Tony Blankley has already stated that he believes GW will easily surpass Reagan. That may bother some people, but not me. GW was a sort of protege of Reagan's and it's just fitting that GW learned a great deal from being associated with him.
I'm sure GW watched him the whole 8 years his father was VP. Then, GW got to witness even more when his own father was President. For 12 years he watched the democrats wield their arrogant power over the country - surely his policies today reflect what he learned during those 12 years.
Not only that, he helped run his father's campaign. I believe Rove is a brilliant man, imo G.W. exceeds him as a campaign strategist. If he hadn't wished to be President, he could be doing Karl's job easily. He's had a unique vantage point that most people with political aspirations would envy.
And, I don't think it would be an insult to say he could be greater in the books of history than Reagan. My position has always been that that we shouldn't seek to live in the past. Instead of wishing time to stop with one President, we should wish the next President exceeds the previous achievements. One President building on the lessons of the other. In the way parents wish better for their children, it should be our natural inclination to encourage better for each President. In that manner the successes are linked, a credit to all not just one. A credit to our nation as a whole.
I have no real idea where Reagan or Bush will rank 150 years from now when history has occured, and it's movement critically assessed. I do think both can credibly be said to be great in present. I will say I've felt the longest period G.W. is comparable to Lincoln. Reagan I'm not too sure. FDR maybe? I know some conservatives may think that to not be a compliment, but I mean it so and Reagan himself stated FDR was a favorite of his.