On my usual morning stroll through the political tubes, I was delighted to see that Time Magazine had published "The TIME 100" detailing the 100 most influential people in the world. I already knew most of the names (since they've been running a "people's choice" version), but I love reading the short blurbs which are typically written by people who are equally (or more) influential than the subject.
Reading through the "Leaders and Revolutionaries" I came to Nancy Pelosi, who has quickly become a hero of ours. So who did Time Magazine choose for the write-up? Who would have insight into Nancy's life, struggle, and ultimate rise to Speaker of the House (the first woman to do so)? Who would Time trust to present an honest and fair assessment of her position?
Newt. Fucking. Gingrich.
One wonders what Speaker Pelosi was thinking when she went to Damascus to meet with the Syrian dictator. When the White House asked her not to do it, she would have gained points by cooperating. Take it from one Speaker to another: too much enthusiasm has consequences.
WHAT!?!
Let's forget about the fact that this statement is totally inaccurate, it is nothing more than political pandering from a man mulling a Presidential run. It has no place in "The TIME 100" and, to be quite frank, I would be disappointed to see this statement printed in the National Review.
Oh, and it gets better...
Prior to last fall, the House Democrats had failed for six straight elections to regain control of the House—their worst losing streak since the 1920s. Pelosi and Congressman Rahm Emanuel recognized that recruiting moderate candidates was the key to ending that losing streak. Today there are 61 Democrats in districts President George W. Bush carried in 2004. To reverse their fortunes, Republicans not only have to come to grips with what they've been doing wrong. They have to come to grips with what Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats have learned to do right.
Oh good. So let's end this column with how Republicans can take back the House. Nice. More than being a terrible decision to ask an active political rival to write this piece, it's insulting. It would be like asking Al Gore to write the article on George Bush or George Bush to write the article on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It just doesn't make any sense.
Seriously, Time? Newt Gingrich? Honestly.
EDIT:
Wow. I didn't notice my first time through the list (truth is, I didn't really want to see him), but Time Magazine actually REMOVED President Bush from the Time 100 (hat tip to Beowulf). That is just brilliant. And fitting for a man who is less and less relevant on the world stage and completely disappointing to his fellow countrymen. As it stands, his only contribution to the world is a disastrous war and a schizophrenic domestic agenda (can you think of anything else he's done?). That he's not among the 100 most influential people in the world isn't surprising. What might be surprising is if he ends up in the 100 most influential Presidents in American history. I doubt it.
Now, it doesn't make up for such a poor editorial decision, but I must admit, it makes me happy. Is that wrong?
Well, here is every contact I could find for Time Magazine. Please tell them what you think:
Letters to the Editors
Phone Number:
(212) 522-1212
Mailing Address:
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020