“The President’s big campaign donors got nice returns for their ‘investments’ in him to the tune of billions of your tax dollars in the form of ‘green energy’ stimulus funds. The technical term for this is ‘pay-to-play.’ Between bailouts for Wall Street cronies and stimulus projects for union bosses’ security and “green energy” giveaways, he took care of his friends. And now they’re on course to raise a billion dollars for his re-election bid so that they can do it all over again.”

“Some GOP candidates also raised mammoth amounts of cash, and we need to ask them, too: What, if anything, do their donors expect in return for their ‘investments’? We need to know this because our country can’t afford more trillion-dollar “thank you” notes to campaign backers. It is an important question, and it cuts to the heart of our problem. And I speak from experience in confronting the corruption and the crony capitalism since starting out in public office 20 years ago. I’ve been out-spent in my campaigns two to one, three to one, five to one… But the reason is simple: It’s because like you, I’m not for sale.”

In 2008, I failed to imagine that the banks would get the money, essentially, with no strings attached. Even the one slight string that was attached (compensation limits until they’d paid the money back) was attacked as if it were the foot in the door to resurrect Stalin and install him in the White House. I failed to imagine that, within two years of their near collapse, they would be right back to doing what they had done for the two plus decades prior: helping to bust unions, cut taxes for the rich, slash benefits for the rest of us, drive the country into crippling debt, and leech off as much money from everyone they come into contact with as possible. From the perspective of a person who actually cares about human suffering, it made sense to support the bank bailouts. You’ll never convince me that letting a few more of them fail wouldn’t have dropped us right into a Great Depression style economic collapse. I don’t think 20 or 25 per cent unemployment would have been unlikely at all. Here’s the rub, though. Without those string, without major reform, we have guaranteed that there will be another bank crisis. It is not a historical accident that we managed to avoid a major banking crisis from the end of the Great Depression to the Savings & Loan scandals of the 80s. We had regulations in place that prevented bank crises. Until that next crisis comes, the finance industry will continue to undermine the living standard and the safety net of the average American. The next time the banks collapse, we ought to let them. We can give them the choice of going under or being nationalized, but either way the current owners should forfeit their investment. That includes me if my 401k is invested in them. Nothing short of a whole sale restructuring of our financial industry is going to stop the US from sliding toward being a third world country.

I’ve come to think that writing about social issues is also useless. That was the only possible other purpose I had in mind for the blog. I have found in my own writing and in reading some other more famous blogs that too much of how your writing is perceived comes not from the ideas in your piece, but from the biography of the writer. I don’t believe that my own words are ever either so vaguely stated or so poorly written as to allow for, literally, opposite interpretations. Yet I’ve found that to be the case at times. People who know me, know my family background, know my (admittedly lapsed) resume as an activist, etc will think I am saying one thing while people who don’t know or only know a portion of that will think I’m saying the opposite. If my writing isn’t that vague, then the reasons I’ve stated seem adequate ones for quitting. It’s the author, not the words that people are reading. If my writing is that vague, then I’m not suited to doing this.

In the last year, I’ve found that I’m losing that interest. The environment is so toxic. The structure has been so altered by recent supreme court rulings that I don’t think we’ll have a functional political system again in my lifetime. I no longer really believe that much good can be done through the political system. At best, you can stave off some of the bad, maybe even roll some of the bad back at times. I think there are ways to do good and I’m kind of actively looking toward figuring one out that will work for me. I also kind of feel like blogging about politics is just an enormous waste of time. Unless you’re famous for doing it, I don’t think your words can ever establish a meaningful reputation or track record by which you’ll be judged. In a medium that is only words, your actions outside of it don’t matter either, again, unless you’re famous for them.

For the last six months, the fact that I actually use some email addresses associated with this domain has been the only thing that’s kept me from letting it expire. If I continue to feel about this site like I’ve felt for a while, this may be my last update. The domain expires in a couple months. I may renew it for one more year to have time to switch out the email addresses and archive some content. If I don’t see you here again, thanks for reading. Hopefully, I’ll see you somewhere else.

I don’t know how long this moment, this particular overlap of the old and the new, will carry on. I do know that it’s a moment that works in favor of the Democrats generically, though. They’ve spent 100 years desperately trying to purge their left flank. The Republicans have spent several decades trying to do the opposite in the form of a winking, silent embrace of their right flank. These are deeply ingrained habits, instincts even, in the two parties.

“To the Democrats in Congress, who don’t quite get it: I want to offer a personal pledge. I – and a lot of other people – have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want. That is not a hollow or idle threat. We will come to your districts and we will work against you, first in the primary, and, if we have to, in the general election. You don’t think so? You think that we’re just going to go along with you because you are Democrats?

You should think again. This is the No. 1 domestic issue on people’s minds right now. It’s the No. 1 cause of bankruptcies in this country. Medical bills. It’s the No. 1 cause of foreclosures in this country. Medical bills.

We will organize the thousands of people in your district who have suffered as a result of this cruel health care system that we have – we will organize them and we will come after you and we will remove you from office. Make no mistake about that. You had better get behind the President. If you think you were afraid of a few people at a town hall meeting, you haven’t seen anything yet. And let me just say, there are some people in this room, if you remember back to the election of 2000, that are fairly reckless individuals when it comes to politics. They don’t really care – when they see a hypocrite, when they see somebody who’s turned their back on the people who put them into office, they will be relentless, relentless in working against you. Even if it means that the Democrat doesn’t win.”

I still think that voting for Nader was an irresponsible act in 2000. Look at our Supreme Court today for my answer as to why. It’s the same answer I gave at the time. But knocking out some Democratic congressman and senators can be a powerful act and often has been in the last hundred years in this country.

It’s not complacency that’s causing us to close our check books. The surge in Democratic fund raising in 2006 and 2008 came from progressive, grass roots democrats who were desperate for a change. We got our change and we’re not that happy with it. The House is certainly better than the Senate where we’re being told that it takes 60 votes to do anything. The fact of the matter, though, is that progressive groups are finding themselves having to run ads against Democratic congressmen and senators to get them to do progressive things that are supported by solid majorities in their districts and super majorities of Democrats. There is some talk among grass roots groups and labor of finding and supporting progressive primary challengers. It’s a sure way to turn some of these seats back over the Republicans, but it’s also a way of showing that you can’t take our money and votes and then ignore us anymore–like you’ve done since the 80s.

We’re not complacent. We’re pissed. Not giving the bastards money is the hardest hitting outlet we’ve got for now.