Should Bush be person of the year?

President George W Bush has been named "Person of the Year" by Time magazine for the second time in four years.

The magazine praised the US leader for "sticking to his guns" and persuading voters "this time around that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years".

Mr Bush joins six other US presidents who have twice won the award - Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower (first as a general), Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Should George W Bush have been named person of the year by Time magazine? Who would you have nominated?

---

This debate is now closed. Here are some of the comments we received:

Without a doubt he should have received it. He is a man of great conviction and steadfastness and many politicians in this country could learn a lot from him.
Ed H, UK

It's an outrage Paula, Delaware, USA

It's an outrage and a disgrace to name a man who approximately half of the American population and the vast majority of the world's population can't stand. If I were a Time Magazine subscriber I'd have cancelled it the second I heard about this.
Paula, Delaware, USA

George Bush does not deserve the notoriety of being person of the year. It's embarrassing enough that he was elected twice.
Jen, East Haven, USA

Definitely not. I cancelled my Time subscription as soon as I found out. If the editors wanted publicity and readers, they surely lost me!
Diana, Pittsburgh, USA

I personally would have never picked him if I had the chance Sara, Enfield, Connecticut, USA

When it comes to the amount of publicity and events concerning him this year, then yes, Bush is one of the obvious choices. But should he have been picked because of merit? I don't know. Yes, he does stick to his guns, which can be an admirable trait - but at the same time, it seems like he barely even tries to relate with or even consider other sides of an issue, which is very dangerous for the United States.

And yes, his Administration has given the Republican Party a boost, but at the same time have also helped in giving Republicans and conservatives of all parties (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the liberals) a bad name. I personally would have never picked him if I had the chance.
Sara, Enfield, Connecticut, USA

Comparing George W Bush to Hitler is a little extreme, but largely through his series of stupidities since 11 September 2001 he has and is clearly proving to be the most influential man on the planet.
Mike, London, UK

Absolutely not! We should not praise anyone for "sticking to his guns" when he is wrong.
Janene Drilling, California, USA

Of course not but again America is a country of contradictions and this confirms it again.
Julianna, Forli, Italy

A lot of people here simply don't get it. It's not: Time Magazine's Most Likeable Man of the Year.
Shawn, Washington, DC, USA

Time should probably have picked Karl Rove instead Martin F Land, Alton, IL

Time should probably have picked Karl Rove instead if they want to recognize the (in my humble opinion hopelessly misdirected) brain behind the 2004 Republican rewrite of facts and truth. As Bill Maher said: "part of me wants to see Bush win, at least he will be accountable for once in his life" so let's wait and see who Time picks in a few years after the consequences of Mr. Bush's actions start to sink in.
Martin F Land, Alton, IL

Absolutely not. The country is more divided than ever, and there is more American conflict oversees than I have experienced in my lifetime (not to mention a long list of domestic issues). Of all the great people in this country, why must they choose the man who nearly half of the country didn't want back in office? But don't read Time for truth, its simply a right wing outlet.
Brandon, Traverse City, Michigan, USA

Absolutely not. Not only is he destroying the economy and solidarity of his own country, he is violently forcing his political agenda on the world.
Amalia, Washington, DC, USA

Winning an election when the vast majority of media and so-called intellectuals were calling for his head Anthony Towers, Surrey, Canada

If not, who? Winning an election when the vast majority of media and so-called intellectuals were calling for his head, is amazing. Increasing the Republican advantages in both the House and the Senate, winning with 51% of the popular vote, (something Bill Clinton never did), in spite of war, is something we will probably never see again
Anthony Towers, Surrey, Canada

Well, let's not forget that Hitler was once Time's man of the year as well. So it doesn't necessarily have to be for positive achievements.
Joseph Student, Washington, DC, USA

I grudgingly have to admit that he should have won the award. Despite his all too apparent mistakes, he has affected the world more than anyone else. It is worth pointing out that not all previous winners have been saints (Hitler and Stalin spring to mind)
Michael Hammond, Bristol, UK

Being named Person of the Year is not necessarily an honour Gary Dooley, Dublin, Ireland

Being named Person of the Year is not necessarily an honour. Bush happened to spend more time in the news than anyone else so, yes, he should get it.
Gary Dooley, Dublin, Ireland

