In your earlier post you explained that the current socialist policies are due to the fact that:
a Socialistic Democrat was elected in '92 and reelected in '96. That sent a message to politicians that socialistsic policy can win elections.
Yet if '92 and '96 sent a message that socialist policy can win elections, why wouldn't 2000 send an equally strong rebuke of that very same message? By your logic 2000 should've sent the message that conservative policy wins elections.
The reality is, we cannot blame the actions of a Republican Congress and White House on the presence of Bill Clinton 3 years ago. While Bill Clinton is sitting in Harlem, Republicans are proposing and passing massive spending increases. They get all the blame.
A landslide win or even a Popular Vote win might have sent that message. But the Republican squeaked by with a few hundred highly disputed votes and the Democrat won the Popular Vote. The Socialist got more votes than the Republican.
The reality is, we cannot blame the actions of a Republican Congress and White House on the presence of Bill Clinton 3 years ago. While Bill Clinton is sitting in Harlem, Republicans are proposing and passing massive spending increases. They get all the blame.
The Clintons are not done with us yet. They are in the news as much as the President and more than the rest of the Republicans. My statement may explain why there are less Conservatives elected to Congress than we would like. People are voting for moderate/liberal Republicans in many instances and we get less Conservative legislation than we would prefer.