Time Top 100: Cecile Richards loses poll, Cardinal Dolan wins

UPDATE 4/7, 7:25a: Despite last minute efforts by abortion proponents to prop Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards and sink Cardinal Timothy Dolan, pro-lifers won the day in the poll to choose Time magazine’s Top 100 for 2012.

Both were among the top vote getters, scoring more votes than Lady Gaga and Barack Obama. Dolan coming in at #16, and Richards at #17.  Good job…

4/4, 7:44p: Time magazine is conducting a poll through tomorrow of nominees for its Top 100 most influential people in the world.

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards has been nominated again this year in this upside down world where the head of the United States’ largest abortion provider is considered one of the “leaders, artists, innovators, icons and heroes you think are the most influential people in the world,” according to Time.

Vote NO for Richards here. Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com noted in an email that since he began encouraging pro-lifers to vote Richards a few days ago she has gone from a 67% approval rating to a 68% disapproval rating.

Meanwhile Cardinal Timothy Dolan has also been nominated as “[t]he man most likely to give Barack Obama fits on the way to Election Day.” Bravo. Vote for him here. He currently has a 63% approval rating.

 

51 thoughts on “Time Top 100: Cecile Richards loses poll, Cardinal Dolan wins”

  1. Done.  But to be fair, both Hitler and Stalin were named “Person of the Year” by Time Magazine.  So making the Time 100 isn’t necessarily an honour, as someone can be influential in a bad way.

    My main grievance is that they didn’t include any pro-life leaders in their poll options.  Why wasn’t Lila Rose included last year?  Her video stings are arguably the reason Planned Parenthood is $61 million poorer, less credible than ever, and no longer invincible.  Pro-life advocates, abortion proponents, PP operatives, and journalists alike acknowledge this.

    Why isn’t Charmaine Yoest an option this year?  Her organization was behind much of the pro-life legislation of 2011, the most successful year yet.  Pro-life advocates, abortion proponents, PP operatives, and journalists alike acknowledge this.  AUL also released the investigative report that prompted the congressional probe into Planned Parenthood, which in turn led to Komen’s decision to stop funding them.

    If Cecile Richards is considered influential for all of these reasons, then the pro-life leaders are also influential and deserve to be included.  For other issues, Time included important people on both sides (Obama vs. the GOP candidates, Scott Walker vs. the walk-out Democrats, etc). I agree that she is influential, but my vote against her was a vote against the blatant media bias.  This is like nominating George Wallace but not Martin Luther King Jr.

       19 likes

  2. Technically, however, it’s just ‘most influential people’ not ‘most influenced people towards good’. Richards, between the ear of the president, PP worldwide reach, and domestic clout probably *is* one of the top 100 influential people in America. It’s just a really poor influence!

       9 likes

  3. Those three happen to be pro-life, but they’re not primarily notable for their pro-life work.  Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are presidential contenders, and Tim Tebow is a talented athlete that isn’t a jerk about it (though he could work on building his vocabulary).  To put it another way, none of them are categorized as “American pro-life activists” on their respective Wikipedia pages.  They are not the public face of the pro-life movement.  Cecile Richards could probably be considered the public face of the pro-choice movement.

    The Cecile Richards entry on Time’s website discusses her involvement in the Komen controversy and her lobbying against ultrasound bills.  Last year, the topic was Planned Parenthood’s government funding.  There are people on the opposite side of these specific issues that are at least as influential as she is, yet I can’t vote for them in the Time 100 poll.  This is wrong.

       5 likes

  4. Gratifying to see that Cdl Dolan’s “definitely’s” were about 63, the “no way’s” were 36. Interesting that they listed him as “Timothy Dolan” with no mention of his title. Am I being overly suspicious to think that they didn’t want people to recognize his name?

    Also gratifying to see that Ashton Kutcher’s def/no way’s were 15 and 85, respectively. Voted definitely for Tebow, no way for Andrew Cuomo. And yes, WHY is Lila Rose not on that list??

