George Runner Abandons SOS Rally

[Ayatollahgondola]

Does anyone really know his public stance on illegal's? I know you have a strong opinion of him Eagle1, but has he been categorically open borders or was he just one to avoid the subject at all costs?

[Eagle1]

He is anti-illegal immigration, or at least that is what I have been told. As a legislator I am not aware of his having made an effort to introduce any legislation to help us out.

Judging from his reactions at the event he does seem to want to walk the middle.

He fits in with Buck McKeon and others. He is nothing like Tancredo.

[tim55]

I thought your response to this bozo was fantastic. Address your beefs at the microphone, or go ahead and leave. The first ammendment is not exclusive. You are to be commended.

[ilbegone]

George Runner left because his bully tactics were met with an answer he never expected to hear.......one that more people should make to their elected "representatives".

Spot on.

Go away if you don't desire to accommodate your electorate.

[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.