Finger pointing to the left. But who, really, is over there?
* * *
Is the term pseudo-conservatives? Crypto-conservatives? Quislings? Misguided ideologues? Wolves in sheeps clothing? Or plain old vanilla RINOs in need of being spurned, reeducated, and subjected to the equivalent of a right-wing ideological tar-and-feathering?
Whatever it is, is it a rock-ribbed conservatism where Bill Buckley or Senator Taft or Barry Goldwater, or even the Gipper on his white horse, would support it and not shun it?
Proceeding from an abstract lead in to specific questioning, over private enterprise shunned or at least dismissively disregarded; read the below page from near the end of a nine page summer 2009 Ramsey Council work session; (from about the time I became aware Landform existed and that Mike Jungbauer was a key player on that consultancy-in-exchange-for-cash team):
[as always click the image to enlarge and read]
The GOP-dominated Ramsey council bought the Town Center weed patch for an absurdly inflated price, spending millions of reserves on a governmental gamble where they might get something back - turning the old saying about "something for nothing" on its head, giving not getting, something for nothing.
And private money apparently was cautiously sounding out a possible step forward to have a go at development during a major market slump in the community, sounding out who might be on the same page or actually on a different one.
Private enterprise, Met not by enthusiasm, but a let's table it, Let's question it mentality. Only the City Administrator, an implementor and not a policy setter, seemed amenable to the thoughts being floated.
And it's a freezeout.
Read that posted page again.
Who are these people?
Isn't government competiting with private enterprise called, what, socialism, or fascism, one of those -isms, and bad because of it? Isn't that the true-belief and doctrine? Isn't that the conservative "agenda?"
True and not false flagged consrvatives out there reading this, please set the record straight - am I correct or missing some disconnect between ideology and action?
These Ramsey would-be land speculators, on public money, they are not tax an spend, nor borrow and spend as Bush financing his two-front wars. It is looting savings to spend and then to not spend wisely but with profligate risk levels on something with a proven record of abject failure.
If the spending were sensible and justifiable as prudent and not risk-prone, sound instead of flawed and excessive chasing with millions more in spending while the likelihoods stand clear, if it were something else, there'd be a defense. But the simple and clear truth is unavoidable: This turkey could not even fly during the heyday of bubble boom times! It is that clearly awful a level of decision making.
____________________
The gamble of plunging more money to try to undo a loss is bad in a casino and as bad in a bad market where you follow others who failed with the same thing and idea, but the pioneers, bless them, at least were that foolish during a good market. Doing that absent a good market is fraught with error and misjudgment. Error and hubris. One driving the other, headlong into the chasm.
AND - comfortably taking Landform passengers along for the ride. They have a parachute. Taxpayers do not.
____________________
Elvig, currently seeking reelection in Ward 1 is running against Harry Niska, who I believe characterizes himself as a conservative. Elvig was one of two intermediaries along with Dehen, who seems to not to get into hypothetical rhetoric over private property rights and private sector initiative; but those two got the ball rolling.
The rolling ball apparently was stopped and kicked aside by others.
I hope that Niska goes on record having an opinion to express over whether it is the purpose of municipal government to sponsor development dreams (funded with public money) in parallel with and indeed in competition with private parties who are or may be contemplating putting private money at risk in a risk-reward consideration where it is their own government, their money held publicly, that is intentionally tilting the playing field from level toward clear municipal socialism - development owned and advanced by local government, with the intent that money spent be returned with a profit, i.e., playing profit politics against the private sector.
So, Harry Niska, any thoughts? If so, send an email, or post a comment.
It is a question that troubles me because I believe people should honestly follow the rhetoric they profess.
Anything less can be misleading to citizen-voters; and a source of the low esteem and approval ratings polls show voters holding toward elected office holders.
IN CLOSING -- AGAIN, conservatives, please help me out. Enlighten me how to consevertively regard government taking a failed weed patch and pushing it into market, paying vast amounts to consultants also ostensibly GOP conservatives, to joust for limited likelihood of success against private sector private capital - against potential private money, swamped by the spending of millions of public dollars to buy into childish play games of "developer" instead of "doctor."
I bet the guy pictured above on the horse was pointing at socialists in conservative clothing. Perhaps not. He's too dead to tell us now. I recall Tom Paine's pejorative attitude toward "Summer soldiers and sunshine patriots." Are we faced with some sunshine partiot thing after having been led to expect true believers - winter warriors of the free market, all that?
___________________
Is separation of walk and talk so freely tolerated and okay with Tea Partiers, with the Bachmannistanis, with dedicated State Senate candidates from the GOP, and such?
All on a tilted rather than a level playing field ...
Is that "conservative politics" at its purest and best?