I agree with Cal.
The thing about Reagan was he was an actor. He was damn good at playing his role, that of being President. I’m not saying that there wasn’t substance behind his actor facade, but I didn’t see much of it at the time. He was seen to be a lightweight on the issues, and the antithesis of a detail man (not unlike the current occupant of the White House). He was somehow seen as a religious man, though he didn’t actually seem to be observant in any manner (see prior parenthetical), and seemed to have no trouble agreeing to policies that were, at best, morally ambiguous (see same). He did, however, have an effective group of advisers/puppetmasters (contra, above), and didn’t muck things up too badly (ditto).
So why is this actor-President so glorified, particularly by Republicans? He made people (them, at least, not me) feel good, and pushed for the policies supported by the current Republican movement. More important, perhaps, is that he is the only 20th Century Republican President that can be used as an icon and glorified. The Democrats have FDR and JFK, but Nixon, Ford or Eisehnower don’t work as icons, forget Hoover, Coolege, Harding and Taft, and TR is just too far back. As such, Reagan was seen as the man embodying all of modern Republican values.
He also had the advantage of becoming incapacitated with Alzheimers shortly after his Presidency (though there are many of us who could be easily convinced that he suffered from it well before he left office, and perhaps before he entered). As such, he could be seen as a sick, old man, and not asked any troubling questions about policies or scandals that occured while he was in office. It would be churlish to attack him while he was suffering and unable to respond, and he had no chance to say something that would fuck up how people saw him.
Since his sainthood has been advocated by Republicans for nearly two decades, it is unsurprising that some Democrats and independents, particularly those who were not politically observant during his term, accept the view that he was universally beloved. I think it was brilliant of Obama to invoke him as an indication of Obama’s interest in bipartisanship and a reminder of the comparason that can be made between the two men’s abilities as inspirational orators.