Reagan only agreed to the 1986 immigration legislation when the Democrats swear that would solve the immigration problem...forever.

Obviously, they didn't. Their only motivation is to increase their power. The country comes second...if at all.

Reagan never 'pushed' amnesty or liked illegal immigration.

Others have pointed out that Reagan never had a majority in the House, so he had to negotiate with Democrats. I would add that if it hadn't been for Reagan, the Republicans would never have won control of the Senate in 1980, by picking up a net of twelve (12) seats. There is no way liberal icons McGovern, Bayh, Church, Talmadge, or Magnuson would have lost but for Reagan.

Blaming Reagan for deficits is similarly absurd. He had to deal with Congress on every spending bill -- the President may propose, but Congress disposes -- and his priority was defense spending. The only way the Democrats would agree was if he accepted more domestic spending. Does anyone really think that if Reagan had the power to decide spending on his own that we would have spent as much as we did?

Nor was nominating Sandra Day O'Connor an embarassment. She ranked extremely high in her Stanford Law class. We may not like many of her decisions, and I don't, but in 1981 there really wasn't much of a conservative legal bench to choose from. In addition, it's hard to predict how someone will "grow" in office.

As for the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, a quick Google search shows that a main objective of the bill was greater control at the border. It also for the first time made it illegal for employers knowingly to hire illegal immigrants, and required employers to check their employees documents.

I don't recall Reagan's public position on the bill. His diary's only signficant entry says, "Al Simpson came by to see if he had my support. After 5 yrs of trying (during which I've been on his side) the House finally passed his immigration bill. They have one or two amendments we could do without but even if the Sen. in conf. cannot get them out, I'll sign. It's high time we regained control of our borders & his bill will do this. (Brinkley; Thursday, October 16, 1986, at page 445).

Reagan's private objection was to gain control of the borders. If Reagan had an option to exclude amnesty, what would he have done? Did Reagan "push" amnesty on us? More to the point, even to compare him to W requires asking what Reagan would have done knowing a previous amnesty had failed.

The commenter's twist was not well done. It ignores or is ignorant of history.

Can somebody explain to me how the intra-conservative shots at our former President for not being conservative enough is any different than liberal sniping at Barack Obama for not being liberal enough because he compromised and promoted policies that weren't to the left of Trotsky? We find the former charge laughable, but continue to entertain the first charge for much of the same reasons (except on the right).

To add to reldim's point, blaming Reagan for "presiding over" a midterm House seats loss is more than a little ridiculous. Reagan was personally very popular and had a big coattail effect in 1980 and 1984 when he was on the ballot - the GOP gained 35 seats in 1980 and 16 in 1984.

Then in the midterms, when he wasn't on the ballot, the GOP gave back much (but not all) of those gains, losing 27 seats in 1982 and 5 seats in 1986. But "blaming" Reagan because GOP congressmen and women were less successful at winning their own races than RWR had been at winning them for them is strangely selective.

I hope this doesn't mean that Presidents from both sides of aisle are human.

I have to agree that the comparison is faulty. I also don't see why presiding (not administering) over a large loss of seats in congress in a midterm should be at all relevant to whether conservatives like or approve of someone. Seat losses stem from many causes - not just an insufficiently conservative president.

As for the compromises - please explain how Reagan was to get anything done if he didn't work with Democrats. The GOP never controlled more than 192 House seats during Reagan's two terms (that from 1981-83). After the 1984 landslide they still only had 182 (to 253 Democrats). When you need to win over about 40-50 (or more) members of the other party to get a bill passed in the House, you probably have to do some negotiating.

Circumstances differ - and what was acceptable or appropriate in one time is not necessarily acceptable or appropriate in another time.

Sort of chastises us on talking point criticisms, doesn't it? I was also thinking of Obama, until it got to the point about constantly negotiating with the other side. So Obama is the principled president. I see.

GWB is a conservative as well, with similar sentimental weaknesses suffered by President Reagan on given issues. Each had moments when they disappointed the Right, GWB more than Reagan, admittedly, but you have to look at the records as a whole. As a whole, each put forward conservative records that we can look back on proudly. GWB could have accomplished more with his GOP congress, but he had a war to fight and win, and needed to compromise with RINOs who had their hands out in exchange for continued support on the war.

Not a very good record, if that were ALL Reagan had done. But obviously his CV would have a lot more items on it than those cherry-picked examples. And it would have more still if RWR had had the advantage GWB had of a GOP Congress for four years and a House for six.

Bush's own list of conservative accomplishments to offset his many conservative failings and progressive "achievements" is pretty thin. Two good Court appointments. Yes, I'll give him and his people a big thank you for keeping us safe domestically after 9/11. But remember the issue at point is whether W was a reliable conservative. Any Republican president, even someone much more "centrist" than W, would have been 100% on the side of preventing terrorism. So it's like praising Bush for being anti-arson, or for opposing Castro and Kim. Well, duh.

That also sounds like Obama.

Very Serling-esque. I approve.

By 1986 Reagan was also beginning to suffer visibly from the Alzheimer's that would end his life, though he remained an effective leader up until the end of his term. To understand this, see the wonderful book, "The Wisdom Paradox," by Dr. Elkohnan Goldberg, one of the world's great neuro-biologists. BTW, he is an admirer of Reagan.

Again, one might well ask: what is GWB's excuse?

@JohnG: His "values" were conservative. Seriously? You want to judge values separately from actions? Conservatives should judge a person's values by his or her ACTIONS. Not mere words.

Oh please. Cute, but nothing more.

Reagan's VALUES were Conservative. He took some actions that were mistakes, and without speaking for him, I would guess upon seeing the results, he would call them mistakes as well. Who knew the disaster that would be O'Conner? Who knew that the Democrats would fail to seal the border and cut spending against their own promises?

Bush had a Republican Congress, yet reached across the aisle for support he could not get from his own side. Medicare, No Child Left Behind, and Immigration Reform are from HIS values.

Where Reagan compromised for a higher goal, Bush DROVE Liberal ideas.

No valid comparison whatsoever.

Reagan had his faults - and don't forget selling arms to the Iranians - but he was a conservative to be proud of and had many accomplishments to admire. Unlike GW, the country was much better off at the end of his presidency than before it.

Worth a chuckle but that's about it. Bush had a FAR more GOP congress to work with and did LESS to move the country to the right on fiscal/tax/entitlement issues. Reagan moved the goalposts significantly, and absolutely had to work with Dems on everything. So what's Bush's excuse?