And the point???

You can say what you want about Rove, but why the Hell should he give Cheryl Crow 5 hours of time? Surely wouldn't be a deep understanding of music, let alone climate change. Seriously. What can he gain from a conversation with her? And the last thing that any administration needs is the pressure to give every half educated "entertainer any time to hear their verbatim regurgitation on their pet issue of the month.

In the words of Homer Simpson, "Rock stars. Is there anything that they don't know???"

KB

Crow has been an environmental activist for over 15 years. I expect she knows much more about climate change than Rove.

Gosh, now Karl Rove is a stand in for GWB. Since he's been considered Bush's Brain for lo these many years, it was only a matter of time until he just took over...

Besides "Crow," what is another four-letter word that starts with the letter C?

I've never heard of Cheryl Crow... did you mean Sheryl Crow?

For what it's worth... (nothing at all)

Yes, Mr. Rove, you insideous genius. I am an American Person. You work for me. Hand in your keys and security clearance. You're fired.

Why are we concentrating on Sheryl Crow here? Even if we take the position that the administration should ignore entertainers with opinions (I guess that would include people like Rush Limbaugh), what about Laurie David?

Laurie David has been an activist for over 15 years. Essentially she has made the study of climate change and prevention of climate change her profession. Does this not qualify her to speak with an informed opinion?

And as noted, both of them are examples of "the American people." Given that a majority of the American people are in favor taking meaningful action on global warming, I'd say Rove had best start listening to people who are professional enough to approach him courteously.

Sorry. Crow and David don't speak for and don't represent "the American people". They're two individuals who went to Rove's table looking for a fight - And they got one.

And they're currently getting ripped a new one all over the blogosphere.

Actually, Crow and David's opinions line up with the opinions of a great many American people, myself included. As Crow is a celebrity, she has more access than a commoner like me.

If I had the opportunity to approach Karl Rove and challenge him on a few points, I'd take it in a heartbeat. I would gladly bring a fight to Karl Rove, and I have no doubt I'd win that fight, rhetorically speaking. Sadly, I seriously doubt that Mr. Rove has the guts to actually face an unscreened crowd of the American people. Let me know if that changes, will you?

Kirkbrew,

Just because one is an entertainer, or a celebrity, does not mean they don't know what they are talking about. Nor does the fact that you are not, mean that you do. You should keep your pie hole shut unless you actually know the extent of their background on a subject before you make a judgement. As a science teacher with a degree in both biology and geology I feel global warming is an issue, and I've been keeping up with the issue for going on twenty years. How much have you investigated the issue? HOw you read up on ice core analysis? Teh shift in ecologic zones, esarly migration, forsythia blooming in December, melting glaciers, etc? I would also love contact with the Bush Admin, though that is highly unlikely since I am merely a teacher and not a former CEO of an oil company. If you look at the record of deciet on Global warming and bear in mind how the WH house is in bed with big oil, I think you might draw the same conclusions as the "rock stars", who may not know everything (no one does), but at least they don't have their heads so far up their anus that they can't tell global warming from thier own flatulance.

Yo, MC Rove Raps! (Again)

http://www.dailygut.com/?i=2610

If you are going to suggest that GW being in bed with big oil makes him an environmental nightmare between the sheets, then make sure you invite Al Gore to the orgy. He (and his fathers) history in the big oil arena may be forgotten by those who choose to, but facts are facts.

Please spare me the carbon B.S replies.

Karen Miller, Daniel, et al...

What is the advantage for you to remain skeptical about the reality of climate change? Are you personally wallowing in the wealth of the oil industry and therefore hesitant to see it take a hit because of reform? Do you own a huge share in Exxon or BP and therefore know that a healthy, safe world for future generations is going to take the chateau briande out of your mouth and the diamond encrusted shoes off your feet?

I am happy to see Sheryl Crow approach the Rover because during these past seven years of Bushit, I often have lamented that, excepting the Dixie Chics [who I am thrilled to note rose from the ashes of an agenda to destroy them based on their failure to capitulate - love to see the links between big oil and Clear Channel, whose dj's probably got bonuses to keep that smear campaign lively], it seemed that the era of music celebes helping to amplify protest had vanished. Now I know that this is not so and I'm glad of it.

The people here who are so anti Crow are so because they have an underdeveloped sense of adult responsibility. When people bring up 'downer' subjects like the environment and war, they just clinch up like a child hearing mommy and daddy fight. Then they decide to hate the objector for reminding them that our country is being run by ugly people with ugly agendas who don't give a shit about their constituants.

People, we do not need to choose between protecting the environment and protecting our economy. We need to protect the environment TO protect our economy.

Compare the economies of Haiti and the Dominican Republic for one prime example. If you're unfamiliar with it, I would highly recommend the book Collapse, by the Pulitzer Prizing winning author Jared Diamond.

If your curious about his take on things, the environmentalists don't love him because he is too willing to deal with business. The economists don't love him because he's too environmental. These two statements combined should tell you that he is a moderate.

Collapse compares many societies that have collapsed with similar societies that did not in order to determine the causes of societal collapse and what we may do to avoid it.

Here's a link if you want to buy it.

http://www.bestwebbuys.com/9780143036555

Daniel,

Just because Al's family was involved in big oil does not mean the he follows in their footsteps, and besides let's be honest, I drive a car (only when necessary, I walk to work as often as possible) and we are all part of the problem. Having said that, Al never got the chance to dictate energy policy behind closed doors, and claim that the public had no right to know the nature of the discussion or conclusions due to "national security". Nor did he allow no bid contracts to be given to Hulliburton, nor has he tried repeatedly to dig up what is left of the only large tract of virgin wilderness in Alaska. At least he is making an effort to educate the public instead of misleading them and silencing disent (and scienctific findings by NASA concerning the problem).