I think perhaps you are over-personalizing this. I do not believe that your personally are at issue here, irrespective of how certain posting may be worded. If you past this limitation, there is room for a substantive discussion. You wrote about the posting:

“It treats conservatism as though it is indistinguishable from the Republican Party and the Bush Administration”

First, the Republican Party and the Bush Administration have very much advocated the view that they are indistinguishable from conservatism. They announced themselves as the very embodiment of conservatism. Further, when things were going their way, there were not any conservatives out there decrying the actions of the Republican Party / Bush Administration. Which conservatives denounced the reckless borrowing and spending of the Republican Congress and Bush Administration (remembering that there was no deficit at all on January 1, 2001). Where were the conservative voices opposing the invasion of Iraq? There were no demands from conservative that Bush appoint only competent experts instead political hacks. Until things started going wrong, “conservatism” made not the slightest effort to distinguish itself from either the Republican Party or the Bush Administration. Indeed, what differences are there?

What this exposes is that “conservatism” realy was, just a bunch of empty phrases that meant nothing to its advocates. The conservatives talked about the wild “tax and spend” liberals but once in control of Congress they borrowed money as fast as they could spend it on pork barrel projects. Conservatives talked about “individual responsibility” but refuse to take any when they run something into the ditch. Conservatives present themselves as being morally superior to others and are disdainful of “moral relativism” but in practice are no more moral than anyone else, perhaps less so.

Any political philosophy or movement is finally judged by what its advocates do when they are in power, hence the political collapse of the Republican Party.