Unfortunately, today's US media tend to label anything done by Republicans, or by the likes of Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Dubya, Reagan, etc., as "conservative" and just about anything espoused by the Democratic Party as "liberal" -- even though the terms often make no sense.

What is "conservative" about the Rehnquist SCOTUS agreeing to hear Bush v. Gore -- clearly a matter reserved in the Constitution for the states to decide -- and then deciding, on a this-time-only basis, in favor of halting the counting of votes?   

What is "conservative" about the Bush administration tossing out habeas corpus -- a right that goes back to the Magna Carta and is enshrined in the body of the US Constitution (not the Bill Of Rights) -- and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts crying "Foul!" when the other 5 Justices ruled that he can't do that?

What is "conservative" about selling off major portions of our national resources and infrastructure to foreign or non-national corporations?

What is "conservative" about violating international treaties (e.g., the Geneva Conventions) and callously disregarding such Constitutional protections as the 1st, 4th, and other Amendments?

I do not shrink from the word "liberal." In fact, I proudly embrace it. But I also proudly acknowledge that I am "conservative" -- especially in that I am not eager to disregard the US Constitution or other aspects of long-established law just because it may be financially or politically expedient at the moment.   I recognize, for instance, that Congress was deliberately designed to move rather slowly when it comes to making radical changes, that our tripartite Federal governmental structure with its checks and balances is there for very good reason.   I am just pissed at seeing an administration (and its stacked courts) running roughshod over long-established American traditions and rights and being labelled "conservative" by the media for doing so.

If "conservatism" means "smaller government," then the Bush 43 administration has failed that test in many ways. New, big-government agencies -- such as Dept. Of Homeland Security (largely bent on violating Constitutional prohibitions about unreasonable search and seizure, or protections of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of peaeable assemby for redress of grievances, etc.), Dept. of Faith-Based Initiatives (apparently undermining the separation of church and state), No Child Left Behind (What happened to states' rights and local control?) -- have mushroomed since 2001, grossly increasing the power of not only the Federal government but the Executive branch.

This new brand of "conservatives" honors "states rights" -- except when they don't. Oregon, California, and some other states passed laws permitting medical use of marijuana, by Dr.s' prescription. Oregon low now permits doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients in great pain.   California passed auto emission control laws more stringent than federal standards.   The Bush 43 administration has sought (mostly successfully) to override these state laws and pretty much any others they disagree with.

I blame the public at large, including most of the Democratic politicians, commentators, columnists, etc. -- for perpetuating this distorted perception. We have got to stop calling judges like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas "conservatives" or "strict constructionists" when their stated opinions give the lie to such labels. We must stop calling politicians or their positions "conservative" or "liberal" based on party affiliation and start paying attention to what those positions really represent.