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

pure evil

[liveonearth.livejournal.com]

Well I'm certain RP isn't that. His heart is open and he is doing his best to do right by all of us. And that is why I have confidence in him. I was able to assess that from watching utube videos of him speaking. He is different from every other politician I have ever met or watched speak, because he actually addresses the question at hand and is not non-committal or nonspecific like the rest. He recognizes the need for compromise and is willing to speak and work with everyone toward common goals. Such openness and reasonableness with regards to ideas is our best hope for finding a path forward. We are beginning it on a small scale here on LJ---respecting all ideas and being willing to discuss even when we disagree.

I appreciate your vote of confidence. Let me know if you do have some good way to educate me more about the import of the writer's strike.

Reform is a good idea. I have a tendency to think that we should swipe the slate clean and start fresh. But it is sometimes possible to restructure without having to eliminate the entire existing infrastructure for a given task. Hopefully we will succeed in reform somehow. It is desperately needed.

At the very least I'd like all these falsely named laws (patriot act, no child left behind, clear air act and the like) to be swept off the books and replaced with something that is more honestly represented by the title.

Re: pure evil

[gavin6942.livejournal.com]

I'll grant you that Paul's plain speaking, rather than using talking points or evading questions entirely, is very welcome. And I can see how he has us all in mind, but I think all candidates think they have us all in mind... so it's a matter of whom is going to bring me what I find most palatable.

Maybe Wikipedia has a good write-up of the strike, but I don't know if it gets into the impact. I was first really notified from Robert Reich, who I take to be pretty reliable on economics matters.

I'm quite in agreement that the Patriot Act, NCLB, and others need to be repealed... and if there was a way to get better name, that wouldn't hurt. This is a relatively easy process, I'd imagine. Once Bush is out, I think these more extreme laws will fade away... my understanding/memory is a bit confused, but aren't most of these things that have to be renewed every few years?

Re: pure evil

[liveonearth.livejournal.com]

Yes, we will see a lot of these bogus laws eliminated when they come up for renewal. And there are some that will need citizen input to force our representatives to take action.