       11 likes

  5. Can we vote “no way” for Time Magazine? Both Time and Newsweek are shadows of their former selves. They’re only notable when the blogosphere points out some outrageous bias, much like MSNBC.

       10 likes

  6. Marco Rubio is on the list too (voting “definitely” for him, for sure).  They don’t have him on the list as a pro-life advocate, but they really should.  He is one of the most articulate and intelligent speakers in either room of Congress, and consistently pro-life.
     
    …Yes, I am a fan.  Why do you ask? ;)

       9 likes

  7. I’m a fan too, Alice. I’m conflicted on whether he’s more valuable as a vp pick or in the Senate. Either way, he’ll be a terrific choice for president within the next decade.

       7 likes

  8. I tried to be honest with my voting. I voted for people who took their fields and with them made a crater in the world’s current foundation. Sometimes these people are artists, sometimes businesspeople, sometimes politicians.

    I thought about how influential these people are in both positive and negative ways. For this reason I voted for Bashar Assad (even though he and Islam Karimov are both evil personified) despite the fact that his actions have made the world worse. I hated voting “definitely” for Ali Khamenei, Rush Limbaugh,* and Benjamin Netanyahu but for better or worse, the are influential (ugh…).

    I think most people vote for individuals that they like, so it does feel awkward voting up a heartless dictator, but, hey- we need to examine the world as it actually is. There are some people I’m fascinated by and am eager to learn more about- Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, for instance- but lack the understanding now to evaluate their actions on a “positive versus negative” scale.

    Of course, people have changed the world for the better, like Asghar Farhadi, Tawakul Karman, the Kony 2012 activists, and Aung San Suu Kyi. I hope that they make it onto the final list. The Time 100 and the Person of the Year are always my favorite issues. I keep my copy of 2011’s Person of the Year on my desk.

    Anyway, what I take most from this list is that pro-lifers really need to get to work developing not just arguments against abortion, but also working with people like these individuals- real innovators- to get to work making practical solutions to both reduce abortion and make connections between pro-life activism and other human rights movements. This was very much a global group this time; I’m glad Time is getting more international, even if it still has a way to go. We need to think about abortion on a global scale and start working with the right people to fix the problem. I can’t help but see that if we do this, it will be a much brighter future.

    *Rush Limbaugh has way more influence than he should. The man should stick to KKK rallies, really. It kills me to see this truth, his sphere of influence, in my lovely country. Reality bites.

       4 likes

  9. Nice post, Jill. It’s funny b/c I just did this earlier tonight and now I see your post. Pro-life minds think alike! 

       3 likes

  10. *Rush Limbaugh has way more influence than he should. The man should stick to KKK rallies, really.
    Actually, Cecile and Planned Parenthood would be more fitting special guests. After all, all Rush does is criticize Al Sharpton and the media, he hasn’t torn the arms and legs off hundreds of thousands of African Americans for money.

       13 likes

  11. For what it is worth, if I was the Time editor, I would not pay any attention to the like/dislike (which is what the definitely/no way vote really means) results.  I would just look at who got the most votes regardless.  As much as I hate the attention that the She-Devil Chief Priestess of the Temple of Death gets, you have to admit that all this attention proves the point that she is in fact very influential.  Heck, she is influencing us right now as we are talking about her and voting about it.  As Jespren observed, the list is not about who is a good influence, but rather who wields the most influence.
     
    I did in fact vote “no way” for her and “definitely” for Cardinal Dolan.  But it almost seems we are helping prove the point for them.

       6 likes

  12. Really? Rush should “stick to KKK ralies”? Do you listen to him often, Vannah? How do you know this?
    I think Vannah is a good case study in someone being so open-minded, their brain fell out. What I want the most from the “global community” is for them to leave my country alone, and for my country do to the same for the “global community” in turn.

       15 likes

  13. Navi said “But to be fair, both Hitler and Stalin were named “Person of the Year” by Time Magazine.  So making the Time 100 isn’t necessarily an honour, as someone can be influential in a bad way.”

