[AndrewUnmuted]

No, you actually have it very wrong. George W. Bush was not a 'smaller government' president. It was the grassroots conservative reaction to the GWB administration's "progressive" Republican administration that leads you to even think of the modern GOP as the 'smaller government' party in the first place.

[dragonwriter]

> It was the grassroots conservative reaction to the GWB administration's "progressive" Republican administration that leads you to even think of the modern GOP as the 'smaller government' party in the first place.

The GOP (including the both of W.'s campaigns, and his administration) has been beating the "smaller government" drum for decades (pretty consistently since at least Reagan's first campaign). Its not exactly a new rhetorical position (substantively, like the Democrats -- though virtually a mirror image on the specific programs -- there are areas of government that, in practice, they work to expand and areas that the seek to shrink.)

[AndrewUnmuted]

So what? Bill Clinton also ran on a platform of smaller government and cutting expenses in order to balance the budget.

The fact is that Bush (and the US population) spent very little time or intellectual effort on matters of monetary policy during that election cycle, compared with where we are today. Bush, in 2000, ran on a platform of relatively progressive positions such as his 'no child left behind' proposal, tax breaks for small businesses, criticizing Clinton's several foreign policy gaffs, getting the US off of its foreign oil reliance, etc. The size and scope of government was not a major talking point for either campaign. Thus, the suggested 'irony' mentioned in the OP to which I was replying is misplaced.