Maybe Dan Curtis offers the role of Pug Henry in Winds of War to Reagan instead of Robert Mitchum? Who was the better actor of the two?
Mitchum is not only the better actor, but more importantly he's the greater Hollywood icon. RR was just one of several premier leading men in drama and light comedy during the era he was on top (the forties). Mitchum is the first of the ugly, tough leading men to come after Bogart. He changed film.
The public perception of Regan as a fine actor is interesting, as many people, regardless of political belief, have over the years come to believe his body of work is more important than it actually was. So when he dies in 2004 you have Leftwingers saying 'Kings Row' is an American classic, and the man at least should be remembered for giving a great performance in that.
Yet the fact is Reagan was never able to follow up his supposed dramatic successes in that movie and 'Knute Rockne' with anything substantive. Maybe he was a victim of typecasting. But maybe he was just another Dick Powell---a performer who was capable of being a star, just not good enough to, say, beat Fred McMurray for the lead in a heavy production like 'Double Indemnity'.
Reagan's last role, as a mob boss in 'The Killers', is widely considered to be a terrible choice, one he only got cast in because he was one of the financiers of that movie IIRC. He was no Sterling Hayden.