Obviously there is no perfect candidate and Ron Paul, unlike Obama, stands against militarism. And it's not like by criticizing Paul's associations we're ignoring Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann or Perry's racist, anti-Palestinian comments.
I am that glad Lizzy can express her "Salafi-Leninist" reservations here on Mondoweiss. Ron Paul is someone who civil libertarians and the anti-war camp can work with, and for that, I am grateful.
But where does the "progressive" movement go from 2012? That is what Lizzy wants us to ask. Why can't progressives elect their own wildly popular anti-war Congressmen and women? Paul is, perhaps, one of the keystones for the future election of such candidates because of the way he is contesting the warmongers in his party, and also among the Democrats.
I'm fine that Phil is promoting Ron Paul's foreign policy views and think his voice is a necessary one in this election cycle. Very much so. But he doesn't get a free pass on the rest of his record just because of this.
Lizzy's commentary is a valuable addition to the debate. Phil and others here write about Occupy, so it's not like we can just ignore "whence progressivism?" in 2012. Which is why we're having this debate.
This isn't a Mondoweiss Civil War or something ridiculous like that (goodness knows how many people would just *love* to see such a thing occur). And if you think this is indeed such a conflict, then Heaven knows what you must make of +972 Magazine's contentious discussions about normalization and the right of return.