[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.