By the same token important elements of the conservative agenda were enacted under or acquiesed to by Clinton, who is maybe the most conservative Democrat president in modern times, yet conservatives hate. And yes, I know why they hate him, and I hate him too, but I still think this is an interesting parallel.
The next question, then, is whether Bush will emulate Nixon in his own way (by governing well to the left of his own party).
Mike Dukkakis is ridiculed, not loathed, but the sinkmaster was much more to the center than the tank commander.
I think the next question should be whether W wants re-election. He is rapidly losing conservatives and hopefully he's not so stupid as to believe he can win without them.
I did not vote for Dole in 1996 (I voted for Browne). It is truly unfortunate that the Republicans wasted so much political capital backing such a lousy candidate, when they should have worked to keep strong enough control on Congress to keep Clinton in check.
Imagine what would have happened if Republican congresscritters running for reelection ran ads which acknowledge Clinton's claimed "accomplishments", but reminded voters that they came from a Republican Congress and suggest that if voters like Clinton's accomplishments they should support Republicans in Congress.
Had Republicans done that, they would have scored a major coup. Not only would such ads have struck a major chord with voters who were tired of negative campaigns, but the Democrats would be unable to counter it without attacking themselves.
Unfortunately, rather than Republicans taking credit for their accomplishments, they expended their energy trying to trash Clinton and his (i.e. THEIR OWN) accomplishments. While I'd hardly call Clinton a conservative, many of his actions were in fact to the right of many of his Republican detractors.