the opposite is ham handed at best, and disasterous at worst.

America can do better -- maybe next administration.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.