If you appreciate a person who is destroying all values of progress whether environmental, social or political and who likes starting random wars without slightest proof or international support so then Bush is your man and the person of the year. I think Chirac could be a real person of the year for the courage of presenting an honest and well grounded opposition to Iraq war.
Istvan Hunanui, Chisinau, Moldova

Time's "Person of the Year" goes to the person who most influenced events -for better or worse - in the previous 12 months. Adolf Hitler was Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938. Enough said!
John Blazek, Kingston, NY USA

Yep, the American media has spoken. For that, on behalf of the Blue States, I'd like to apologise.
Natalie , Fitchburg, MA, USA

A good piece of publicity for Time Jake, Winchester, UK

It's a good piece of publicity for Time - hits the news with the controversy of putting the worlds most hated figure (and yes I think he pips Osama in a worldwide poll), whilst gifting the kind of people who read it something to frame and put in pride of place above the fire/ trophy cabinet/ gun rack.
Jake, Winchester, UK

Yes, who has altered the world stage more than this man? This is not an award, but an acknowledgement of the power and influence that one man has exerted over the world. Whether you agree or not with his policies, and many in the world don't, he continues to be one the most influential and polarizing figures of our day. Who else has this claim?
Becca, Arlington, VA USA

Yes he deserves it. He isn't a talker, he's a doer! A strong leader makes strong decisions.
Jennifer, London, UK

Absolutely not. One of the reasons Bush was named person of the year is because he never compromised his positions or admitted to any kind of wrongdoing. By giving him this "award," we are saying that kind of behaviour is acceptable. I would rather have someone on the cover who can admit when he or she made a mistake, rather than being consistent, but consistently wrong.
Patti, Minnesota, USA

He has shown determination in the face of severe criticism Laura, US

Of course he should be Person of the Year. He has shown determination in the face of severe criticism, a brilliant re-election bid, when all of the 'polls' had him losing, and the ability to stay strong during the tough times. I can't think of anyone else who even comes close to deserving this honour.
Laura, USA

Without a doubt. Person of the Year goes to the person who most influenced events -for better or worse - in the previous 12 months. By this standard, which is the only rational one for a newsmagazine, Bush wins hands down. Love him or loathe him, Bush and his policies have undeniably affected more people around the globe more than anyone else.
Tim, New York City, USA

TIME magazine is not interested in people like Elliot Spitzer and Viktor Yushchenko, who have single handed taken on the larger evils in spite of all odds, because they will not help sell the magazine. Bush has been chosen for economic reasons and not for deserving ones. Too bad for TIME I am not rushing out to buy the magazine.
Kamal J, NJ, USA

Love him or hate him, there's no doubt about the influence he has had in the world over the past few years Ryan, New Orleans, USA

Love him or hate him, there's no doubt about the influence he has had in the world over the past few years. Time magazine made the appropriate choice.
Ryan, New Orleans, USA

Although I didn't agree with my fellow citizens on his re-election, I can't argue against Bush as Man of the Year. This (unfortunately) really was his year, with a stagnant economy, the problems in Iraq, etc, he still won his re-election. No matter how you feel about him, that was no small task.
steve, NYC, USA

Yes he should. He has reshaped this country from the cold war era. The President is a person that means what he says and that rare in Washington. He has never faltered in his fight against terrorism, also in protecting the American people. The president cares deeply for this country, military and the people.
Barbara, New York USA

No, I think that Bush should not have been named person of the year; there are many other people that have done much better and have achieved more heroic accomplishments in such fields as medicine and aide efforts. Bush may have stuck to his guns in all this, but let's not forget the motives he may or may not have. To stick through something when you are an average person says you have grit and is admirable, but when you're the president of the United States, you need to have some humility and know when to stop and listen to your people.
Jamie Robertson, Kamloops, Canada

Yes, he should be and Jamie from Canada certainly does not get it at all. Mr. Bush is listening to his people. The people of the USA want him where he is and doing what he is doing. Look at the elections and wake up, Jamie.
Arne, Arizona, USA

Yes, I guess he can be described as person of the year but not for any positive reasons.
Jim MacDonald, Brandon, MB, Canada

Of course. For better or worse, who has changed the world in the past year more than George W. Bush? While the much of the world debates and pontificates, George W. Bush is moving the world.
T. A. Charles, USA, Columbus, Ohio

This only comes to show, yet again, how detached from reality the American media are. Unless, of course, it's some sort of April Fool's Day joke that's come a bit too early.
Pavel Kalinov, Bulgaria