National Review’s Jonah Goldberg takes to the pages of USA Today and asks where, oh where, the real conservative is in the GOP presidential field.
It’s worth reading, if you’re curious. But he touches on another matter that is really far more important:
The 2000 GOP convention’s theme was “Prosperity with a Purpose,” and in Bush’s acceptance speech he insisted that “American government was made for great purposes.” In some ways, Bush was ripping off Sen. John McCain of Arizona, whose campaign was a homage to Teddy Roosevelt and the need for Americans to unite in a “cause greater than themselves.”
And while the war gets most of the attention, it has hardly escaped notice that the president is a proud “big government conservative” championing everything from government-funded marriage counseling to a new prescription drug entitlement to the federal government’s intrusion into education.
In 2003, Bush declared that “when somebody hurts, government has to move.” More recently, he explicitly rejected William F. Buckley’s dictum that conservatives should yell “Stop” to ever-expanding government, saying instead that he believes conservatives must “lead.” This makes for an interesting prologue to the 2008 election.
Yes it does. More than the war, I think, the 2008 race will (or ought to be) a referendum on oxymoronic big government conservatism. In some ways, the seeds of that referendum are already sprouting. Some of the right are looking to bolt the GOP and focus their resources on changing the culture (good luck with that). The economic conservatives (and libertarians), too, are discontented. The explosive growth of the entitlement state under Bush, his surrender on the “Ownership Society” and the logrolling, pork barreling habits of the congressional wing of the party are making it more and more difficult for some of them to continue to lend their time, money and votes to the edifice George has built. Not a small portion of the GOP’s congressional losses could be placed on the doorsteps of these disillusioned factions.
So far, the top tier choices in 2008 are, as Jim would say, a dog’s breakfast of would-be authoritarians, wing nuts (Tom Tancredo, call your office), and horses so dark they don’t even show up on radar.
Some say the bold choice, the “dangerous” choice, is Newt. Yes, yes it would be dangerous. But the nation has probably had its fill of cads in the Oval Office, so he’s not exactly a wise choice.
Fred Thompson? Okay, sure, he’d be a telegenic candidate. But is there anything inside that suit? I don’t know.
My preferred candidate is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. But he’s not running. That leaves…just about no one.
Maybe it’s time to go fishing.