Are Teaparty backed candidates less pro-war than establishment GOPers?

[rob in cal]

Much of the spirit animating the Tea Party movement is anti-big government, but as far as I can tell, outside of the Ron Paul people, there isn't much opposition from the tea party movement to one of the biggest forms of government, the US military and the various recent undeclared wars we've gotten involved in. 
I'm wondering about Miller, Buck, Angle, O'Donnell,etc. in terms of their feelings about these issues.  Are they against the GOP establishment on other issues, but, surprise, surprise, not against the invasion of Iraq or the current occupation/war in Afghanistan.  I believe Rand Paul was against the Iraq war, and that Ken Buck said something implying some kind of opposition to the Afghan war.  It would truly be an anti-establishment breakthrough if in fact these candidates were not as pro-war, pro-occupation as most other GOPers seem to be.

[Хahar 🤔]

No. I had hopes that some of them might be, but so far they all seem to be typical Republicans, only crazier.

[Vepres]

Buck has said he doesn't want Afghanistan to be an open commitment, fwiw

[memphis]

They're only against spending in theory. Once it comes to actual policy, none of them can name any items (other than trivial earmarks foreign aid or vague waste) that they would cut.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

They're only against spending in theory. Once it comes to actual policy, none of them can name any items (other than trivial earmarks foreign aid or vague waste) that they would cut.

I wouldn't say that's completely accurate. Maybe on the campaign trail it is, but I could easily see Tea Party backed candidates (if and once they become Senators) such as Rand Paul or Sharron Angle proposing huge cuts to or even abolishment of "untouchable" programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The problem is that such views aren't considered to be electable, so tea party backed candidates have to say vague platitudes about cutting spending without naming specifics.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Oh God the Tea Party isn't against government at all.  They're typical right-wingers who are against the typical "big" government right-wingers get their panties in a wad over.  

Where were these people when the Patriot Act was allowing the government to detain Americans without due process?  That's right.  No where.  

These are very conservative, well-off Americans who, for whatever reason, feel like they are being oppressed.  Ideologically driven hate and fear at it's worst (for the US anyway), and there is a distinct lining of racism and US vs. THEM mentality in their rhetoric and their ideology.  

In short words: they are SCARY AND THEY ARE DANGEROUS.  I hope Americans realize this and stay away this November.  

Obama is far from perfect and they are still problems to be tackled, but these ultra-traditionalists are NOT what we need.  

[memphis]

They're only against spending in theory. Once it comes to actual policy, none of them can name any items (other than trivial earmarks foreign aid or vague waste) that they would cut.

I wouldn't say that's completely accurate. Maybe on the campaign trail it is, but I could easily see Tea Party backed candidates (if and once they become Senators) such as Rand Paul or Sharron Angle proposing huge cuts to or even abolishment of "untouchable" programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The problem is that such views aren't considered to be electable, so tea party backed candidates have to say vague platitudes about cutting spending without naming specifics.

If you think anybody in the GOP is going to touch SS or Medicare (tea party or otherwise) you're nuts. Ditto for Dems and military.

[rob in cal]

Yeah, probably not touching the heart of the programs, but I could see some of these new republicans open to the idea of marginal changes, such as a faster than planned increase in raising the benefit age, and other such tinkering.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

They're only against spending in theory. Once it comes to actual policy, none of them can name any items (other than trivial earmarks foreign aid or vague waste) that they would cut.

I wouldn't say that's completely accurate. Maybe on the campaign trail it is, but I could easily see Tea Party backed candidates (if and once they become Senators) such as Rand Paul or Sharron Angle proposing huge cuts to or even abolishment of "untouchable" programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The problem is that such views aren't considered to be electable, so tea party backed candidates have to say vague platitudes about cutting spending without naming specifics.

If you think anybody in the GOP is going to touch SS or Medicare (tea party or otherwise) you're nuts. Ditto for Dems and military.

Not even Sharron Angle? Not even  Christine O'Donnell (just pretend she's somehow in the Senate)?

[memphis]

They're only against spending in theory. Once it comes to actual policy, none of them can name any items (other than trivial earmarks foreign aid or vague waste) that they would cut.

I wouldn't say that's completely accurate. Maybe on the campaign trail it is, but I could easily see Tea Party backed candidates (if and once they become Senators) such as Rand Paul or Sharron Angle proposing huge cuts to or even abolishment of "untouchable" programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The problem is that such views aren't considered to be electable, so tea party backed candidates have to say vague platitudes about cutting spending without naming specifics.

If you think anybody in the GOP is going to touch SS or Medicare (tea party or otherwise) you're nuts. Ditto for Dems and military.

Not even Sharron Angle? Not even  Christine O'Donnell (just pretend she's somehow in the Senate)?

Not a chance

[Eraserhead]

The NY GOP just nominated an openly anti-war candidate to run against Gillibrand. I don't know how well liked he is by the Teabaggers though.

[SvenssonRS]

No. I had hopes that some of them might be, but so far they all seem to be typical Republicans, only crazier.

Miller and DioGuardi, at the very least.

[Хahar 🤔]

No. I had hopes that some of them might be, but so far they all seem to be typical Republicans, only crazier.

Miller and DioGuardi, at the very least.

Miller seems good, yes, and he's certainly no worse than Murkowski. DioGuardi hasn't got a chance, so I haven't been paying much attention to him.

[tpfkaw]

Miller, DioGuardi, Paul, Buck, Lee, and that guy in Oregon are all to the left of Obama on Afghanistan, to varying degrees, as would have been Lamontagne.

EDIT: I also suspect Angle is a closet non-interventionist, given her prior Constitution Party affiliation.

[Хahar 🤔]

Paul is a cookie-cutter Republican.

[President Mitt]

They're only against spending in theory. Once it comes to actual policy, none of them can name any items (other than trivial earmarks foreign aid or vague waste) that they would cut.

I wouldn't say that's completely accurate. Maybe on the campaign trail it is, but I could easily see Tea Party backed candidates (if and once they become Senators) such as Rand Paul or Sharron Angle proposing huge cuts to or even abolishment of "untouchable" programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The problem is that such views aren't considered to be electable, so tea party backed candidates have to say vague platitudes about cutting spending without naming specifics.

If you think anybody in the GOP is going to touch SS or Medicare (tea party or otherwise) you're nuts. Ditto for Dems and military.

Not even Sharron Angle? Not even  Christine O'Donnell (just pretend she's somehow in the Senate)?

Angle is already backing off of that one. I think her newest platform for SS is 'Lockbox Legislation'. O'Donnell...maybe...