Rosenberg: Could Run Again; White: Too Busy to Think About Permanent Job
Those are two interesting tidbits from today’s Los Angeles Times story on the rather odd posture in which SAG finds itself, with the National Board majority and the NED supporting the tentative TV-Theatrical contract and the union president and his faction opposing it.
There’s not a lot of news in it, but Rosenberg’s statement that he’s still considering whether to run for a third term as president and White’s statement that he’s not thinking about whether the “interim” label will be removed from his title are interesting.
These statements say two things; White is focused on doing the job he’s in now…and Rosenberg his focused on politics.
I have nothing but respect for David White, and will work for my union and support him as strongly as he has worked for me and all SAG members.
The difference between Rosenberg (fuming down the hall) and David White (leading this union) brings to mind a quote from Winston Churchill-
“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”
I hope he runs again, then MF would surely lose seats. Even some of the MF supports have backed away from AR
I wonder … what would he run on?
“I sponsored a 28 hour filibuster, in violation of the SAG constitution!”
“I promised a f**king civil war, and I promised to lead it!”
“I penned a really bad song about the SAG majority and sang it on YouTube – after all, my cousin’s a rock star.”
Oy. Don’t get me started … there’s a laundry list …
V.
In all seriousness, after that appallingly bad taste (for a president of anything) youtube video, if SAG members ratify the new theatrical contract by anything in the neighborhood of a decisive margin (say north of 55%), Alan Rosenberg should just slink away, and most of the MF leadership with him.
Geo–
it’s not a question of taste, but it certainly does call his judgment into question. In my opinion, he’s made several serious lapses in this regard (the “strategy” employed during the negotiations and after, the filibuster, and the lawsuit are among the most egregious). The song eroded his credibility as a legitimate spokesperson for the Guild even further. He set himself up–and by extension, the membership–as a clown. If I were sitting on the opposite side of a negotiating table, I expect I’d have a hard time keeping a straight face after seeing the song stylings of AR. I’d have an even harder time taking the entity he represents seriously.
I hope he chooses not to run. We deserve a more level-headed leader.
What was the most telling part of the incident for me, and the clearest indication that Rosenberg was constitutionally ill-suited for leadership was that he took the assent and the firing of Allen as a personal affront. Remember, he told the Wrap “My life sucks.” Given that he was newly separated and, in all probability, at the time his life really did suck, the real issue was not how events affected Alan Rosenberg.
He’s apparently never believed it, but the opposition to MF was never all about him, and it’s pr4etty clear he confused his personal agenda with what was best for SAG. The fact that he opened his picnic remarks on the video with self-referential comments only underscores that he still doesn’t get it.
This is clearly a man who thinks he is a person of destiny. Remember that stuff about him wanting “his” strike? He not only didn’t get it, he didn’t get anything else that will survive the last day of his term of office, except a budget deficit. A “close” (less than 75% in favor) ratification vote will convince him he still has a chance to leave a legacy.
Well, if you ask long time political operatives in this country to define “comfortable” and “landslide” election victories, they will typically tell you 55% and 60% respectively.
I’m not saying that video wasn’t bad judgement too, of course, but for any elected official to show that level of contempt as embodied in the lyrics of that song for what he certainly knows is a sizable minority of his electorate (let alone, as he’s about to discover, an actual majority) is pretty staggeringly prima facie evidence of unsuitability for an elected office serving those voters. Right then, right there, he quit being president of SAG and chose to be MF national chairman instead. And not even a particularly savvy one of those either.
The MF leadership doesn’t even seem to have any unelected surrogates to turn to for that kind of plausible deniability political calumny. Heavens, don’t they watch their own industry’s political thrillers?
geo, wasn’t Alan’s ballad aimed squarely at the A-list actors whom he feels put their economic welfare ahead of the interests of the union? It sounded to me like class warfare, plain and simple.
In general real-world politics, a demagogic appeal to class works best when the working-class masses believe they have no chance to cross the line into higher income brackets. In SAG, I bet there are few actors who would refuse to ascend to higher levels of popularity, employability and fees — much less ones who actively work to ensure that they never make that ascent. So the MF class-warfare appeal is really intended for people who have given up their ambition and hope for a bigger, better career.
Stuart–
The lyrics are here: http://www.thewrap.com/article/1136 While I certainly get “selfish” from them, I don’t get class warfare against the top A-listers at all. Would A-list actors really be worried about p&h for themselves and telling CBS they’re more than happy to take whatever they want to give so long as they let me live?
