I don't think the term 'conservative' is appropriate for shrubco and their

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

supporters.

"Republican", "Bush supporter" are appropriate, I think among with the other more colorful terms we see on DU.

"Conservatism" implies the desire to conserve and preserve, to resist change. This gang is the most radical bunch I've certainly ever seen in the WH in my lifetime, and since Republican congressman and Senators have thrown in their lot with the WH, they're in the same category.

They seek radical change and have failed to "conserve" anything.

They have trashed alliances longstanding since WWII as irrelevant.
They have abandoned the Geneva Convention.
They have trashed habeas corpus, which dates back to the 1200's and is one of the fundamental tenets of law in the Western world.
They have failed to "conserve" the large budget surplus they inherited.
Etc. etc.

For Republicans opposed to, say, Civil Rights legislation in the 60's, the term "conservative" might be appropriate, as it is consistent with a clinging to the status quo. The current gang have completely trashed the status quo, and the term does not apply.

[acmejack]

1. I like Thom Hartmann's name for them, republicons

And con they do indeed. Hopefully, it is cons they shall be.

[AverageJoe]

2. Not at all conservative

The proper, traditional term for these people is "reactionary." It carries essentially the same meaning as does "fascist," without the knee-jerk associations tied to the latter term. Many people wrongly assume that fascism implies concentration camps,the mass murder of Jews, and so forth. They don't tend to make the same error with "reactionary." It's probably the best word we can use to describe the current Republicans and also the most accurate.

[The2ndWheel]

3. Radical corporate statists, nt

[TalkingDog]

4. Ultra-liberals....

There are a few poli-sci authors who have labeled them as such. I think it's a great idea. A really good chance to piss off those who consider themselves "conservative".