No. I said "in part" and we will likely see more if it in the future.
But it's been pointed out that government expansion has accelerated under the present administration, far above and beyond what could conceivably be needed for the War on Terror.
Again, time will tell if the merging of the 20+ agencies results in fewer personnel and more efficiency. If it works, more agencies can be merged. Again, the new agency weakens the influence of unions and the Dems strongly opposed it. A Dem President/Congress would have left all those agencies in place and added a few more, besides.
The truth that you apparently don't want to face is that RINO's are far more dangerous to our liberties than Democrats, precisely because they don't excite the same level of opposition as Democrats.
Open your eyes. If RINOs are being elected over Conservatives, then the Conservatives are doing something wrong in winning over the voters, apparently.
Your points about Perot are irrelevant, because there's little evidence that he drew more votes away from the Republican candidate than from Clinton.
Wrong. The electorate is closely divided and without the Perot factor Bush would likely have been reelected and the Clintons sent back to Arkansas.
Voting for recognizable conservatives, on the other hand,...
You seem to miss part of my point. Elected Conservatives are part of the solution. Conversative voters are part of the problem. They abandoned Bush and enabled the Clintons and are threatening to do it again with their do-it-my-way-or-I'll-destroy-the-country mentality. They can't be relied on to keep the Liberals out of power, as we have seen.
No. I said "in part" and we will likely see more if it in the future.
So it's in part because of the influence of the previous administration. What's the rest of the reason? Could it be because this administration is inherently socialist-minded?
Again, time will tell if the merging of the 20+ agencies results in fewer personnel and more efficiency. If it works, more agencies can be merged. Again, the new agency weakens the influence of unions and the Dems strongly opposed it.
Efficiency and union-busting are all well and good, but the problems they address are by far not the biggest internal threat to freedom. That threat comes from socialism - the attitude that government is responsible for solving every conceivable problem that might affect people. It is that that has been expanding by leaps and bounds under the present administration.
If RINOs are being elected over Conservatives, then the Conservatives are doing something wrong in winning over the voters, apparently.
There's something circular about your logic. You (and many others) say that we shouldn't vote for 3rd parties because it might prevent the Republicans from winning, then use the fact that people take that advice as evidence that they don't like 3rd parties.
My point is that by voting for conservative (as in, not Ross Perot) candidates, though they may be 3rd-party, then we stand a much greater chance of getting the conservative message out to the public in the face of a hostile press.
They abandoned Bush and enabled the Clintons and are threatening to do it again with their do-it-my-way-or-I'll-destroy-the-country mentality. They can't be relied on to keep the Liberals out of power, as we have seen.
I never tried to argue that they could keep liberals out of power after a single election. I said that they can keep liberalism (regardless of the label of who's promoting it) in check far more effectively than by simply voting Republican. I agree with you that those conservatives who voted for Perot (however many of them there were) made a mistake. Instead, they should have voted for an unmistakably conservative candidate, and then even if Clinton won, conservatism would have won the day, in the exact same way that liberalism is winning the day now even though we have a Republican in the White House.