No offense, but that's just silly. As a native Californian who lived there at the time, I strongly supported George Bush in 2000, and would have supported him even if he were from Massachusetts.
I may love Texas, but a candidate's regional origin is completely irrelevant to me. It's their record of accomplishment and ideological grounding that either draws me to them, or repels me.
Case in point: Sarah Palin. The fact that she's from Alaska doesn't mean a hill of beans to me. It's her record and what she stands for, that has earned her my support.
Here's another: Rick Perry. Although he's the Governor of my state, and has presided over a long run of prosperity in this state, he's not really my kind of guy. I think he's far too moderate, and I don't trust him to make the conservative choice on every decision.
Then there's Mitt Romney. Now here's a man, who if you simply studied his record as Governor of Massachusetts, and didn't know who he was, you'd swear that he was a liberal Democrat. That's what his record shows. That's repulsive to me, and is a complete deal-breaker. I can't, and I won't vote for someone like that under any circumstances.
As to how a Republican dominated Congress is going to behave under a Romney administration, well, you'll see. They're going to roll over for him like trained pets. Too bad they won't be rolling over for any of the right reasons. I don't expect them to put up much of a fight when he begins rolling out his own Socialist agenda.
If you live in Texas you're a lot more likely to write off Romney and support Bush than if you live in Connecticut (I'm talking about people's feelings for Bush now, not in 2000, though).