We can thank Bush for Scalia and Roberts but he doesn’t have the strong ideological bent that Reagan did (neither does Thompson IMO). Reagan was a philosophical conservative across the board. Bush is conservative on some issues.
Now of course, we can go round and round about ideology and practice. Reagan wasn’t able to implement his full agenda on cutting the size of government because his hands were tied by a Democrat Congress.
President Bush had a majority in both houses and neither he nor Congress were interested in cutting the size of government. They expanded it at a level not seen since LBJ.
Of course, Bush never claimed to be for limiting the size of government. He triangulated himself as a new Republican to capture the so-called middle back from the Clintonistas. He was to be a “compassionate conservative” which is another way of saying a “big government conservative” in the words of neo-con Fred Barnes and other admirers.
He was/is right on the social issues which I thank God for but we are losing ground on so many other fronts.
Just FYI (and it doesn’t take away from your overall post, but thought I’d point it out), Bush appointed Alito and Roberts, not Scalia and Roberts.
Rush says it all the time (because he values talking over doing, since that's what he gets paid to do). Reagan was a 'movement conservative.' Bush is not.
If you evaluate what they have DONE, they are comparable, but different.
(btw, Reagan talked about downsizing government, but how exactly did he DO it? Not at all, methinks).