Or as Dude has commented, you could concentrate on the differences. Though the differences he mentions are mainly with circumstance and not with leadership:
1) You can't deny that Bush is a Reaganite. No doubt he marked the differences between Reagan's foreign policy and his dad's and ultimately chose the former well before Perle and Rice got him up to speed in 1998. I’m guessing he started developing his diplomatic philosophy after his dad lost to Clinton. But I must confess that I'm not quite sure what Dude’s point is regarding when Reagan and Bush each developed their foreign policy strategies.
2) I’m sure someone is willing to point out that we sell arms to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two countries that prefer not to have a de-Baathed democratic Iraq in their backyard. The Iran/Contra scandal is a significant blemish on Reagan’s record. By the time all is said and done, Bush may well have a scandal to mar his record. So far the opposition hasn’t found it.
3) Regarding net job gains: again, the circumstances are very different but not necessarily the men. Bush took over right as the tech bubble had burst. There was no bubble that I know of that Reagan inherited, except perhaps the inflation bubble. Surely you don't think Bush is responsible for the bulk of job losses that happened before he had a chance to implement any part of his economic policy? But granted, Bush might have a better job record if he'd cut taxes even sooner than he did.
4) Of course Reagan worked with NATO. NATO was an alliance tailor made for the cold war, but not the war on terror. I would assert that the same spirit that provoked Reagan to position Pershing IIs in Germany (which caused a great stir among our European allies - though I guess they signed off on it in the same way the Security Council passed 1441)...that same spirit, I say, can be seen in Bush cleaning house of obsolete arms agreements and revamping our foreign policy. Don't look now, but the Cold War is over and so is the usefulness of many of the agreements, alliances and stratagems that were created to fight it. When an alliance no longer works, you must change it or scrap it – but you shouldn’t let it sit there and tie your hands from protecting your interests. I recall George Washington warning against long-term foreign alliances. I also recall the web of such alliances that facilitated so much suffering during the Great War. I believe both Reagan and Bush remembered those things as well. Neither settled for the status quo or the conventional wisdom – much to the chagrin of foreign leaders and many legislators. Does that mean that NATO is irrelevant? Not necessarily, but it’s going to have to continue changing to meet the new needs. The same goes for the U.N.
5) I doubt Bush condemned the gassing of Kurds when it happened. Oh well, that’s no reason not to condemn it now.