I think the problem these DL critics have is that they are envious that he sells so many books, seems so smart, and attracts such large crowds, and yet doesn't agree with them.
*******
Perhaps.
I'm sure this is a part of the explanation but I doubt it's the entire tale.
I would modify your statement, replacing envy with disappointment.
Many people of a left-ward bent admire the DL. It must be a disappointment that he does not endorse their political opinions and seems to be comfortable with people they despise such as Dubya.
It must disturbing on many levels.
Maybe he's politically naive some say. Or, perhaps he's an opportunist who's using the good will of the worshipful for his own purposes.
I have no evidence to support this and would be happy to read a detailed analysis of the DL's political understanding written by someone who knows, but I believe the answer may lie in what you might call the Buddhist long view as interpreted by the DL. That is, it may be the case that the DL's political beliefs are shaped by his personal understanding of Buddhist notions of the chain of casuality.
If this is so (and even if not), the best method for drawing him out on the topic of contemporary politics would be through a discussion of Buddhist morality.
Now, other than generalities most of us lack the deep background in this topic to go down all the discussion pathways that might appear during such a debate.
So when the DL makes a vague statement about Iraq and visits Dubya we either assume the worst and hurl insults or 'forgive' him out of (perhaps misguided) respect.
What no one does, at least as far as I've seen, is debate.
DRM
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com