You're not the only one. Many of us did.
Problem is, politics has changed over the last 20 years. To understand and appreciate who Reagan was, requires an understanding of politics as it existed in his day. Remember, the GOP was the minority party in Congress from the early 1930's through the early 1990's. What Reagan accomplished in the 1980's was unprecedented. Obviously many Republicans jumped on the Reagan bandwagon just for the ride, but they were never true conservatives.
Reagan made conservatism the driving force it is today, but comparing today's so called leaders with Reagan just can't be done. Reagan was a trailblazer at the pinnacle of political power and at the forefront of debate on every major issue of the last 50 years. From tax reform, to limited government, to abortion, to immigration, Reagan pushed the ball downfield as far as he could. Today's conservative candidates need to pick up the ball and further advance the conservative agenda.
If he was just starting his political career today Reagan would be just as successful. Back in the day, Reagan was the master of compromise, but he never sold out his principles. Today's compromise is suppose to have the GOP caving to Democrat demands. This is no time to settle for more liberalism or moderatism.
Reagan showed us the way. He made the 1994 Republican Revolution a reality and helped open the door of possibility for a famous named Texas Governor. Not that the latter was the epitome of conservatism.
Btw. You don't defend Reagan by taking cheap pot shots at his legacy in some crazed off the wall effort to best a dunderhead and in the process lend credence to some half baked presidential wannabee.
You really need to take a chill pill. Pointing out the fact that many of the actions Reagan took over the course of his political career would brand him a RINO by the standards of many on this forum is not taking "cheap pot shots at his legacy..." It is highlighting the intellectual inconsistency of those who attack other candidates as not being conservative enough for doing many of the same type of things that Reagan did.
No one is claiming that any of the candidates or potential candidates is another Reagan. We will not see another politician of his stature in our lifetimes. But let's at least be consistent in how we evaluate the records of politicians. It appears that the crux of your argument is that the actions that Reagan took that might appear to be unconservative are explained by his philosophy, his principles and his intent. While the actions may not have had the intended outcome, it was his goals that mattered. Well, if that is the standard, let's be consistent.
Since this is a Perry thread, let's make some comparisons based on that standard. I keep seeing the complaint about Gardasil being brought up, and I agree that was a mistake on his part. But what was his intent? I think Perry would say that his intent was to protect young women from a virus that can cause cervical cancer and death. Was his mandate the best choice? Probably not. Was there real harm caused by the implementation of that policy? Perhaps some, but if so, it was minimal.
Let's compare that with Reagan's decision to sign the abortion legislation in 1967. His intent was good - to only allow abortion in order to save the life of the mother. However, that decision led directly to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in the years between 1967 and 1970 (when abortion became legal by Supreme Court decree) as the medical community exploited the loopholes in the law. I have no doubt that Reagan regretted his decision and agonized over the deaths of those children until the day he died.
What I can't understand, however, is how some people can accept the results of Regan's decision because they know his intent was good, yet will crucify Perry for his decision, which had far fewer negative results and was also made with good intent.