What Does Everyone Think About Christine O'Donnell, Ken Buck etc?

[Bluedevil]

What is everyone's opinions on the tea party candidates?

[TheRightsWriter.com]

They're an outgrowth of the populist rebellion against the establishment. Whether they fully agree with everyone on this board, they shake up -- and may possibly overthrow -- the same GOP establishment members of this forum oppose. As such, they're a step in the right direction, IMHO.

[low preference guy]

throw the bums out

[MRoCkEd]

Some are better than others. Rand Paul is the best of course, followed by Mike Lee and Ken Buck who have both at least criticized conventional wisdom on foreign policy.

People like Pat Toomey and Joe Miller have some good economic ideas.

[Slutter McGee]

Some are better than others. Rand Paul is the best of course, followed by Mike Lee and Ken Buck who have both at least criticized conventional wisdom on foreign policy.

People like Pat Toomey and Joe Miller have some good economic ideas.

Agreed. Most of these candidates are good tools to increase economic liberty, which should be our priority. Civil Liberties are more important to me personally, but the situation dictates that economic and fiscal issues should be our focus.

Thankfully, I am seeing some strides in the GOP towards more responsible foreign policy, but unfortunately very little progress towards civil liberty.

But a Senate with Paul, Coburn, Demint, Angle, Buck, Lee, Miller, Toomey, and to a lesser degree Rubio and ODonnell would be a vast improvement over what we have now.

To bad we couldnt give Hostettler, Devore, and Didier a chance. But all in all, I think the GOP is doing a good job of throwing the bums out.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[ChaosControl]

They're still all fairly corporatist, but to a slightly lesser extent than mainstreams.

I still disagree with most all of them on most things, but then I disagree with almost everyone on most things.

[Allan Bartlett]

Overall I think the Tea Party nominees are a net benefit to the Senate.

[Kludge]

Contemporary tea party candidates are in their own movement. Ours are similar, but there are clear divides, especially with regards to civil liberties and foreign policy. I think many of the paleocons will be happy with the split, but there's no longer much reason for them to support who we would call the "pure" candidates.

Their candidates deserve some support, and they are almost always preferable to the alternative, but we need to remember they are compromise candidates and there are almost always better viable liberty candidates in need of support.

Being of the persuasion that the US Government will collapse within my lifetime no matter what we do, I usually only care about violent oppression still being committed by it during its downfall, so with the exception of sheriffs, I only care about foreign policy at this point which makes it difficult to support many of the tea party candidates.

[newyearsrevolution08]

My worry is that I just keep thinking the gop made their tea party, located people who are "unknown" to get in under a remove old politics and inturn will get into office and end up neoconing it up.

jut like glen beck and his all of a sudden stance change since the last election cycle. it freaks me out.

Almost like they KNEW they had to do this or our true candidates would have come out and actually won.

I am paranoid but who really knows until they get into office and prove theirselves.

[Slutter McGee]

Contemporary tea party candidates are in their own movement. Ours are similar, but there are clear divides, especially with regards to civil liberties and foreign policy. I think many of the paleocons will be happy with the split, but there's no longer much reason for them to support who we would call the "pure" candidates.

Their candidates deserve some support, and they are almost always preferable to the alternative, but we need to remember they are compromise candidates and there are almost always better viable liberty candidates in need of support.
.

Another good point. As much as I wan't Angle, Buck, and Toomey to win...can't forget that they are NOT liberty candidates. They are candidates that I believe will benefit liberty. And it is a big difference.

Slutter McGee

[silentshout]

While I am fiscally conservative, civil liberties and foreign policy issues are what i base most of my votes on, and most of the current crop of tea party candidates (except Rand) do not seem to support personal liberties or a non-interventionist foreign policy. So no, i don't care for candidates like O'Donnell. Also, ones like her are extremely polarizing.

Would someone like that be better? Who knows?

[wormyguy]

Miller is also running to the left of Obama on Afghanistan. He also wants an across-the-board budget cut, including to the military.

[MRoCkEd]

Miller is also running to the left of Obama on Afghanistan. He also wants an across-the-board budget cut, including to the military.
That's good news. Where did you see that?

