That's quite a lot of different topics mixed into one here. First, I don't see 'Get Over It' as 'conservative'. I think the attitude in that song doesn't have anything to do with conservative vs. liberal or left vs. right. It deals with a wide spread notion of 'I want a free ride!' whether it's by setting up a lawsuit against McDonalds for $1M because you're too stupid to understand tht coffee is hot, even at a DriveIn, or by complaining that your own failure is everybody else's fault.
Then I think we have to differentiate between the Eagles' (or Henley's) political views in their songs and their own economic politics as a band (or shall we say corporation?). Their few political lyrics are, to use slogan terms, ecology-oriented (The Last Resort) and media-critical and anti-war. Let's be honest: everybody is anti-war. Nobody goes "Hooray! Let's run off to foreign shores and have our sons and daughters get killed!"
Being critical of the Rupert Murdoch types is not liberal or conservative either. It's just healthy awareness of the fact that monopolies are dangerous. Environmentalism isn't liberal or conservative either. Actually it's more conservative as it is about conservating the natural and healthy environment against gung-ho concrete politics of 'We need more parking space for gas guzzlers!' ...
They never wrote anything that pities the 'poor working class' or whatever. They know they would not sound very credible in doing so. They charge top money for their shows not because their stage set up is so damn expensive, but because they can afford to charge that much and still sell out huge arenas, thus make more money for themselves and Irving Azoff. They play by the rules of capitalism. Hence the Wal-Mart deal. They didn't have a record contract. They (at least Henley) despise of record companies who usually only take a big chunk of the money without doing much for the artist. So they were looking for a distribution deal without an extra player in the game. As they were already used from dealing with Azoff, why not make another deal with another devil? Everybody won: The band made lots of money, Wal-Mart made lots of money, the customer got a double album for a nice price.
Henley's stand against digital piracy has nothing to do with 'conservative' or 'liberal' either. It's just a matter of whether you think theft is OK or not. Of course he has only the means to protect his own work, and he wouldn't starve whether the Eagles sell 7 million or 6 million albums, that's true, but he can use his power to argue for the rights of all artists, and it's more likely politicians listen to Don Henley than they would listen to some 20-year old guy from a new garage band ... And for that kid's garage band it makes a huge difference whether they sell 10,000 or 20,000 copies.
Oh, and sure, there's the politics of the Felder firing, which has been discussed at length here. I have no clue whether or not the final deal that was made is 'fair' or not, but my general point in that case is that I think Henley and Frey should be allowed a higher share in Eaglescorp than Felder, because their input into the band's musical catalog was richer than Felder's. His musical input into the song Hotel Cali not withstanding, but as an instrumental that song wouldn't have gone anywhere, and without Henley's lyrics, if they would have sung the Los Angeles phone directory to it, it wouldn't have been a huge hit either (outside the inner circle of hard core Eagles fans on the Eye Candy forum ...)
What I will critizize about the band's politics is their concert ticket policy, not just because it's greedy to rip off your fan base, but because the money that goes into Eagles tickets is spent, and cannot go into tickets for new bands or tickets for older bands that don't have superstar status (e.g. Poco or America) ... This is something that other bands do as well, take U2 or any brand name you like ...
