Why Do Liberals so underestimate President Bush?

DSBull

[DSBull]

I ask myself the question, Why do liberals and Democrats underestimate George W, Bush all the time?

To some of you, this will be a "Duh" but it is interesting to think about. W is a man who had values instilled into his life by his parents and by his own experiences in life. These are core values, from which he will not sway.

These values include, God(Christ), family, marriage, (between a husband and wife),faithfulness,truth,promise keeping, honesty, the value of hard work, meaning what you say and saying what you mean and I think very importantly, the goodness of America and our responsiblity in the world. I am sure there are others, but these are a good start.

As far as I can tell, the President doesn't wavor in these at all, and to a liberal such steadfastness to principle is disturbing. Most liberals that I know have no core values that I can discern or none that they will stand by when it is not popular to do so. They change with the political wind, so much so that it is hard to pin them down on anything, which is probably the point(see John Kerry).

When the liberals and the DNC look and listen to GWB, they think he is narrow minded and not suffisticated because he thinks in black and white, good and evil, whilst they, the libs, see everything in a multitude of grays and consider that savy and worldly.

I believe that we are seeing the breakup of liberalism as a major political force. Those of us in flyover country share similiar core values and principles with the president and quite frankly, we are tired of having people we don't respect looking down their upturned noses at us and judging us as hicks or stupid, because we honor God, and our wives and loothe the UN and snotty nosed european countries who aren't even good enough to carry our water.

Here's to hoping that the DNC and liberals continue to not get it so that they will continue to loose. What's funny, is that this is so obvious, you would think that at least one of them might catch on, but no....

While liberalism will still be there, raising its ugly head, I don't think you will see a national cannidate that is nominated by either major party.

Happy New Year FReepers and be blessed....

Scott DSBull

[Darkwolf377]

That was a rough draft. I should have rewritten it before posting...but thanks!

[hinckley buzzard]

"What he does that they most hate is NOT CARE what they think. He doesn't secretly loathe them, he doesn't think of them at all, or if he does it's as if they are some curious creature that does weird things, like lay on its back and spin around."

I do not think this is a core issue, because the liberals hate all Conservative leaders. But it certainly is a major instigating factor with GW.

For awhile, they were all saying to each other, the way they do, that GW was "incurious" about things, meaning of course that he didn't respond to their huffing and puffing.
Then he was "simplistic," meaning he didn't bog himself down in their insipid drivel.

Some time after the election I recall he was asked what he thought about it in retrospect, when Algore was still bloviating and sweating, and he said, bluntly, he didn't think about it.

One thing a narcissist cannot endure, and that is, being ignored.

[dix]

Man you nailed it.

[dix]

Great post. Thanks.

[JennysCool]

Thanks for your input, William Jennings Bryan.

[johnmilken]

?
I didn't mean that Bush is dumb, only that he isn't always the most fluent speaker of English. Even he acknowledges this.

[sd-joe]

Yes Bush did not carry California, but for the most part it is too simplistic to simply lump it into sharing the same values as the Northeast.

California is a very large state and a rather strange state politically that has swung all over the place - remember it was the state of Ronald Reagan (during his two terms as governor and two terms as President it surely was politically the opposite of the Northeast, while the Northeast has always been the Northeast in its values).

At this point in time it is a very divided state. If you look at the election results by county, most of the counties went for Bush, but a few high population counties swung it the other way. And yes, there is a small (but very visible) piece of California that has values similar to the Northeast - mainly the San Fransisco bay area and Hollywood. If somehow those two areas could be moved to the Northeast, much of California would be very happy. And don't forget, Bush spent essentially NO time campaigning in Ca and spent NO money on advertising in the state.

A very sad part of California politics has been the invasion of the illegal aliens and how the Democratic political machine has used them. Some Californians didn't support Bush simply because he was not strong on stopping the flow of illegals.

Anyway, it is easy and fun to bash California, but for the most part, it is a very different animal than the Northeast.

[Darkwolf377]

You say it's wrong to "bash" California because it is a diverse state, yet you casually "bash" New England. So there are no Bush supporters here?

Your post is fine and all but completely misses the mark--we're talking PERCEPTIONS and GENERALITIES. You may be shocked to learn that the rest of the country doesn't see California as Conservativeville USA. It's definitely as diverse as you say, but there are millions of Bush voters in NE, too. So if you're trying to say a place isn't liberal because there are many conservative voters there...well, practice what you preach. :)

[sd-joe]

I didn't say it was "wrong" to bash California, just that it was easy and fun.

My original and main point was that the overall values of the Northeast and the overall values of California are NOT the same, and should not be lumped together. I have lived in both the Northeast and in Southern California and they are worlds apart.

Other than that, we are getting down to splitting hairs, and it is fun to argue with you, but I don't want to fight with you. We are both conservatives and the world needs more conservatives. Take care and be well.