Not much difference there. Your Wikilinki says the AFP’s ideology is paleoconservatism. On fiscal policy, they’re right-wing, and on social policy, they’re right-wing.
It looks to me like it would be nonsense to say that Pat Buchanan is not right-wing. I’m not sure what paleoconservativism is. Maybe it means that, like McCain, they first attended the Senate clad in animal skins. 
Paleocons are isolationists. They aren’t into running around the world, toppling other governments. Other than that, they’re not much different from other conservatives, AFAICT.
Paleocons are religious and social conservatives; they are nativist and anti-immigration, often verging on racism (if only in veiled language); they are isolationist WRT foreign and military policy (and especially U.S. support for Israel, which separates them from both the neocons and the Christian Zionists); and they are economic populists, as suspicious of Wall Street as they are of liberals and other Commies. That last, more than anything else, sets them apart from the Republican Party’s mainstream as currently constituted.
http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin040501.shtml Is the Keating 5 scandal a trite argument. He will have to explain it again. That will be hard to do. He escaped but did wrong ,wrong,wrong.
Well, I’m convinced! I will not oppose McCain because someone says he isn’t *really * a hawk, or an insincere hawk, or a hawk who is unwilling to “walk the walk” that his talk demands.
I oppose him because he is an entirely sincere and committed hawk, without any taint of hypocrisy. Yes, that’s much better.