Anyone who has incurred the ire of Ron Paul supporters will tell you that they are a determined, educated and vocal group of activists. Any group which can raise $6 million within 24 hours as Ron Paul supporters did during the 2008 elections certainly knows how to get things done. Recently, however, one of its own organizations came under fire as a local community gave its political contributions to Campaign For Liberty in order to produce an advertising campaign for Ken Buck, a candidate for Senator in Colorado.
At the heart of the controversy are Buck's views on the war in Afghanistan. Although the Republican candidate has expressed disapproval over America's involvement in Iraq, he has supported the ongoing effort in Afghanistan. On his campaign website, Buck appears to accept the official military view regarding this conflict which includes a 10 year projected stay and a prolonged rebuilding effort. He also stated that he would look "first to the advice of the generals" rather than suggesting any sort of disengagement on his own. While these views are typical in a Republican platform, they diverge considerably from the Libertarian-leaning views of the Ron Paul camp. The Afghan conflict is seen as financially draining and as a means for the military industrial complex to perpetuate itself at the expense of the American citizens. It is viewed as a type of government expansion with numerous corporate and government entities profiting from the venture. In short, Buck's broad based support of the war earned him the label of "Neo-Conservative" by many within the Ron Paul community.
However, Campaign For Liberty, apparently with the support of Ron Paul himself, have stood their ground and stated that the labeling is a bit too harsh. First of all, one would expect Buck to support the troops since his own son is presently a cadet in West Point. In one of his speeches, Buck also pointed out that he believed America's wars should be short lived with definite objectives and a projected ending date. Ron Paul has also stated that war is sometimes necessary and if undertaken, should follow the guidelines put forth by the Constitution. Incidentally, Paul himself voted for the authority to go into Afghanistan with the objective of bringing Al-Quaeda and Bin Laden to justice.
Buck's political views also appear to be changing in the pattern that has now become familiar to those in the Ron Paul camp. As one awakens to the extent of government abuse and corruption and becomes more fully aware of the threats to personal sovereignty and individual freedom a paradigm shift begins to occur. This seems to have taken place in Buck's views regarding the Federal Reserve which has changed from support for autonomy to a call for complete transparency.
In an interview with spokesperson Jesse Benton of Campaign For Liberty, LibertyPulse.com tackled this divisive issue in order to offer clarity and resolution. CFL did take responsibility for having bungled the advertisement for Buck which came across more as a personal endorsement rather than simply a score card. However, the support was generated at the local level by voters who supported Buck as well as Ron Paul and CFL. The money that was raised was done so by Buck voters and supporters and was spent on campaign support instead of having been given directly to Buck. It is, after all, this local support that portrays the individual choice and local sovereignty which has come to define the Liberty message.
In all of this apparent confusion, what remains is that Campaign For Liberty stands out as a powerful endorsement as well as a grass roots financial support for a political candidate. Instead of having the backing of a corporate lobbying group, a politician can have the support of his local constituents without having to worry about catering to special interests for specific legislation or compromise. Groups like CFL short circuit the corpora-political machinery which is responsible for the need for its very existence.
Comments