    Navi I agree with you. Time Magazine is only trying “to make a buck” out of their list.
    I don’t think being in the top 100 list is an “honor”, just like it’s not an honor anymore to receive the Nobel price for peace since they have given it to Barack Obama, who has turned out to be the most divisive, anti-peace president ever.
    I think they should take back the Nobel price from him! 
    Is there a way to vote for a recall of the Nobel prize?

       8 likes

  14. I have heard Rush Limbaugh. Some of his greatest hits include misogyny, racism, and overall stupidity about how the world works. I can only hope that people around the world don’t know about him; his is the image I would hate for Americans to have.

    Here is a selection from a quick Google search:

    http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/rushlimbaugh/a/limbaughquotes.htm

    Maybe people call him a racist because of his comments about Barack Obama (Anyone else remember his love affair with the Jim Crow-friendly “Obama the Magic Negro” song?)? Arabs? His Islamophobia? Latinos? The fact that he refers to the president as “halfrican American?” That he feels threatened by the continued breakdown in the privilege that he has enjoyed as both an Anglo and a male? That equality is breaking through and it infuriates him? Really? He’s not a racist but brushes off any suggestion of African Americans voicing their opinions with a, “They are twelve percent of the population. Who the hell cares?”

    You can be a political conservative and support conservatives without embracing hatred, guys. Rush Limbaugh is poison who teaches people that it’s okay to hate others because of what they are- their skin color, their national origin, their religion, their sexual orientation. Yeah, I know, he says all of this to make money and get attention. And I know that some of his positions don’t differ from the positions of most conservatives (GLBAT rights, for example), but no human being who lacks compassion should be given a platform on which to spread his ignorance and hate. He has not accepted that the world is a diverse place. He hasn’t even accepted that the United States is a diverse place. Until he does, and until he accepts that he is not superior to anyone else on the basis of his ethnicity and gender, we should all take a stand.

    Period.

    And to bring this back to abortion, we need to work to foster a social environment where all people are accepted. It’s pro-life: bullying, racism, misogyny, ignorance, and fear-mongering are all a part of a “culture of death,” as people say here. A world with misogyny is a world where abortion is common.

       3 likes

  15. Vannah, why do you think the folks who get so riled up about Rush offer nothing but silence when it comes to Howard Stern?

       12 likes

  16. Vannah –

    I don’t listen to Rush, but insanely I hear a lot about him from those who… er… seem to hate him. I used to tune him in occasionally, well enough to understand the genre of his discourse. It’s mostly careless reductio ad absurdum, consisting of aping liberal logic precisely for the purpose of attracting the ire of liberals who don’t understand what he’s doing. It’s a tarpit — and you’re not falling into it, you’re jumping in enthusiastically.

    Liberals do the same thing with Ann Coulter (who I don’t read either, but whose idiom I understand).

    What I’ve long found amusing about this is that liberals who most loathe such people they don’t seem to understand (“there are 10 kind of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don’t”) often count fundamentalist religious among those they loathe, and yet they outdo these fundamentalists in epistemic naivete. They’re like fundamentalists turned inside out and then caricatured (or perhaps that, but sequenced the other way).

    I’m not defending everything said by satirists, reductio polemicists, or ironists of any stripe (conservative or otherwise — liberal variants tend to be comedians). They’re as capable of going off the reservation as anyone else. But honestly, I think the hate comes in when you judge a genre your skills or will are not equal to understand.

    The irony is that someone as unsophisticated as Limbaugh can snow those who rightly believe him unsophisticated. There are rubes, and then their are hall of fame rubes.

       7 likes

  17. Vannah, 

    I don’t know many people who take Limbaugh seriously, whether they agree with him or not. His influence on the culture of the US is exaggerated by the left MSM who fear him and therefore hate him (or does the hatred come first?). They, who are much less tolerant than Limbaugh, should lighten up, IMHO.  Some of what he says is very funny. Do you ever listen? As for the liberals – didn’t their Mums ever tell them the old rhyme that starts, “sticks and stones…”?

