i understand the resistance that many conservatives feel about being call "idiots" or "dumb." i know conservatives (who didn't vote for Bush) who aren't dumb, and i know Bush voters (who aren't conservative) who aren't dumb either.
however, when you're a leftish Kerry voter, and you see all the problems facing the country and what were actually *very* subtansive debates, to hear that more than 22% of those voting for bush velt that "moral values" -- which i think we can safely say means anti-choice, anti-gay marriage ... that may be incomplete, but it's closer to the truth than not -- were more important than Iraq, the War on Terror, health care, education, etc., it is very disconcerting.
we sit back and ask: what is more important than success in Iraq, whether or not you supported the invasion (i marched in DC against the war, i still want us to be successfull now that we're there). what could be more important than addressing the concerns of 40m uninsured? yes, i know that this doesn't even comprise the majority of bush voters, but this particular constitutency has, since the election, stated that they won the election for Bush and are awaiting their payoffs, probably in the form of Supreme Court justicies. see recent comments by people like James Dobson and Bob Jones, and the fact that Rove organized much of his ground game around conservative churches in swing states.
this is where it does feel like 2 countries living in 2 different worlds.
you could prefer Bush's stances on Iraq, or health care, or education, but for such a sizeable portion of people not to point to their preference for Bush on those matters but for the fact that he represents their "moral values" gives one pause.
it may not be stupid or idiotic, but it does feel a bit like missing the forest for the trees. it's blinkiered at best, willfully self-deceiving at first.