First, I must raise my objection to referring to individual persons in the plural: "the Bruce Feins, Bob Barrs, even George Wills." This all started in the '60s, when there were actually two people high places with the same last name - McGeorge Bundy and William Bundy, brothers (read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bundy). They were members of the Kennedy Administration, and were often referred to together, hence, the Bundys. Pundits ever since have referred to just about anyone in the plural, implying a type, an implicit brothers in arms.

We humans are herd animals. Ever since Ken Burns introduced the disembodied interview, it has been de rigeur on PBS and other venues to have "experts" expound great thoughts to anonymous inquisitors. It saves air time, and no doubt a chunk of pay.

But I digress, without gressing in the first place. Again, Glenn Greenwald has hit the nail on the head. I suggest taking the inquiry a step or two farther. The reason "Conservatism" has fallen into such disrepute is that it has always been a phony philosophy. Disguised as an advocacy of "freedom," what "Conservatism" really is is a syndrome of ego-aggrandizement, greed, lust for power, genuine racism and xenophobia, privilege, and deflection of responsibility to the lower classes.

This deflection of responsibility is most manifest in the drive for regressive taxation and the prison industrial complex. "Conservatives" have no problem whining over the pending fatherlessness of the children of Irv Lewis Libby, but care not a whit for the children of the millions locked up in our nation's prisons, in Guantanamo, in Abu Ghraib, and God knows what other prisons worldwide where the "CIA" renders people.

What "Conservatives" are really lamenting is that the fiasco of the Bush "presidency" has revealed their venality and sociopathy. What we really should be concerned about is how such a wealthy and supposedly advanced society could sink to a level where its ruling class is an extended gang of criminal sociopaths. A corollary question is what bodes for the future of a country with such a ruling class. Rather than wring our hands, we need to unmitigatingly, unforgivingly raise these issues. If we can call these criminals what they are, we can avoid getting sucked into their arguments, avoid letting them control the discussion, and move on to the next question. For instance, survival of the human species.

Is that because he's incapable of formulating an independent thought other than the ones he's spoon-fed, when he actually encounters one it creates confusion. He's incapable of understanding that a group of individuals can think independently and yet join together voluntarily in order to achieve a common purpose. His us/them dichotomy is so ingrained that he's literally blind to any other way of thinking.-- Paul Dirks

This is funny. How many in this group have had anything, anything at all, positive to say about Bush, conservatives, or Republicans? None, I would venture. Hell, even liberal folks like Bucky get blasted for not following the party line sufficiently. There is no independence here, just different hues of leftist orthodoxy. Chavez would be proud of this group.

This is funny. How many in this group have had anything, anything at all, positive to say about Bush, conservatives, or Republicans?

When has George W Bush, his party or his base done anything even remotely worthy of praise?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
appears to be a permanent link to a particular item at washingtonpost.com, but, weirdly, it isn't. Instead, it's always the link to Howie's newest "Media Notes" blog posting. Thus, early this morning, it pointed to Howie's blog posting from yesterday ("Bailing on Bush"), but now it points to today's blog posting ("The Girls of 2008").

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/06/06/BL2007060600552.html
is the permanent link to Howie's blog posting for today ("The Girls of 2008").

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/06/05/BL2007060500451.html
is the permanent link to yeterday's "Bailing on Bush" blog posting which was referenced by Glenn.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/06/05/BL2007060500451.html
Bailing on Bush
By Howard Kurtz
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Now that the Bush ship has hit its share of icebergs, it's interesting to watch how many conservatives are heading for the lifeboats . . . One of the latest to break with the president is Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, who  took leave  from her job to support Bush in the 2004 campaign:

[Howie then quotes from Peggy's column, but he doesn't quote her writing, "For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome." and then Howie finishes his comments on Bush and conservatism by saying]

Give her points for honesty.

[Howie then does a segue from conservative "honesty" to Democratic Party hypocrisy as exemplified by their "cold cash" congressman. What a contrast!]

Eh? Give Peggy Noonan honesty points? As the novelist and critic Mary McCarthy famously said, about the playwright Lillian Hellman, “every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’”

Case in point.

Bucky is not a liberal. He's more conservative than you are. As is prunes. As is Mona. As is Ron Paul. Your ignorance of what "conservative" even means proves my point.

... I'm still waiting for "journalist" Glenn Greenwald and the "news" site Salon to make a single mention of the Democrat congressman from Louisiana just indicted for bribery--you know, the guy who was caught with tons 'o money wrapped in foil and stashed in his freezer.

Guess I'll just have to wait a bit longer.

Ron Paul is a conservative. Virtually everyone else in the republican party is a - repeat after me:

Right-Wing Authoritarian.

As Paul proves every time he opens his mouth, the repugs are not in any way, shape or form "conservative," and they have not been since 1992 - possibly since 1980.

Amen, bother; and preach it some more.

I told an entire building full of republican colleges that if the Republican Party nominated that damn *elder* Bush just to keep the white house then it was all over for the party. When you elect an ex-CIA man (plus other unsavory family history) then you have real troubles.

Well, it has come to pass. Now, we are damn close to dictatorship --- hell, an election in 2008 is *not* a guarantee.

So, step up to the plate Dems and swing away.