Did We Hear Correctly? SAG President Alan Rosenberg To Seek 3rd Term

COMMENTS (45)

• I’m glad the town is finally seeing what many SAG members realized months ago — this man is a dangerous, unhinged lunatic. A hugely, dramatically embarrassing night for him, and what does he do? Maybe he thinks he can get Morgan Fairchild to run against him again.

  Comment by max merlton — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 7:27pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Martin Sheen for President — PLEASE!!!!

  Comment by SAG Member — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 7:31pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I thought that Martin Sheen would give it a go and become a unifying voice for SAG. Rosenberg doesn’t stand a chance and will divide the MF vote badly. Sheen has a lot of cred with the MF faction and is generally liked, never having gotten his hands too dirty in these intra-guild wars, by actors more broadly as well.

  If Rosenberg is in the race, then it’s over for Membership First. I think even the most ardent supporter of MF can see this.

  Comment by James Brock — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 7:33pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Hasn’t he destroyed enough? What more can this buffoon do to destroy our income?

  Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 7:38pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Alan, you prick, I hope you are reading this because 78% of SAG thinks you’re a jerk.

  Comment by m — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 8:08pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Marty Sheen would be my only pick for MF now.

  How many of you actually believe this vote actually passed anyways? I say someone was heavily paid off!!

  Comment by me — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 8:14pm PDT  Reply to this post

• go away allen…far, far, away…forever

  Comment by isabella marin — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 8:19pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I hope Alan Rosenberg goes back under the rock he crawled out of. Can we have a vote to kick this dude out of Hollywood?

  Comment by Bob — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 8:40pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I remember Rosenberg during the WGA strike–his unending solidarity with the writers, his eloquent resolve (and the way it contrasted so starkly with Verrone’s spineless drivel). They don’t deserve you at SAG, Alan. I guess we don’t at the WGA either, but come be our president anyway. (Don’t worry if you don’t have writing credits–as recent history attests, that’s not necessarily a bar to the WGA presidency.)

  Comment by StickingWithMyUnion — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 8:49pm PDT  Reply to this post

• He’s running again because of what I and so many people have been saying about him since last January during the Writer’s strike–HE’S NUTS!
  And those who follow him and endorse him need to see a psychiatrist as well.

  It’s a shame. I am sure he’s a decent man, but he’s completely lost it and showed that too many times over the last year. It’s time to take a long rest and quietly disappear. He’s embarrassing us all, most of all, himself.

  Comment by Scott Barry — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 8:50pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I think that we have to look for leaders who want to UNITE SAG (the ENTIRE UNION) and not divide us or go after AFTRA. Anyone (and I mean anyone, no matter what “party” the belong to) should be OPEN-MINDED to serve on the board or be the President or any other elected office.

  I know Alan did what he thought was right and for that I applaud him. That also goes for the most outspoken U4S and Membership First members. However, the time for party politics has past. Anyone who has an axe to grind against the other “party” or other board members should do us all a favor and STAY OUT OF THE BOARD ROOM.

  It’s time we got control of our union back. I say we look to disolve this 2 party system (yep, get rid of U4S and Membership First and any other “party”) that has been created in the last 13 (and the darkest) years of SAG and start working as a GUILD with TRUE SOLIDARITY.

  In TRUE Solidarity,

  Peter Elliott
  SAG Member

  Comment by Peter Elliott — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 8:51pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Alan, baby… stick a fork in it. You’re the union equivalent of box office poison at this point. Thanks for all you tried to do, but please take a break. It’s time for Martin Sheen.

  Comment by Bartlet for Prez — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 9:12pm PDT  Reply to this post

• FEAR NOT! I already have a call into Alan’s agent’s @ Gersh to have them drop everything and get this poor man some work.

  Comment by mike e b — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 9:12pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I’m not a SAG member but it seems from the outside, that SAG must seriously consider restricting it’s VOTING membership to those who actually earn the majority of their income from acting. If they set a yearly minimum of somewhere between 30 and 50K it would weed out so many members who got a couple lines in a movie 10 years ago. These people should not be allowed to vote on contracts.

  The WGA is far from perfect, but at least you have to have sold something fairly big to be accepted into it. So, when it is contract time most of the people voting are voting strictly on the economics of sustaining a career as a writer.

  I think if SAG had more stringent voting rules, this would have been settled months ago and with far less internal drama. And they would have gotten a better deal. They should implement them these changes and re-name themselves the WSAG (the Working Screen Actors Guild)>

  Comment by Casual Observer — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 9:20pm PDT  Reply to this post

• SAG needs a strong, unselfish leader unaffiliated with either Membership First or Unite 4 Strength to step up and seize the moment. As long as you have warring factions SAG will always be completely at the mercy of the producers. Lay down your arms. Make peace. Shut up and quit trashing each other. No more personal attacks by either side. Thank Alan Rosenberg, Melissa Gilbert, Bill Daniels and Richard Masur for their service, declare the decade-long war over with and move on. Go out of your way to show each other respect even if you disagree. Quit making this another Bosnia or Middle East.

