"The specific mentions of Reagan in the post election cycle have most to do with how conservative principles were coupled with great communication skills; he could articulate his conservative rationale in a way that more average people understood, without personally insulting his opponents."
You'll get no disagreement from me on his ability to articulate his values and our need for such a communicator. What I take issue with is the mindless Hannity types who say, we need to get back to Reagan and, in the very same speech, point to immigration and the deficit -- of all things -- as his main beef with the current GOP!
These are the people who overlook the fact that Reagan gave amnesty to 10 million illegals, spent the budget into a phenomenal deficit, (due to giving into the Democrat majority for alternate favors) and had many scandals connected to his cabinet.
But there is no mention of any of this from those who have declared him a saint.
He was a very good President, but all the praise came long after he was out of office. During his time in office, there was just as much grumbling from both sides about his job performance. (in the low 40% range)
Like I said, I don't pay any attention to media pundits. As far as Reagan and deficits and immigration go: (1)Reagan would have had lower deficits if he had not had a Congress run by the Democrats, and his veto pen was rarely dry (unlike Bush), (2)Reagan went along with Democrats on a much smaller amnesty (2.5 million) with insistence on greater border enforcement and harsh measures against employers who hired illegals to end the "magnet" that such employers made (his word for them). Given his attitude about enforcement he would have been the first to declare those enforcement provisions as having failed, and failed primarily due to simple failure of the executive to execute them, and he would have supported their enforcement and not to let them languish. Yet even as much as he supported immigration in principle he would have called the potential immigration levels coming out of the current Senate bill (100 million new immigrants over the next twenty years) as more than simply excessive and clearly beyond the nations ability to assimilate in a reasonable time.
I don't always agree with Hannity. Yet you seem to demand of Hannity an all or nothing position on Reagan, but only for those policies of his you favored (like immigration) while YOU are free to criticize Reagan on an appointment like O'Connor. At least Hannity is honest in praising Reagan for those attributes Hannity appreciated about Reagan, but able to have his own view on a position like immigration, and still remain an admirer of Reagan. Unlike you, he seems to not demand a Reagan "mantra" or nothing.