     

       6 likes

  18. Vannah: I’m curious — do you also think that, for example, the KKK and the NRA are birds of a feather? Just trying to take your pulse, so to speak…

       5 likes

  19. Courtnay,

    I know a lot of people who dislike both Stern and Limbaugh, myself included. I remember the fury over Stern’s attacks on Gabourey Sidibe. To whom are you referring?

       2 likes

  20. It’s always ridiculous when Limbaugh is criticized for calling Obama “the Magic Negro” when he was actually quoting the LA Times, and the song he played ACTUALLY SAYS THAT.  The lyrics are, “Barack the Magic Negro lives in DC, the LA Times they called him that but he’s not authentic like me.”. The song parodies the LA Times and Al Sharpton, since it’s supposed to be Sharpton singing it, lamenting that Obama gained the prominent position that he always wanted for himself.

    As usual the people who claim Limbaugh is racist or misogynist have never actually listened to him.  A little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.

       11 likes

  21. John,
     
    Thanks for your comment so I won’t have to waste space saying the same thing. Oh, er.
     
    I might add that the L.A. Times columnist was himself black, ridiculing white worship of “their” black president and comparing Obama to the Morgan Freeman character in The Legend of Bagger Vance. Apparently you can use ridicule and satire as long as you’re a minority or at least a leftist.

       8 likes

  22. Oh-oh. Vannah disappeared.

    Folks, I think we committed the one mortal sin liberals judge others for — we dared dissent from cliche liberal talking points about their pariahs. And remember, if you become such a pariah yourself, you’re obliged to roll over and pee when liberal dogs bark. Heaven forfend you stay on your feet and growl back. That will only prove you’re a dangerous mutt with a bad ideological pedigree.

       6 likes

  23. Oh-oh. Vannah disappeared.

    Vannah has a life. Vannah has classes to attend and essays to write.

    Do you also think that the KKK and the NRA are birds of a feather?

    I dislike both the KKK and the NRA but they are two different organizations. The National Rifle Association promotes guns; there is little, if any, concern about who is purchasing the guns. The Klu Klux Klan is a racist entity that promotes white superiority. I disagree with the principles of both organizations and loathe the lobby behind the NRA, but I don’t see them as one, if that’s what you mean. I wouldn’t know if there’s a connection between the two, as I don’t often think of one when I stop to ponder the other. If there is a connection between these two groups, I would dislike them more, but I’ve heard of no such relationship.

    It’s mostly careless reductio ad absurdum, consisting of aping liberal logic precisely for the purpose of attracting the ire of liberals who don’t understand what he’s doing. It’s a tarpit — and you’re not falling into it, you’re jumping in enthusiastically.

    You would not brush such rhetoric off if it were a liberal shock jock making fun of conservative logic. He has made fun of the physical appearance of Chelsea Clinton, then a child, so would you find it amusing if some liberal shock jock made some ignorant remarks about Sarah Palin’s son? Would you find it funny and would you find the argument, “He’s just aping conservatives, silly crybabies!” satisfactory?

    No, you would not. There’s no point in pretending that you would find such a shock jock amusing or that you would accept some “It’s what he does and we don’t listen to him every day anyway!” excuse and call it a day. You would take to this blog to rage and seethe and decry liberal hypocrisy and swear that liberals are the hateful ones.

    Furthermore, what is he aping? He is not The Onion, running gag headlines to highlight perceived absurdity. He’s spouting off his uneducated and unwanted opinions in response to prompts ranging from birth control to football. He’s more like a rambling blog, not a one-man satire machine.

       2 likes

  24. Also, for the record: if there was a shock jock who made fun of Sarah Palin’s son, I would join you in the outrage. I’m not sure what his name is, but I’ve seen pictures of him. He’s an absolutely adorable baby.

