Yeah, fine; dialogue's good. But to be honest there are probably just as many people in, say, the Labour Party who are decent or potentially decent activists; a desire to work with/open up a "dialogue" with them doesn't preclude being honest about what you think of the nature of their organisation. We should tell the truth about what RR represents, otherwise any "dialogue" we might able to have with better people inside it will be necessarily compromised by our own dishonesty. It's not a question of writing individual activists off, it's a question of telling the truth.
On Galloway, his 2005 election campaign wasn't "connect with a principled...stand" on anything; his anti-war politics are NOT principled, that's the point. His opposition to the 2003 war was linked inextricably to his support for the Ba'ath regime and more broadly his Stalinist, Arab chauvinist worldview. Was David Davis's "stand" on 42 days "principled"? Would you have supported him? No, because his "stand" on that issue was part of a particular set of reactionary politics which can't be seperated from the whole. Same goes for Galloway.
The question about the SA is completely redundant, Jason, as there's no way that Galloway would've joined an organisation which - for all its faults - did have a conception of independent working-class politics and meaningful anti-capitalism. If Galloway joining the SA had become possible or likely at any point it would have represented a degeneration so drastic that we probably would've left some time previously. (We did oppose Galloway speaking at the 2003 or 2004 - I forget which - SA conference.)