If you’re right about the intent, it was pretty poorly executed. If that’s class warfare it reads to me like an attack on middle-class working actors who are too cowardly to put their little comfortable middle-class existance at risk even temporarily. Unless we’re going to define “A-list” as anybody getting a paycheck for a current project. I dunno, maybe in Alan’s mind that is the “haves”, but I’d still say that’s a pretty broad-based section of the Guild he just slammed there, not just the cast of “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Desperate Housewives”.
geo – I think his broadside took in a lot of targets, but clearly this is a ballad of haves vs. have-nots, in which the haves get lucrative pay from the producers and thus are maliciously trying to ensure that the have-nots shut up and take their crumbs rather than disrupt the gravy train. Here are the points that I think were aimed at the “cowardly upper class”:
We don’t care about the future, we only care about us.
and if you don’t earn what I think I can earn,
I will throw you underneath a bus.
Pretty clear that the ‘us’ is people earning more than the average.
I sure do love my Union, it gave me my pension and my health,
but don’t expect me to stand up for nobody
till I’ve had a chance to accumulate some wealth.
This one is aimed at anyone drawing a paycheck who (according to Alan) is too cowardly to risk that paycheck by standing up to the AMPTP.
I don’t care about nobody.
No, I only care about me.
Lay down your weapons and stop all that nasty fighting,
don’t you know you should be glad to work,
shouldn’t even be mad to work,
sometimes you should prefer to work for free!
Sometimes as long as it ain’t me!
Meanwhile, come see me on TV!
Like you said, this one implies that anyone working for more than the minimums is selfish. Moreover, it says that anyone in that category is willing to see everyone else work for free so as not to imperil that one’s payday.
But when you consider the reference to CBS and the line “come see me on TV,” you might easily wonder if he is thinking specifically of his estranged spouse.
the entire premise of MF is anger and bitterness that their lives have not measured up to their expectations. That goes from carers like MC Cord’s which folded after a big start to the BG guys who scramble for a days gig. Some body and something has to be to blame.
The irony in AR’s “song” (using the term loosely) is that he and his minions call those outside LA “hobbyists” … because they AREN’T A-listers. They are denigrated on a regualar basis. But then … when the A-listers take a position with which he disagrees – THEY are the enemies.
And here’s the greatest point of this irony:
The A-listers he “sings” (using the term loosely) about are aligned and in agreement with those members whom he labels as “hobbyists.”
So … it’s not so much the income bracket at issue as it is the philosophy of the individual member. If you don’t share his opinion, he has a perjorative label for you, whoever you are.
And this is the guy – the SAG prez – who claims he fosters “unity.”
V.
Vestd, the Dr. would like to inidcate that this is a classic case of paranoia. We’re okay, the whole union is against us. What flavor of kool-aide do they drink?
A-listers are the enemy….
Background actors are the enemy…
Non-Hollywood based members are the hobbyist enemy….
And that only leaves MF.
It’s the Kulaks fault, I tell you. . .the Kulaks!
Oh, wait, that’s somebody else’s line around here. . .
Doc: “Vestd, the Dr. would like to inidcate that this is a classic case of paranoia. We’re okay, the whole union is against us. What flavor of kool-aide do they drink?”
Back in the late 1930s, when my grandparents (on my father’s side) were card-carrying members of the CPUSA, the Party ordered its American members to oppose the US’s entry into World War II and its support of Great Britain through the Lend-Lease Act. At the time, Germany and the Soviet Union had signed the Molotov-von Ribbentrop treaty, the “Iron Pact” that committed each to non-aggression against the other… and, incidentally, divided Poland between themselves. Pete Seeger himself wrote some spiffy anti-war songs at that time.
But a couple of years later, Hitler’s forces swept eastward through Poland and began their assault on the Eastern Front. Suddenly, the CPUSA was one of the leading proponents of American involvement in the war, and Pete Seeger was singing of our patriotic duty to go fight the evil Nazis.
True Believers™ with a political objective of total power in view are never interested in ideological consistency if it gets in the way of political expediency. They know that there’s always time after they consolidate their rule to send internal dissenters to the gulags or the gallows.
Kathy: “the entire premise of MF is anger and bitterness that their lives have not measured up to their expectations.”
One wonders why they wouldn’t have left show business a long time ago.
And then one recalls the old joke whose punch line is, “What? And leave show business?”
Stuart–
You left out the Popular Front before Molotov-Ribbentrop. That one wasn’t just a flip-flop by CPUSA –it was a flip-flop-flip, and all in 6 years!
geo – quite right. And with MF, I’ve seen them flip-flop-flip in days, sometimes hours.