It's also not obvious how a government run tsa could be trusted any more than regulated private security contractors (overseen and kept accountable by a smaller government agency).
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.)
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.
No, there's a "smaller government" party. The quotes are important, as the reference is to a rhetorical position rather than a substantive one.