  No Membership First. No Unite 4 Strength. Just a reborn, united Screen Actors Guild.

  Comment by GeorgeT — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 9:32pm PDT  Reply to this post

• MARTIN SHEEN. PLEASE. Please run. Save this guild from its current role as the lamest union around. The vote has ended and the time to come together and heal is upon us. Let’s move ahead, smoke a J and ELECT MARTIN SHEEN!

  Comment by Denise R — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 9:48pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Someone please call Alan Rosenberg and tell him that the best thing he could do for SAG is to resign from the Presidency. He no longer carries any currency with the industry – no influence, no respect, no believability. Step aside, Alan. In fact, you step aside too, Anne-Marie. Go away.

  Comment by truthteller — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 9:56pm PDT  Reply to this post

• This reminds me of Sarah Palin weighing a presidential bid.

  Sorry, guys. The people have spoken.

  Comment by Common Sense — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 9:58pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Scott Barry,

  Get a psychiatrist or an education. You come across as an ignorant dolt. Rosenberg fought against a bad contract. It didn’t work out well. He certainly made mistakes but he fought for the right fight. Anyone who thinks this deal is a plum is an idiot or needs psychiatric help. Not coincidentally Scott, you fit both categories. Your silence is golden.

  So go use up that residual check. They won’t be around long. This was the AMPTP’s intent but why should you believe the contract you just approved.

  Dumbass.

  Comment by I nominate Scott Barry. — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 10:22pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Given how Alan and Patric Verrone were ideological bedmates, I hope this portends a seachange at the WGA as well.

  Comment by Paul Rodger — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 10:42pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Alan is our Ralph Nader, he’ll run because he has nothing else to do, he’s clinging on to anyway to stay in a spotlight. Sad.

  Comment by Tom — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 10:52pm PDT  Reply to this post

• A lot of anger here pointed at Alan Rosenberg by people who seem to think we finally got a great contract that somehow was being blocked by Mr. Rosenberg.

  That’s a little revisionist history folks–and the ink isn’t even dry. Mr. Rosenberg has fought tirelessly to get the membership a fair contract.

  A membership poll went out and 80% of the membership stated we wanted Mr. Rosenberg and the Board to continue to fight for a better contract–a fair contract.

  Some Board members overthrew the power of the President and instead sent the same lousy contract out to the membership for a vote which was tallied today. The membership voted up the contract.

  The membership–all of whom were mailed the poll and voted 80% to keep fighting– changed their minds a few months later and voted up the very same contract.

  That is the way it went down. Blame yourselves–ourselves–if you like, but Mr. Rosenberg was not the obstacle in this negotiation. The AMPTP was the obstacle. The lousy contract was the obstacle. The desire of the membership for a fair contract was the obstacle.

  I certainly accept this final vote of the membership.
  This vote was ours to decide and 30% of the membership felt it was an important enough issue to cast a vote. The same with the poll sent out to all members regarding how the president should proceed in the contract negotiations. I think 20 something percent responded to that. The membership has a voice.

  When the will of membership changed I’m not sure. But it certainly did change.

  I am also certain this contract ballot was not a ballot for the presidential election for the next term.

  And having read the contract myself and the newspapers I think by the time the next presidential election comes around anyone will see Mr. Rosenberg was right about this contract. And even if he wasn’t (he was, but for example if he wasn’t) it was the will of the membership every step of the way Mr. Rosenberg was carrying forward.

  Comment by zackery — Tuesday June 9, 2009 @ 11:33pm PDT  Reply to this post

• How is it that someone who is, at best, a C-list actor can be the head of an actor’s union?

  No wonder SAG is going under. Just look at how many new fall tv series are going AFTRA!

  Comment by Torchwood — Wednesday June 10, 2009 @ 12:26am PDT  Reply to this post

• Just for the record…

  Total % of Total # Votes % of Votes
  110,000 35% 38,786
  YES 25% 27,422 70.70%
  NO 10% 11,364 29.30%
  Not YES 75% 82,578
  Didn’t vote 65% 71,214

  Comment by herbiefrog — Wednesday June 10, 2009 @ 4:01am PDT  Reply to this post

• Casual observers who are not members of SAG who’s opinions I don’t support, especially over comments about actors who pay their dues and the exorbitant fee just to join, somehow shouldn’t be allowed to vote on contract issues because he or she does a few lines in limited parts over ten years is a much of bunk. We are all in this together or not in it at all. If I were President, it is high time for writer’s, actors and directors guilds to meet with producers at the same time during contract extensions, so that all the issues are decided all for one and one for all! How does a C-list actor become head of an actor’s union? Would you like to talk about the current President of the United States?

  Comment by Richard Lapp — Wednesday June 10, 2009 @ 5:29am PDT  Reply to this post