Bush did lie. He said his favorite justices were Scalia and Thomas, and he'd appoint judges like them. Nobody expects a clone, but someone who rejects judicial philosophy as an academic vice is far from a Scalia or a Thomas.
Even if Bush meant to appoint a Scalia/Thomas clone, as a political matter, such an appointee would likely be unconfirmable
Lots of people who aren't part of Bush's "base" in any meaningful sense voted for Bush precisely because they wanted him to pick Supreme Court Justices who would vote to overturn Roe.
A lot of Catholics, for instance. There were about 32 million Catholics who voted in 2004, and a majority voted for Bush...[W]hy did Bush improve his popularity among Catholic voters? Many of them were uncomfortable with the Iraq War, suspicious of Bush's tax and/or environmental policies, and, if anything, would historically have been part of John Kerry's "base." Why did they go for Bush[?]
...One reason: Bush's promise to appoint Justices in the model of Thomas and Scalia, compared to Kerry's promise to do the opposite. If Bush doesn't make good on that promise, it won't be just his "base" that is upset. He will also drive away any voters who were traditionally Democrats but who voted for Bush mainly because of his philosophy on judicial nominees.