    So, abortion: I think that what young people, and especially young pro-lifers, need to do is start developing a community of activists from all walks of life. It’s one thing to work with people in the United States and it’s another thing entirely to work with all human rights movements to try and improve communities around the globe. There are probably some people who would rather focus all of their attention on abortion. Fine, but it is still worthwhile to pursue (or, you know…think about pursuing) international connections. People around the globe know best how to serve their communities. They understand their own cultures and will know how to work inside of their own cultures to make a real, positive impact.

       5 likes

  25. Vannah,

    His name is Trig.

    There are young prolifers all around the world my dear. There are people working in all cultures and countries to better the living conditions of folks in corrupt governments that refuse to help their people.  But instead of just offering your advice all the time on how to “do it better” and what you think “we need to do” why don’t you join whatever is going on nearest you?  Please.

       12 likes

  26. Vannah: The National Rifle Association promotes guns; there is little, if any, concern about who is purchasing the guns.

    I could as easily say “The ACLU promotes free speech; there  is little, if any, concern about who is doing the speaking.”

    Enumerated rights are enumerated rights. I would expect anyone who’s pro-choice to celebrate enumerated gun rights an order of magnitude more enthusiastically than other rights that are mere penumbral emanations.

    Anyone who supports a mother’s penumbrally emanated right to kill her unborn child should cheerfully support a citizen’s enumerated right to keep and bear arms. The VAST majority of   citizens who exercise that right are never responsible for fatalities of any kind — unlike those who enjoy their right to abort.

    Yet the gun folk are the loonies.

    Interesting. 
     

       11 likes

  27. Carla @ 8:47am reminded me of a quote by Peter Maulin, who co-founded the Catholic Worker along with Dorothy Day:

    “It be a better world if those who act would also think and those who think would also act.”

    Dorothy Day had an abortion and went on to start wonderful things and wrote some great books.  Have you read any of her books, Vannah? I think you’d love them.

     

       6 likes

  28. In fairness to Rush, his words are sometimes twisted. After the tsunami struck in Japan, someone in the msm must have reported that people in shelters were recycling. Rush evidently thought that excitement about recycling in the aftermath of such a devastating event was a bit silly, although typical of misguided liberal priorities, and made comments to that effect on his show. HuffPo reported this as “Rush mocking tsunami victims.” That was not in any way what he was doing.

       6 likes

  29. This is an interesting victory for pro-lifers!

    Nobody reads TIME magazine.  As JEZEBEL noted, it makes no difference whether or not anyone makes the list.

    But…. we just beat Planned Parenthood at their own game of social media networking.  The wonks at PP have got to be a little bit worried by this.  They have seen those viral videos of I HAVE A SAY and HERE COMES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

    And a whole lot of new people have been energized by the HHS mandate against religious freedom.

    Now Cardinal Dolan bumps Cecil off of a nation-wide poll at a very liberal news magazine.  This battle doesn’t matter, but PP has got to be worried about the next big fight.  They no longer have sole domination of the social networks.

       8 likes

  30. Haha, take that Jezebel!!!!!!!!!! Weirdly, I care more about their failure than that of Richards.

       5 likes

  31. I found this little tidbit over at Jezebel’s comment thread:
    Ugh, lifenews makes me stabby-I have an anti-choice friend who is constantly linking to articles from them, and the few times I’ve been curious enough to click, they’ve been so stupid and badly written I just wanted to pull a Scanners.

     
    Yep, it makes her stabby and want to explode… y’know, I’m no expert on human psychology but I think abortion advocacy isn’t exactly healthy.
     

       9 likes

  32. Lifenews makes her STABBY??
    Really??? Like you couldn’t find a better word to describe an abortion advocate…

       12 likes

  33. Jezebel seems to be the gathering place of choice for people with anger issues. You know, when they’re not busy trolling this blog :) .

       9 likes

  34. Many people don’t like Limbaugh because they understand they are not supposed to like him. It is as simple as that.   The talking heads and libs regularly criticize him, misquote him, rail against him, and spew hated about him and down wind of that it is predictable that ignorance would prevail.  

