[SJackson]

Let’s seeBeirut, what did RR do there. Among other things. Organized an international force and went in against an allies wishes.

Recognized his mistake, and withdrew, kind of. Ron Paul’s OK to here.

Actually he first pushed of an “agreement” (“ “ because only one side complied) between Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and THE UNITED STATES. I’m sure RP is in favor of things like that.

As it collapsed we withdrew.

Reagan assured for a buffer in the south, that’s something RP would stick his nose into, and marshaled the escape of the PLO, eventually to Libya, saving Arafat’s life from an Israeli sniper in the process by withholding support for killing him. Sounds like the non-interventionist Paul to me.

Three days after the Lebanon withdrawl he invaded Grenada at the request of our local allies to overthrow a Marxist govenmnent. RP didn’t support that.

He aided the Contras in Nicaragua, RP didn’t support that.

He aided the Afghan rebels, ironically using some of the PLO weapons captured by Israel in Lebanon, RP didn’t support that, and points to it as one of the actions leading to 9/11.

Although today he’s a supporter of MAD to confront new nuclear regieme, they being a logical as us I suppose. Yet in the Reagan years he was a supporter of the SDI.

There’s nothing to indicate RP was a proponent of large troop levels in Europe, Korea or Japan. Or of Reagan’s confrontational style with the Soviets, possible only because of our presence in Europe.

Would he have supported the INF treaty?

To claim Ron Paul is the rebirth of Ronald Reagan based on one withdrawl (followed within a week by another foreign incursion) is just plain silly.

I’ve not GWB is Ronald Reagan, he isn’t. It’s a election, not a Ronald Reagan look alike contest. Perhaps Ron Paul should be content standing on his own positions.

[George W. Bush]

To claim Ron Paul is the rebirth of Ronald Reagan based on one withdrawl (followed within a week by another foreign incursion) is just plain silly.

Of course he's not. No one is. But if candidates or their supporters are going to turn the nomination into a Reagan-lookalike contest, it's only fair for us to point out the warm relationship between the two back in '76 when RP was one of only four congressmen to support RR. And that Ron Paul is a legitimate heir to shrinking the federal government and stopping the ever-expanding agenda to federalize everything.

So RP is not RR. But he can lay a few strong claims to being a part of the Reagan-Gingrich tradition which drew so many of us to vote Republican in the hope of conservative approach to government.

Perhaps Ron Paul should be content standing on his own positions.

Maybe I'm too much of a cheerleader but I think RP is content to do exactly that. He really doesn't spend time on the stump trying to pretend he's the Second Coming of President Reagan. For that matter, not many candidates do. I think Giuliani is the worst about it and he is the one who is furthest from Reagan in his positions.