Iran-- Which Way Now, While Trump Is Still Occupying The White House?

An hour before Trump addressed the country yesterday, The Atlantic published a column by David Frum, Americans Aren't Rallying to Trump-- A president who writes off half the country can't expect to garner support from a crisis of his own making. Iran had to do something after Trump assassinated Soleimani but their leaders are smart enough to not do something suicidal. So they launched some noisy missiles at a couple of Iraqi bases housing Americans that didn't really target Americans. "But imagine," suggested Frum, "that Iran had gotten luckier (or unluckier) with its missile aiming. Or that the Iranian regime had chosen-- or still chooses-- a more lethal response to the killing of Qassem Soleimani. Where would we be then?"

The Trump administration and its supporters seem to have hoped for a “rally around the flag” effect from the killing of Soleimani. This did not happen. The fundamental geology of Donald Trump’s presidency remains unchanged: A large majority of Americans do not trust him, do not support him, and will not follow him. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has complained that European allies do not support the Trump administration’s actions. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laments that Democrats in Congress will not support the president either.

The first poll after the killing of Soleimani shows 53 percent of Americans disapproving of Trump’s handing of Iran, a number similar to what other polling registered in September and October. What has changed is that 39 percent “strongly disapprove” of Trump’s policy—a number up 10 points since before the Soleimani killing. Americans do not want war with Iran, and they do not trust Trump to lead such a war if it erupts.

Trump’s governance itself is legally in question right now. The president has been impeached. Unlike the Clinton impeachment of 1998–99, this process commands the approval of a majority of Americans. On average, more than 50 percent believe the Senate should remove Trump from office. That’s not sufficient to force the Senate to respond, especially not a Senate majority that itself was elected with the support of only a minority of Americans. But it’s certainly sufficient to deprive the president of the legitimacy to lead the nation to war.

The United States finds itself in the dangerous situation of having a president in power but without authority.

He is the least trusted president in the history of polling. Two-thirds of Americans regard him as dishonest. Sixty-one percent say he does not respect democracy.

With the departure of Secretary of Defense James Mattis at the end of 2018, there is no figure left in the administration who does command broad respect from the public, Congress, or American allies-- who can credibly step forward and say, “This time, the president is not lying.”

Even the White House press secretary has given up. Unlike her two predecessors, who lied to the media’s face, the current holder of the office, Stephanie Grisham, has abandoned press briefings entirely.

The president, any president, is both the leader of his party and a representative of the entire nation. As the nation polarizes, it becomes harder and harder to combine those roles. But unlike his predecessors, Trump has never tried to do the second job. Even as he sought support from Democrats in Congress, the president retweeted one of his most provocative supporters equating Democrats in Congress to Iranian terrorists. Former Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, ever more brazenly campaigning to replace Vice President Mike Pence on the Republican 2020 ticket, gave an interview on Sean Hannity’s radio show in which she said nobody except Democratic Party leaders and presidential candidates mourned the death of Qassem Soleimani. (Meanwhile, one of the president’s strongest supporters in the Senate, Rand Paul, and one of Trump’s favorite TV hosts, Tucker Carlson, actually spoke out in opposition to the strike.)

Trump supporters are trying to re-create the atmosphere of 2003, to claim the high ground of patriotism and defense of the nation. That can never work for them, because at every turn they and the country confront the weird hold Russia’s Vladimir Putin seems to hold over the U.S. president. Trump defenders angrily denounce the facts of the Trump-Putin connection as a “hoax,” but the country does not believe them. As of mid-summer 2019, only 35 percent of voters accepted the president’s claims of “exoneration.” A majority believe that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump; a plurality believe that Trump colluded with that effort.

A president regarded by so many Americans as Putin’s puppet cannot plausibly wave the flag against domestic opponents.

Trump himself seems to intuit the danger-- which is why he always flinches from foreign-policy confrontations at the last minute, first with North Korea and now with Iran. When you know you’re driving a stolen car, you want to avoid collisions.

But Trump’s supporters in Congress and on TV have not kept up with the times as well as their boss. They imagine it’s still 2003-- or maybe 1969. But that history has passed by. When Fox talkers call on all Americans to unite behind the president, they have to carve out mental exceptions for close to half the country. Not New York State or New York City: President Trump has said he hates them “even more than I should.” Not the state of California, home to one out of every eight Americans: “a disgrace to our country.” Not the city of Chicago: “embarrassing to us as a nation.” Not the city of Baltimore: “a rat and rodent infested mess.” Not the city of Atlanta: “in horrible shape and falling apart.”

Trump has never aspired to the job of president of all the United States. He does not understand the job. He cannot do the job. And now the job needs to be done.

Earlier in the Trump administration, it was said that the president was fortunate to have never encountered a crisis not of his own making. Over three years, however, he has contrived to make a great many crises: a trade war with China, a betrayal in Kurdistan, a diplomatic debacle on the Korean peninsula, the ongoing thralldom of Trump to Putin, and now the approach to war with Iran. National crises become no less dangerous for being the fault of the U.S. president rather than some foreign aggressor. Happily, the Iran crisis is paused, at least for the moment. None of these national self-harms will be resolved, however, until this sham president leaves office.

