Not really. Lots of sane people don’t want to start wars they don’t have to. That doesn’t make them Libertarian. Reaganism and Paulism are fundamentally irreconcilable. Reagan believed, as Palin does, in being loyal to our allies through thick and thin, including Israel, because it is America's best interests to do so. Not Paul. Reagan believed, as Palin does, that it’s important to identify and soundly defeat America's real enemies, whether foreign or domestic. Not Paul. And neither Reagan nor Palin would compromise US sovereignty to the demands of the modern illegal immigration movement. Apparently Paul is shifting to a weaker position on immigration. But as for me, I’ll take Reaganism, in heels if necessary, over that Libertarian mishmash any day of the week.
Captain Kirk and others always try to define it as the isolationists like Ron Paul against the NeoCons. They leave out the foreign policy Realists.
Her new adviser, Peter Schweizer, is a very well known foreign policy Realist. He is not a Ron Paul isolationist.
Schweizer's foreign policy positions are going to be similar to those such as Colin Powell, Bob Gates, Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger, etc.
I know that many republicans and freepers are not willing to admit it, but Obama has followed the Realists' policies