What we've got here is failure to communicate

April 23, 2007 by barbara

by barbara

By now, you've probably read some version of the Sheryl Crow/Karl Rove encounter. It happened Saturday night at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Not for the first time, I'm reminded that some people deemed "brilliant," e.g., Rove, are actually little dim bulbs. Read on.

Filling in with back story. For reasons not altogether clear, Rove was invited to sit at the New York Times table. It seems that the Gray Lady has become less reliably sane as she ages. But that's not the real issue.

Also attending the dinner were singer Sheryl Crow and Laurie David (she who produced the Al Gore Oscar-winning flick, "An Inconvenient Truth"). Crow and David have been visiting colleges with their Stop Global Warming tour. And when they were introduced to Rove, they asked him if he'd think about taking a fresh look at the science of global warming. You already know where this going, don't you?!

David and Crow cited scientific evidence about global warming. What were they thinking? Bushies. Don't. Do. Science.

Well, of course, they knew that. And predictably, Rove morphed rather quickly from peeved to furious. He huffed and he puffed and he attempted to blow them down.

David and Crow write a bit tongue-in-cheek about the exchange, which includes this tidbit:

In his attempt to dismiss us, Mr. (sic) Rove turned to head toward his table, but as soon s he did so, Sheryl (Crow) reached out to touch his arm. Karl swung around and spat, "Don't touch me." How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow?

Unfazed, Sheryl abruptly responded, "You can't speak to us like that, you work for us." Karl then quipped (sic), 'I don't work for you, I work for the American people." To which Sheryl promptly reminded him, "We are the American people."

At that point, Mr. Rove apparently decided he had had enough. Like a groundhog fearful of his own shadow, he scurried to his table in an attempt to hibernate for another year from his responsibility to address global warming."

According to today's New York Times,:

Recriminations between the celebrities and the White House carried over into Sunday, with Ms. Crow and Ms. David calling Mr. Rove "a spoiled child throwing a tantrum" and the White House criticizing their "Hollywood histrionics."

So who you gonna believe? Yeah, me, too.

Here's the Main Message in all of the above, global warming notwithstanding.

Karl Rove said: "I don't work for you, I work for the American people." Read it again and inwardly digest. His snide rejoinder is BushCo's fundamental truth.

The Bushies do not work for all Americans. They carefully select the Americans for whom they "work." They have accomplished this by manipulating elections, the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, the State Department, the Pentagon, the Department of the Interior, the World Bank, and Homeland Security, just for starters. The only time BushCo comes even close to mingling with "the American people" is when it's deemed a good photo op. Think New Orleans and Virginia Tech.

Last November, the American people told BushCo in no uncertain terms that we're fed up and rising with their malfeasance, corruption and self-serving governance. The number who are revolted by this administration has grown hugely over the past six months or so, even drawing many of BushCo's former chosen ones. Our message is unmistakable: "You work for us, and we are most awfully displeased with the job you are doing. Point of fact, if we could get our collective act together, we would fire you. All of you. Not in 2008. Now!"

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, "We have respect for the opinions and passion that many people have for climate change'.I wish the same respect was afforded to the president."

Cause and effect, Mr. Fratto. Consequences. Respect is earned. George Bush no longer deserves a scintilla of respect, if indeed he ever did.

You go, Sheryl and Laurie!

Posted in

Comments

Poet (not verified) | April 23, 2007 - 4:21pm

I'm not sure I agree with you Barbara. In fact i think it was very good communication telling us (truthfully--although unintentionally so) what we knew all the time. It is delicious to see a lying crook caught in his own frame of deception is it not?

Perhaps, in the great karmic and cosmic order of things, these ladies were agents of revelation for Mr. Rove in order to help him seperate his lies from the objective reality of the situation he has had a hand in creating. In other words it was for his education and not our own.

Quick, someone get a dunce cap for Karl to replace that propeller beanie ('cause he's a spin meister--get it?!!) that he usually wears. Then sit him on a high stool in the corner for "time out".

»

barbara aka babs (not verified) | April 23, 2007 - 5:42pm

Actually, the dude with the billy club who told Cool Hand Luke, "What we've got here is failure to communicate" reminded me of (pick any name) from the Bush administration. "Do not bother me with the facts. I have the whip hand and I rule supreme. I don't have to truck with the little people and your pathetic little opinions. I don't even have to hear what you're saying. La la la la la la la la la." That kind of communication.

»

Anonymous (not verified) | April 23, 2007 - 9:11pm

Has the NYT bothered to tell us why Rove is an honored guest at its table? Ya know, it's one of those things that makes it more difficult for us naive Plains folks: to figure out the news: who makes it, who reports it, who spins it.

»

Barbara aka Babs (not verified) | April 23, 2007 - 9:25pm

I've been wondering about that, too. Dare we hope they found it amusing and thought they might pick up some tidbits? Okay, how 'bout this, then? Hmmm. That's the only palatable idea I have.

»

Perhansa (not verified) | April 24, 2007 - 3:41am

Having had some acquaintance with alcoholics, addicts, and pathological liars, I don't think Karl Rove had any insights from his revelatory behavior. His filters are way too thick. The loyal Bushies are addicted to power and ideology and, like anyone with an addictive behavior, will lie, steal, mislead, abuse, and use everyone and anyone to get what they so crave. Anger and indignant denial is the instinctive response when they are confronted with their actions or other people's perceptions. Bush's behavior regarding the Iraq funding and AG Gonzales is becoming more bellicose and bizarre by the day. Not a good sign. We need the Dems to step it up with the confrontation and no more enabling behavior. I'm glad to see Harry Reid confronting Bush's denial. We need to hear that from several more--what happened to Chuck Hagel, he's gone silent lately? You've noticed the only reply they EVER have to the proposed "change in course" is the same tired one they've used for five years: FEAR of an apocalyptic Iraq/Middle East, and when that's not enough, SHAME (a declaration of surrender). I almost laughed, but found it too sad, to read Dana Parino's fearmongering statement, something about leaving thousands of innocent Iraqi's to suffer if we leave--maybe she needs to don a burka and take a walk down a street in Bagdhad or go to market. These people (Bushco) are off the deep end. It looks so much clearer from a distance of 4,000 miles. Time for a showdown at the DC Corral. Several states have passed a resolution for impeachment--how 'bout Minnesota? Rove's revelation should be a wake up call to those asleep out there in TV land, the at-will employees think they can't be fired and serve for their own advancement and pleasure.

»

susan | April 24, 2007 - 10:01am

Rep. Dennis Kucinich is introducing a bill on Wednesday to impeach Cheney, which will get nowhere, alas, but seems like a nice sort of aggravation technique, especially with Cheney out of the bunker for another check of the blood clot in his leg. We wish him . . . well?

»