Salon.com News Back by unpopular demand:
Can anyone explain to me why, in the midst of a debacle in Iraq, with a nation divided as seriously and closely as ours at this moment, with less than half of Americans approving of the job this President is doing, with a precipitous decline in American values in the last four years, there is not more criticism of George W. Bush in our media of public discourse and why (contrary to all logic) Time Magazine would name him "Person of the Year?" (Time's "Man of the Year" feature has frequently been confounding--note the inclusion of Hitler, Stalin (twice), Haile Selassie, Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and the Ayatollah Khomeini)
I don't get it. We remain IN THE DARK about much of the incompetence and malfeasance of this administration in an age where the dissemination of knowledge about those things is tremendously simple, efficient, and speedy.
"To date, the press, busy detailing the mandate that conservative Republicans feel they won in November, has taken little notice of Bush's poor showing. On Friday, the Wall Street Journal noted that its 'survey shows Mr. Bush in a middling position a month after besting John Kerry.' (Rather than 'middling,' the Journal could have just as accurately opted for 'unprecedented.') And this week, as it salutes Bush as its Person of the Year, Time magazine makes only passing reference to the president's unmatched showing in the polls."