I've yet to find anyone who is "pure." I disagree on his approach to drugs (actually Nancy had a better policy - just say "No" which was a cultural approach, not a legal one), but overall he was better than most, and we certainly haven't had any that equaled him since (nor any that have even sought the office that had a chance of winning).

So, from your statements I take it that you choose not to vote, or to vote for a "pure" candidate with absolutely no chance of winning, thus aiding the greater evil to win. I'm a pragmatist. I choose to slow the ship from sinking in hopes that we can find the means of plugging the leak and bailing out the ship. Making the hole bigger just so that we all perish that much sooner isn't in my character.

The problem with AS, in my opinion, is that AR used the Gulch as a plot device. This causes many to think that such action is possible and is the solution, it is not. If we go down, it is going to be many decades, perhaps centuries before there will be a resurrection to anything close to what we had previously.

As do I. But I won't let "perfect" stand in the way of "as good as it's going to be for now."

Unfortunately, we didn't get enough of the others to vote the same. Thus, we end up with the most vile of evils instead of an evil that could be moved towards good. You need to choose.

A 180 degree turn is unrealistic. You can either choose suicide, or some deferred decimation that may lead to an acceptable path. Too often the pure have allowed the vile to ascend. Will you do so again in '14 and '16?

Because those men are quickly vanquished. If we had chosen Perot, rather than Bush, we would have been more on the way to our desired objective. But alas, that was too radical for the majority. A 30 deg turn is easier than a 180 deg turn. Part of the problem is those that insist on purity instead of pragmatism. Pragmatism might move towards the objective, while purity ensures movement away.

No, just rationality. Power that gets me half-way there is better than power that takes me away.

As Yaron says in the interview, such a stance is unelectable, at this time. I'm for a position espoused by David Brinkley - the most conservative (I would interject - libertarian) that can get elected. Reagan was far more liberty minded than most before, and all since, including economically.

Makes me wonder what she would call a "good politician?"

That clip is from '81, so still very early in his tenure as president. And since she passed in March '82, she would not have been able to judge the remainder of his actions.

As Snezzy said, she would have been familiar with him as an actor (she was in the movie business) and as California governor. The actor part probably overwhelmed her view as his legacy as governor was to reduce the welfare state, reduced regulation, and fighting against federal taxes. All items that AR would undoubtedly support.