    John L is right about one of the more recent criticisms about him and the “Magic Negro” thing.  Limbaugh is simply showing how childish the left is when he plays the parody of the so called “Reverend” Al Sharpton’s own words.  It kind of reduces the debate to the level where most leftists can understand they are being skewered and they don’t like it. 

    Another thing the leftists don’t like about Limbaugh is that he is outspoken in his criticism of “choice”. This alone puts Rush on their top ten enemies list. And he is an outspoken champion of American exceptionalism which really makes the left go bonkers.  

    Is Rush right about everything?  Of course not.  But he is right about most things.  If people took the time to listen for themselves and think for themselves they would be far less likely to join in with the chorus of naysayers.       
        

              

       3 likes

  35. “Vannah, why do you think the folks who get so riled up about Rush offer nothing but silence when it comes to Howard Stern?”

    Courtnay, I can’t stand either of them, though I haven’t heard much about Stern in a long time. The last time I heard anything about Stern was when I was a kid and right after Columbine he was speculating on why the shooters didn’t take advantage of the situation and rape some of the girls. He is a sick man. I think the both of them spew a lot of disgusting stuff, and they do it for money. No respect for me for any of them.  

    ” Is Rush right about everything?  Of course not.  But he is right about most things.  If people took the time to listen for themselves and think for themselves they would be far less likely to join in with the chorus of naysayers.”

    Nope, I don’t dislike Rush because there is some rule that liberal = hate Rush. I dislike him because he is inflammatory, and rude. I also disagree with most of his politics. And I listened to him most of my childhood, my dad was a fan. 
     
          

       6 likes

  36. Funny thing is that my dad liked Rush Limbaugh and my uncle (his brother) likes Howard Stern. So I guess terrible taste in radio runs in the family :) . 
     As if as some weird punishment for questioning whether or not Stern was  still on the radio, on Friday I went to visit my grandparents for their 60th anniversary. I rode in the same car as my uncle and cousins, and they had Howard Stern on the whole way. Yep, apparently he is still on satellite radio. Overall, not the most pleasant drive ever. 

       4 likes

  37. Archibishop Timothy Dolan gets blessings as a world beacon of light for the sanctity of life.

    Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards gets infamy for her dedication to the prevention of human life and otherwise terminating human life as early in life as possible.  She gets to crown herself the worlds queen of the death.  I don’t imagine that crown would feel too good if it was melting to her head in Gehanna.  

       3 likes

  38. Nope, I don’t dislike Rush because there is some rule that liberal = hate Rush. I dislike him because he is inflammatory, and rude. I also disagree with most of his politics. And I listened to him most of my childhood, my dad was a fan. 

    Jack, same experience here. Although I was actually more or less an adult at the time. I had to listen to Rush on the radio every time I was in the car with my dad. I simply can’t figure out the attraction. He adds nothing to public discourse in any way, and is unnecessarily mean and obnoxious. He gives such an appalling stereotyped picture of what pro-lifers are like that I believe he is hurting our cause.

       4 likes

  39. On a brighter note, I’m extremely happy that my Archbishop, Timothy Dolan, beat Cecile Richards in the poll. But really, this is small potatoes. There’s already talk of him being the first American Pope!

       2 likes

  40. oh…yes. Hey, y’all do me a favor and hit the Facebook share button on this post if you haven’t already. Thanks, Jill!

       2 likes

  41. Lori Piper says:
    He gives such an appalling stereotyped picture of what pro-lifers are like that I believe he is hurting our cause.

    There are reasons to dislike Limbaugh, but his being pro-life is not one of them.  We need all the help we can get, and as the most widely listened to talk radio host speaking passionately on behalf of the pro-life issue he has given far more support to the cause than his being associated with the issue has taken from it.   

    Also–forget about the so-called “stereotyped” image of the prolifer, whatever that is.  Those doing the stereotyping are not our friends and they are not in any position to tell us what prolifers should look like.  What they really want in a prolifer is someone like the late Senator Kennedy who claimed that he was personally prolife, but worked to undermine the cause legislatively at every turn.

       5 likes

Comments are closed.