Bad assumption, I would say.
Bush's Dad thought David Souter was the right guy. Gerald Ford thought John Paul Stevens........Reagan thought Anthony Kennedy.
What's needed is a proven conservative with a record beyond question!
Let's hope Bush learns from past mistakes.
President GW Bush was agains the nomination of Souter when his Dad made it -- doesn't that say something. He is also much more conservative then his Dad. You cannot compare the two -- I don't believe that GW if he were President in 1991 instead of his Dad would have stopped in Iraq. He is a total different type personality as from SoS Powell learned.
There are two problems with that.
1) No conservative has a great record because none of them has the opportunity to do what the Supreme Court does--reinterpret the Constitution. All of them are on lower courts, which don't do that. They've all got to follow the Supreme Court cases. So you have no idea how they will act once they are given that opportunity.
2) The difference between this situation and the other situaitons you mentioned with Bush, Sr. and Reagan are that Bush, Sr. and Reagan did not know their appointees personally. They were following advice of their advisors, and in fact, they were following advice which was based on the records of the appointees. That advice turned out to be wrong, which just proves my point. It's not enough to look at their records, or their party affiliation. You've got to know them.
But GW knows Gonzales personally. He knows him well. If Bush appoints Gonzales, it won't be because he misjudged Gonzales.