Someone once wrote "of all the things I've gained and lost, I miss my mind the most." This little diddy could have been written by Matt Towery, who apparently has gone batty over the Reagan record, thinking that our 40th president would have supported Ron Paul. To paraphrase the cowardly lion in the Wizard of Oz, "not no way, not no how." Can Towery's knowledge of the Reagan legacy possibly be that thin and distorted? Apparently so.

   Yes, there are certain positions the two men have in common, smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, but there are some larger areas where the two diverge. I'll name a few. Ron Paul believes that we should "bring the troops home" and essentially disengage from the world militarily. You could call it "temporary peace through permanent retreat." In contrast, Ronald Reagan believed in "peace through strength" and in a vigorous engagement with America's enemies and opponents around the world. Reagan took the long view that isolationism always leads to greater and more protracted conflicts down the road. History is clear on this. In my opinion, Ron Paul is unqualified to be president due to his isolationist views.

   Secondly, Towery praises Ron Paul's support as "cult-like," but unlike Paul's, Reagan's support was not only avid but widespread, both in 1976 when he nearly won the nomination from a sitting president, Gerald Ford, but also among the so-called Reagan Democrats who gave him two landslide victories in 1980 and 1984. In contrast, Ron Paul's support is avid but thin. Most national polls have him well under 10% in the Republican primary. The truth is Paul has managed to cobble together a coalition of mostly young men who hate the Iraq War and want to downsize government. Too many hold wild conspiracy theories about 9/11 as well, hindering their credibility.

   Finally, Ronald Reagan did not believe and would never have said what Ron Paul said in response to Mike Huckabee's Christmas ad, namely " ... as Sinclair Lewis (a socialist) said, 'when fascism comes, it will come under a cross and a flag.'" Ronald Reagan would never have uttered such absurdity. Rather, Reagan believed our religious and patriotic heritage was a positive influence on both America's past and would be essential in its destiny. He gave several major speeches on the role of religious values in America's founding.

   When Adlai Stevenson was asked what he thought of Norman Vincent Peale's version of Christianity, he replied, "I find Paul (the apostle) appealing, but Peale appalling." Taken as a whole Ron Paul is appalling too. And perhaps if Ronald Reagan were around, he would have said this to Matt Towery: "There you go again."

John Pendleton