You have a very interesting proposition here.
It suggests an understanding of why they hate the Bushes with such infantile rage: An intact family with a visible, loving, and successful Dad in the background, and a virile, masculine son who is also a fine Dad to his daughters.
Enough to induce the narcissistic rage of the infant who feels abandoned because he has had to go without the former and no clue as to how to be the latter.
I suspect it is empirically true that on a concrete level, more liberals were raised in a broken family, which means raised by a woman in the absence of a father. Where the father was present but an effeminate liberal, the effect is functionally the same.
It is also true that a liberal in 2004 will have likely been raised by a mother who has killed at least one of his brothers or sisters at the abortion mill. Such a child will unconsciously feel threatened by the fear of being killed also--but rather than direct his aggression against the perpetrator/mother, who has proven herself a child killer already and therefore a dangerous character, he will direct it at the target which is safe--the father who was not there and who failed to protect the infant.
This is unfair to the father, who had no say--but for an infant threatened by death, these details are irrelevant and in any case unknown. The liberal thus distrusts the masculine for deep-seated security reasons.
As you suggest, reparation of the liberal childhood deficits will require the establishment of a close, non-erotic relationship with a strong masculine father figure.
This can help to restore trust not only in the masculine other but in his own masculine nature.
I think your thesis is brilliant, and those of us who give it a try may have the satisfaction of turning liberal weenies into Conservative Men.
Or where the father was "present" and even conservative, but beat the children down. Consider the elder Rodham -- nothing that his daughter did was ever "good enough" for him. Now she's determined to take it out on us all.