Party of Bush?

Salon's Glenn Greenwald recently had a really good post about how all the conservatives disavowing Bush as “not a true conservative” were plenty happy to claim him as one of their own when his popularity was high, as opposed to mired in the low 30's.  The most interesting part of the post is where he argues that the Republican party has remade itself into the party of Bush:

The “Republican base” has become virtually monolithic and easily
recognizable — it is the swooning crowds cheering for torture and a
doubling of Guantanamo, threatening war with Iran, urging still more
surveillance and limitless government power in the name of the
All-Consuming, All-Important Glorious War with the Scary, Dangerous,
Never-Before-Seen Muslim Terrorists. Anyone who opposes that
vision — The Bush Vision — is not considered to be a Republican at
all, let alone a “conservative.” Just ask the tax-opposing,
spending-hating, small-government-advocating Ron Paul. Or Bruce Fein.
Or Andrew Sullivan.

The Republican Party that gathered last night for their latest
ritualistic displays of faux-”toughness” is, in every sense, the Party
of George Bush (and it is worth comparing how desperately conservatives
are fighting to distance themselves knowing how toxic is an association
with that President, versus the desire of Democrats to align themselves
with the still-popular Bill Clinton, a set of facts which are typically
reversed completely by the press). To the extent conservatives had
differences with Bush, those differences have been marginal (a Harriet
Miers here and a Dubai Port deal there), virtually always premised on
the theory that he was insufficiently extreme and uncompromising, and
most of all, muted. One of the few things more dishonest than the
administration itself is the conservative movement which built and
sustained it and now wants to pretend that it didn't.

I've got nothing to add– just liked that. 

I’m a familiar essayist!

I was listening to an NPR story yesterday about the “familiar essay,” a form of writing which I had heretofore never heard of.  Turns out, a familiar essay is one which combines autobiographical elements while also trying to educate the reader about the topic.  Sounds familiar, I thought.  The blog posts I most enjoy writing (i.e., the previous one) are those in which I can add a personal touch to political or scientific information that I find interesting.  Turns out, these are familiar essays.  From now on, I think I shall refer to myself as an “online familiar essayist.”  Sounds so much more highbrow than “blogger.”