That's my point. The two big political parties nominate candidates within the broad consensus of American politics, for the most part. Or at least the candidates that get elected have to govern largely along that consensus in order to get anything done. Remember, then-Senator Obama campaigned on "renegotiating NAFTA" and generally called it a bad deal for the American worker. He was also "not a big fan" of welfare reform. But as you say, he hasn't done much about either.
It's silly to claim that a modern Reagan wouldn't fit well enough within the Republican and American mainstreams to be nominated, and those links don't provide real evidence otherwise. Shocking: Reagan wasn't a hard and fast ideologue. But a hard and fast ideologue isn't going to be nominated by the Republican party today, either.
Did you spring into existence sometime after the last debate? Romney isn't a hard and fast ideologue because he isn't a hard and fast anything. But he certainly had to make those noises to be nominated.
Reagan's positions and what he did in office are completely incompatible with Republicans today. A budget deal with democrats that raises taxes? Tough love on Israel occasionally?
I'm not saying Reagan wouldn't have been able to be elected, but he'd have to be a different Reagan to get the nomination. A hard and fast ideologue or, in the worst case, someone who makes the appropriate noises and can beat Newt Gingrich.
It's silly to claim that a modern Reagan wouldn't fit well enough within the Republican and American mainstreams to be nominated, and those links don't provide real evidence otherwise. Shocking: Reagan wasn't a hard and fast ideologue. But a hard and fast ideologue isn't going to be nominated by the Republican party today, either.