Why Do Liberals so underestimate President Bush?

"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.

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.

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. :)

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.