George Runner Abandons SOS Rally

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Let me clear something up here. George Runner was not there to talk about illegal immigration. He was there to talk about taxes. We were expecting two Tea Party organizations who had asked their member to attend our rally. Mr. Runner was to address their concerns about taxes. Taxes are the main concern of the Tea Party=TaxedEnoughAlready. It was the intention of having the Tea Party's member there, which would have been huge if not for the weather, to broach the issue of illegal immigration and the problems that are a result of illegals being here to citizens who were not familiar with its impact.

I do not agree that an invited guest should have been treated in such a way. It could have been handled much better. Mr Runner showed up, an even in the rain. If he had been given a chance to speak, which was still his decision, he could have been asked afterwords what his opinion on illegal immigration was. If it disagreed with those there at least there would have been a dialog. How can things get accomplished if we only speak to those that agree with us? How can we expect to get anywhere it we won't speak to those that could have an impact?

I understand the frustration of not having politicians on our side and those that won't stand up, but I don't feel that shunning them will help. But maybe I'm wrong, and this is the right approach. It does seem that not much else has worked. What I do know is it will be very difficult to get ANY seated politician to speak at another of our rallies.

[Eagle1]

Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore

Let me clear something up here. George Runner was not there to talk about illegal immigration. He was there to talk about taxes. We were expecting two Tea Party organizations who had asked their member to attend our rally. Mr. Runner was to address their concerns about taxes. Taxes are the main concern of the Tea Party=TaxedEnoughAlready. It was the intention of having the Tea Party's member there, which would have been huge if not for the weather, to broach the issue of illegal immigration and the problems that are a result of illegals being here to citizens who were not familiar with its impact.

I do not agree that an invited guest should have been treated in such a way. It could have been handled much better. Mr Runner showed up, an even in the rain. If he had been given a chance to speak, which was still his decision, he could have been asked afterwords what his opinion on illegal immigration was. If it disagreed with those there at least there would have been a dialog. How can things get accomplished if we only speak to those that agree with us? How can we expect to get anywhere it we won't speak to those that could have an impact?

I understand the frustration of not having politicians on our side and those that won't stand up, but I don't feel that shunning them will help. But maybe I'm wrong, and this is the right approach. It does seem that not much else has worked. What I do know is it will be very difficult to get ANY seated politician to speak at another of our rallies.

I disagree entirely. If the invited guest treats the host and the event as if it is beneath him and proceeds to issue an ultimatum when he has been treated respectfully and still remains adamant of a "he or me" scenario then the guest has overstepped his bounds and is pushing it.

Having been to a number of events that Tom Tancredo has attended I cannot
imagine Tom behaving as Runner did.

Why is only the host's or emcee's reactive behavior addressed but not Runner's caustic, childish, self centered indulgence?

People must stop treating these horrible politicians as if they are Gods.

If Runner had shown some class this never would have happened.

This is no different than someone punching any of us and expecting to not be punched in return.

This would not have happened if Runner had kept his temper and related to the emcee on civil terms.

Maybe this is the first time that Runner has been treated in a normal fashion.

[admin]

there is no single response here the way I see it;

Runner exhibited classic pro illegal sentiment, and it might have been intentional, but who knows? We can't take a side that supports him on that basis. However, we shouldn't invite people and then denounce them at the same time. If you didn't like runner's comments, it would have been best to address them in a more dignified manner, thank him for expressing his opposing view, or at least picked another time to chastise him in the fashion you did. He was our guest, and being gracious hosts, we have to assume that we made the error in conflicting agendas. As a non profit, we do have an obligation to be a little diplomatic in public. Runner seems to be a typical sellout republican, and we would do best to consider him as opposition in the future, but in the interim, I think it's best we fashion our own apology so Gitlin doesn't become our agent by default. we don't apologize for our agenda, but maybe for our manners we should. I don't fault you for saying what you said Frank. Just when you said it.

[Eagle1]

Originally Posted by admin

there is no single response here the way I see it;

Runner exhibited classic pro illegal sentiment, and it might have been intentional, but who knows? We can't take a side that supports him on that basis. However, we shouldn't invite people and then denounce them at the same time. If you didn't like runner's comments, it would have been best to address them in a more dignified manner, thank him for expressing his opposing view, or at least picked another time to chastise him in the fashion you did. He was our guest, and being gracious hosts, we have to assume that we made the error in conflicting agendas. As a non profit, we do have an obligation to be a little diplomatic in public. Runner seems to be a typical sellout republican, and we would do best to consider him as opposition in the future, but in the interim, I think it's best we fashion our own apology so Gitlin doesn't become our agent by default. we don't apologize for our agenda, but maybe for our manners we should. I don't fault you for saying what you said Frank. Just when you said it.

I understand what you are saying and I would agree that I should have shown greater restraint...I just couldn't do it at the moment.

