Ron Paul doesn't support writer's strike?

[liveonearth]

OK, I was provoked to search around a little bit because gavin6942 says he can't support Ron Paul because of his position on the writer's strike. He said Dr Paul actively tried to stop the strike. I haven't found any evidence yet for this. Dr Paul agreed to an interview on The View rather than abstaining from it to support the strike. I am certain that he supports the rights of the writers to strike. He supports everyone's right to unionize. It appears that his appearance on Jay Leno was also during the stike. So the claim is that Dr Paul is against the writers because he interviewed during the strike. And the desire is that he abstain from making television appearances to support the strikers.

Frankly, the writer's strike is far less important to the future of this nation and to the writers themselves than the other issues under consideration. This seems to me to be an example of an individual identifying with a small group whose cause is more important than the greatest issues of our times. A job is a job. A government is a government. A nation is a nation. A planet is a planet. Which is more important?

I understand and support Ron Paul's choice to accept opportunities for media exposure during this crucial time, even with the chance that writers may not see the big picture and may choose to paint him as their enemy because of it.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/View_hosts_grill_Paul_on_abortion_1204.html
Is this the evidence that Ron Paul doesn't support the strike?
"Paul is the first candidate to appear on the popular daytime talk show since a writers strike began last month. Democratic candidates have said they would not cross picket lines to appear on The View while the strike persists; a CBS-sponsored debate could also be canceled because of Democrats refusals to participate if that network's news writers call a strike."

http://eternalhope.blog-city.com/ron_paul_takes_wide_stance_on_writers_strike.htm
Here one blogger puts Ron Paul in the corporate camp because he crossed the writer's picket line.

http://oldhickorysweblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-and-writers-strike.html
This blogger calls Paul a "flaming right winger"

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/paul_in_crosshairs119.html
This article guesses that the powers that be might try to kill Ron Paul--and I am sure they are right. Anyone who effectively and publicly opposes the powers that be is a target.

http://www.counterpunch.org/wolf12122007.html
Here Sherry Wolf makes her case for why leftists should reject Ron Paul, and her article reveals how ignorant she is. She does confirm for me that Kucinich likes Paul. That would be a great ticket.
"According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, liberal maverick and Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich told supporters in late November he was thinking of making Ron Paul his running mate if he were to get the nomination."

Comments

[gavin6942.livejournal.com]

I'm also curious which part of Sherry Wolf's essay was "ignorant". I know Sherry and she's not dumb.

I do think she misinterpreted the education part by thinking we'd be reduced to home-schooling, but all the quotations and such seem accurate. Paul did say all the things that she claims he said.

[liveonearth.livejournal.com]

Yes, the education argument was far fetched. There were a few other thought-streams that seemed bogus to me. It is the way that she lined up the quotes and colored them to suit her assertions that I didn't like. It wasn't as ignorant as it was manipulative, but I think that it required some lack of understanding to oversimplify to the extent that she did. Taking quotes out of context and slanting the arrangement to make an unrelated point is the sort of thing that Fox News specializes in. I could reread her article to answer your question more thoroughly...but I'm not going to. Other things to do.

Ron Paul would remove or reduce government contracts with a long list of military-industrial, contractors and security firms that have grown very fat on our tax dollars. He would end government subsidies to corporate farms, pharmaceutical corporations and insurance businesses. He wouldn't limit corporate power but he would remove the federal revenue stream toward corporations. They would have to make it by selling their products to the people, instead of to the government. This makes better sense to me.

I am sure you are not alone in your dismay at the idea of a return to constitutional minimalist government here in the states. Truth be known, of course it won't happen. But we could use to think and move in that general direction. It is so taboo for most people that just being able to talk is a challenge.

People get very frustrated talking about politics because everyone is wrong. Nobody has the whole answer. Democracy isn't the perfect tool, neither is fascism or socialism, or any other ism. I know that I don't have the whole answer, either. I'm merely pushing in a general direction that seems to be the balance for the direction we've been sliding since I've been politically aware. I don't expect Paul to be elected but I do want people to start thinking about what our founders intended, and why, once again.

[gavin6942.livejournal.com]

"I do want people to start thinking about what our founders intended"

Whereas I want people to STOP thinking about it. The founders intended women and blacks to be denied voting rights, they saw blacks as property and abortion would never have been legal. The death penalty wasn't "cruel or unusual"...

We can use them as guidelines, but trying to use a 1787 mindset in a 2008 world is a mistake.

[(Anonymous)]

This is a far larger topic than I am willing to bite off in the last days before I return to school. Our founders had thought hard about how to build a nation and government, and they had some good ideas in addition to their bigotry. It is worth considering arguments on all sides. We do need to make radical changes to our government, and I see the Libertarian process of stripping down as being a good step in preparation for the rebuilding that will occur when enlightened leaders step in after the purge. If you believe that we can cleanse our government and begin with fresh uncorrupt institutions to care for the people. Anyway....you seem again rather set against my thinking process and more interested in setting your direct disagreement in print than you are in a discussion that leads toward solution. I am sad to see this change in your tone, as I respect your knowledge and insight into government and things political. I do not mean to be provocative, but I figure if Rush Limbaugh can put his uneducated opinion out there then I can too.

[gavin6942.livejournal.com]

My tone is only changed insofar as that the time is becoming scant for pondering and the hard decisions must be made... it's nothing personal.

My opinions, "insight" or "knowledge" should never be respected or taken seriously. I am not an authority on anything or know more than anyone else.

I fully agree much of what the founders said was important (such as the balance of the three branches). But the majority of it becomes more important when re-interpreted in today's world, outside of what they would have wanted. Reading "The Federalist Papers" or looking at the writings of the first few presidents will make it clear even in the beginning no one agreed on what any of the laws really meant... I firmly believe a law is right if it rests on reason, not on who said it. (This is one area where I tend to agree with libertarians, as I think many criminal laws are simply not needed.)

Oh well.

[liveonearth.livejournal.com]

It's funny to me that you say your opinion/insight/knowledge should not be respected. Everyone takes in info from a variety of sources and makes of it what they will. You are exposed to a lot and understand a lot, and you're selling yourself short. Your opinions do deserve respect. And nobody's opinion should be adopted without critical consideration.

Anyway, glad to hear it's not personal. I understand that you're not going to support Ron Paul and I'm interested----who have you decided that you will support? Have you made that choice? I have been working on my plans B-Z, since plan A just about never comes through.

[gavin6942.livejournal.com]

I think I answered my support decision in another thread (Plan A: Kucinich, B: Richardson, C: Edwards, D: Obama).... I voted Kucinich in 2004, and I won't be doing that again. (If we caucused like Iowa or had run-off voting, he'd clearly be my primary choice, but unfortunate voting for a marginal candidate with a straight vote isn't very helpful.)

You're quite right that information comes from many sources, is critically analyzed and then sorted through. In many cases some of the stranger ideas I come across are from people who completely ignorant, simply because that ignorance leads me to uncharted avenues. I would reiterate (or simply iterate, I guess) that my views have very little value to them. When I post news items or links, take them for what it's worth, but my own personal outlook isn't something I intend to pass on (except to my students, but that's largely uninten tional.)