Edit: Found this


Though his hardline views on domestic issues are clear, Miller's foreign policy ideology is a bit harder to pin down.

Asked about his stance on the war in Afghanistan, Miller was quick to point out that anyone who ignored terrorist threats, "especially those that are growing in Afghanistan," was misguided.

But Miller then added a caveat which strongly suggested that he is much more of a foreign policy realist than a Bush/Cheney-style neoconservative.

"What I don't want to see our country get dragged down with is feel-good foreign policy," Miller said. "The purpose of our engagement isn't to grow democracy across the world. The purpose of our engagement is to root out the things that threaten our national interests, and that has got to be our laser focus. It can't be sidelined by unwinnable objectives or things that really don't fall within our national interests, and so I think that's going to require perhaps a refocus."

But when asked about Iraq, a war that he said he originally supported, Miller's answer carried definite shades of gray.

"I would have to say that yes, I was in agreement with it," Miller said. "How it was conducted, not necessarily. I think there's a lot of 20/20 hindsight that can be applied. Obviously where we are today is a very sound position."

[wormyguy]

He's gone further in other interviews:

http://www.ktva.com/oldlocal/ci_15367911?source=rss


As for foreign affairs, Miller served in Operation Desert Storm and says although the terror threat to the country is high, he's less certain about the effort in Afghanistan. "I did not sign up for the military to go out and be a Peace Corps representative. Or to impose democracy in a country that for decades, or for centuries or millennia, have never had democracy. That's not our role."

[MRoCkEd]

Very encouraging!

I've now adjusted my Tea Party rankings...

1. Rand Paul
2. Mike Lee/Joe Miller
4. Ken Buck

[Deft9]

New blood is good. If they're not corrupt, maybe they can be persuaded to look into this whole "Federal Reserve thing"

[MozoVote]

I do think it's possible some members of Congress are uncomfortable with our foreign policy, but too chicken to "break out". Adding a few fresh members who can speak their minds and not be part of the party orthodoxy, will give them an opportunity to "rethink and reposition" to the public.

[Bluedevil]

What are their positions on foreign policy? Don't think I have heard any of them talk about it.

[dean.engelhardt]

While I am fiscally conservative, civil liberties and foreign policy issues are what i base most of my votes on, and most of the current crop of tea party candidates (except Rand) do not seem to support personal liberties or a non-interventionist foreign policy. So no, i don't care for candidates like O'Donnell. Also, ones like her are extremely polarizing.

Would someone like that be better? Who knows?

Well said. That sums up my feeling also. Congress could end the empire building that is bankrupting this country by de-funding it. When the tea party left the ideas of Ron Paul and took up the ideas of Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin, they lost my support.

I can't see how a candiate can be for limited government when they support: 1) expanding the empire 2) laws that violate civil liberties.

[YumYum]

What are their positions on foreign policy? Don't think I have heard any of them talk about it.

That is the same question I have. While they are against domestic spending on pork barrel projects and welfare, I have never heard a Tea Party member condemn foreign aid welfare.

Ron Paul is the only Congressperson who is very explicit in where he/she stands on foreign policy. Every current nominee and Congressperson (including Rand) either “hems or haws” on the issue, or they play word games to appease the special interest groups. I don’t care what the nominees say. Once they are in office (with the exception of Ron Paul) they will do what they are told by special interest. I hope Rand is different and turns out to be like his father, but I am not holding my breath.

[alcurtsinger]

That is the same question I have. While they are against domestic spending on pork barrel projects and welfare, I have never heard a Tea Party member condemn foreign aid welfare.

Ron Paul is the only Congressperson who is very explicit in where he/she stands on foreign policy. Every current nominee and Congressperson (including Rand) either “hems or haws” on the issue, or they play word games to appease the special interest groups. I don’t care what the nominees say. Once they are in office (with the exception of Ron Paul) they will do what they are told by special interest. I hope Rand is different and turns out to be like his father, but I am not holding my breath.


Sadly your right. I'm not sure whether I even like Rand to be honest. He is way too ambiquous on questions related to foreign policy and civil liberties.