Good post. The problem isn't so much what President Bush has done, as the context he's given for his actions. Ronald Reagan got even the staunchest conservatives to accept the existing level of government because he strove to limit the spending of the Democrat Congress and gave conservatives hope that expenditures and government intervention would decrease in the future. Similarly, conservatives strongly supported Reagan's foreign policy, and many of them had the expectation that US intervention abroad would decrease once Communism had been defeated.
President Bush doesn't provide such a bright horizon: his administration seems likely to bring more government spending and more intervention around the world, at a time when many conservatives see little good to come from big government at home or abroad. The problem with using government to "strengthen families" is that the moral resolve fades quickly and the added layers of bureaucracy remain. And some who would think well of war on terrorism argue that President Bush has worsened things by establishing us so firmly in the Middle East. Perhaps his gamble will pay off, but one can't blame people for being skeptical.
Unfortunately, your memory is faulty. Reagan had lots of supposed Conservatives calling for his head, calling him names, and NOT supporting him at all.