It would have been better with respect to the SOS image to have been more diplomatic.

Then again, I think that we will be seeing more of this type of behavior as things get even worse. People are fed up with the politically correct treatment of politicians that have brought us to the brink of extinction
and yet get pampered.

Do you think that this thing with Runner has any lasting consequences?
I don't think so. If anything until SOS issues an apology this group will be known as one that will not give a corrupt politician a pass. As a number of folks have said to me they felt it was very okay and they wished to address other corrupt politicians in the same way. That will force them to think and act differently.

I hear Runner has paid an amount for an ethics violation for not reporting gifts. There are other things associated with this individual as reported to me by others.

You should think before issuing an apology. Mr Gitlin's apology is his and will not have any bearing on SOS.

Good manners haven't worked in having politicians address the various issues that threaten us.

Other people talk about chasing our politicians down the street. Well that didn't happen at the Saturday rally.

In a couple of weeks...not months...the impact of my obviously unrestrained reaction will be forgotten. I believe the act may make SOS more popular than not. After all it was only me ..not the SOS crew taking this guy to the woodshed.

I suggest no apology....that I believe to be inappropriate. Just let sleeping dogs lie. It will be a none issue soon and I believe it is one now.
What is to be gained by apologizing to this creature other than to feed his ego?

[admin]

We have our own rules of conduct and code of behavior to uphold, so it isn't relative to what Runner thinks, or Gitlin, for that matter. We won't be apologizing for any broad spectrum that might give rise to be supportive of Runner's political agenda, or his actions towards us or the competition there that day. It's one thing, and that one thing only. It serves to remind us that we are leaders of our own domain, and we don't fear being seen as weak of obligatory because we issue and apology for a breach of our own manners. We apologize for our manners and nothing else. This goes in the "mob rule" column. We may be angry and ready for retribution against politicians, but we do it in an organized, officially sanctioned, and proper way. We want people to trust us, and know that when they are invited to attend our events that they will be given the respect due any guest. All visiting dignitaries(using the term loosely) get treated in a diplomatic fashion when visiting from outside the US. Castro came to the US, and was not humiliated as he addressed the event attendees. That's how diplomacy works. When they leave, beat them up all you want for their views, but not at the dinner table that they were cordially invited to.
We'd be doing it for us. We are allowed to hold our own heads up, even after the fact.

[Eagle1]

Originally Posted by admin

We have our own rules of conduct and code of behavior to uphold, so it isn't relative to what Runner thinks, or Gitlin, for that matter. We won't be apologizing for any broad spectrum that might give rise to be supportive of Runner's political agenda, or his actions towards us or the competition there that day. It's one thing, and that one thing only. It serves to remind us that we are leaders of our own domain, and we don't fear being seen as weak of obligatory because we issue and apology for a breach of our own manners. We apologize for our manners and nothing else. This goes in the "mob rule" column. We may be angry and ready for retribution against politicians, but we do it in an organized, officially sanctioned, and proper way. We want people to trust us, and know that when they are invited to attend our events that they will be given the respect due any guest. All visiting dignitaries(using the term loosely) get treated in a diplomatic fashion when visiting from outside the US. Castro came to the US, and was not humiliated as he addressed the event attendees. That's how diplomacy works. When they leave, beat them up all you want for their views, but not at the dinner table that they were cordially invited to.
We'd be doing it for us. We are allowed to hold our own heads up, even after the fact.

Well then by all means do apologize to Mr Runner. Just make sure that you make it clear to him that I am not a part of that apology.

If he hadn't opened his mouth as he did nothing would have occurred. Also make sure that he knows that you weren't there. I am sure he will eat it up.

By now Roger has beaten you to the apology table.

Using Castro as an example is a very poor analogy...look at what he went on to do. Better for him to have been denounced immediately.
Realistically an apology should come from me not you...and that ain't happening.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Eagle1

Well then by all means do apologize to Mr Runner. Just make sure that you make it clear to him that I am not a part of that apology.

If he hadn't opened his mouth as he did nothing would have occurred. Also make sure that he knows that you weren't there. I am sure he will eat it up.

By now Roger has beaten you to the apology table.

Using Castro as an example is a very poor analogy...look at what he went on to do. Better for him to have been denounced immediately.
Realistically an apology should come from me not you...and that ain't happening.

OK, let's use another analogy:

Remember the US embassy take-over in Iran? The US embassy was a guest on their soil. The Iranians tossed out all protocols and went in using their immediate feelings. How well did that work for them in the longrun? Who trusted them after that?
By contrast, take a look at the incident in London where the libyans in their embassy fired on protesters on the street below, killing a female Bobby in the process. The british certainly had every provocation to go in guns blazing by natural standards. They did not however, and followed the protocols befitting their standards and expelled the lot of them after. Then, a few years later, granted airspace to US warplanes as the bombed Tripoli.
I'm asking that we don't become slaves to our emotions.