Just before Trump spoke Congressional Progressive co-chairs Pramila Jayapal and Mark Pocan released a caucus statement calling on Congress to reassert it's constitutional responsibility for declaring war:

The horrific escalation towards war with Iran was devastatingly predictable, brought on by Trump’s reckless military brinksmanship in assassinating General Soleimani and, before that, destroying decades of diplomacy by pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal and asserting a ‘maximum pressure’ strategy. Last night’s attacks by Iran were a warning shot, showing clearly that President Trump’s actions have made the United States and the world far less safe than it was one week ago. While we do not yet know the full toll of last night’s attacks, there’s no question this escalation has put our troops and Iraqis in danger-- a traumatic and completely avoidable result of the President’s reckless actions. 
Now, it is even more urgent than ever that Congress act to immediately pull us back from the brink of catastrophe and prevent a completely avoidable war with Iran. To protect American lives and global stability, Congress must reassert our Constitutional authority by passing a strong War Powers Resolution to ensure Congressional authorization for any military action; repealing the 2002 Authorization of Use of Military Force; and ensuring that Congress provides no funds for war with Iran without authorization.

We must not continue down this destructive military path-- we must choose de-escalation and diplomacy. Let’s be clear: If we close the door on diplomacy, that decision will haunt our nation for generations. Further retaliation will not lead to peace-- it will only entangle us in a crisis with no military solution and endanger countless lives.

The American people don’t want another war without end. Congress must act swiftly to end this cycle of violence and pursue peace before it’s too late.

One of the hottest congressional races in the country is for a gerrymandered central Texas seat-- TX-10-- that stretches, incongruously, from Austin to the suburbs of Houston. With no help from the DCCC in 2018, progressive Democrat Mike Siegel nearly beat right-wing Republican incumbent, multimillionaire Michael McCaul. This year the DCCC is panic-stricken that a progressive-- Siegel is running again-- could win a seat in Texas so they worked with EMILY's List to find a Texas version of Jeff Van Drew to run against him. She has had nothing to say about the Iran debacle. Mike sure has-- reminding voters that he's "running to replace a Trump Toadie, Michael McCaul, who fashions himself a 'national security expert' but in reality is just a follower of the Blob. To wit: last night he issued a statement condemning the Iranian missile attack, while days earlier he praised the assassination of Suleimani, but where is the recognition of cause and effect? Trump's escalation with Iran makes the United States, and the world, decidedly less safe, and makes no sense from a tactical perspective. But being a Republican means surrendering objective thinking and rational discourse, so McCaul in practice is just another empty suit. Bigger picture, we need to call out the violation of the War Powers Act and the failure of the drone assassination program. Congress has the power to declare war so that the people's representatives can determine the true public interest. Half of America is at the poverty line or just outside of it; tens of millions lack health insurance; we have a homelessness crisis and a climate crisis and failing public infrastructure. If Congress is going to take action to save American lives, there is a lot we can do with domestic programs that will be far more effective than the assasination of a foreign leader. Which leads me to the drone program: unfortunately, the U.S. populace has become numb to a program that authorizes extrajudicial killings in violation of international law. The killing of Suleimani violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, and is part of a failed foreign policy that prioritizes 'taking out bad guys' over diplomacy. Each time the President orders one of these killings, we create more enemies than we eliminate, and we further undermine any moral standing we have in the world. It will be a long road back, from the United States as a rogue 'judge, jury and executioner' to a member in good standing of the international community. But we must walk this road, not only to advance the cause of peace, but to confront the climate crisis and other global challenges that require the collective participation of every nation."

Jennifer Christie, the progressive candidate for the open seat north of Indianapolis, agreed entirely, noting that "In this moment, Congress must take back the Constitutional power to make decisions about war on behalf of the People. In this moment, we must show leadership by deescalating the rising tensions between Iran and the USA. It’s time to be the adult in the room. In the middle of his impeachment, Trump assassinated Suleimani and we have yet to hear detailed or compelling reasons for his decision to act without consulting Congress nor our allies. An endless war with Iran is not in the interest of the people of America, Iran, nor of the world. It is time for cool heads and forward thinking."

We're just starting to get to know Robin Wilt, the progressive Democrat challenging Rochester New Dem Joe Morelle (NY-25). Morelle's only critique of Trump's assassination of Qassem Soleimani was that Congress was not fully briefed beforehand. Robin believes we need strong moral positions against war, not just a procedural ones. Since Morelle was one of the Democrats to support the NRAA, I asked her how they differ on Trump's moves regarding Iran. "I oppose war with Iran," she responded clearly. "I have a brother who graduated from the U.S. Military Academy West Point in 2002-- the year George W Bush articulated his doctrine of preemptive strike. My brother was later grievously injured in Iraq by an IED and is an amputee. I also have a son who is currently a junior at West Point (Class of ’21). For me, the issue of military adventurism is intensely personal. I believe the best way to support our military is to never put them in harm’s way injudiciously. I oppose the military industrial complex perpetuating war and threatening our national security and troops. I believe we should treat our troops like the valuable resource that they are by using them only as a last resort."

Trump was all hopped up on Adderall when he made his silly address to the nation yesterday. His Regime didn't do any better when they attempted to mollify Congress with closed briefings explaining why they assassinated Qasem Soleimani. On the House side, Virginia Democrat Gerry Connolly called the briefing "sophomoric and utterly unconvincing" and added that he is "utterly unpersuaded" that the assassination was justified. It was no better in the Senate, where arch-conservative Utah Senator Mike Lee (R) was one of many who were angered by the Trumpists' asinine excuse-making. Lee went on Fox News and said the briefing was "probably the worst briefing at least on a military issue I’ve seen" and said that the Trumpist Regime was "insulting and demeaning" the Senate by telling them not to debate merits of taking military action. Fox News cut Lee off and went to a commercial. Rand Paul (R) was just as angry as Lee was and added that using the 2002 AUMF to gin up a war with Iran was bullshit. "I see no way in the world you could logically argue that an authorization to have war with Saddam Hussein has anything to with having war with people currently in Iraq" and said using it to murder Soleimani was "absurd" and an "insult" (to Congress). "Let's have the debate, and let's have some senators stand up," he said. Maybe he should mention it to fellow Kentuckian, Moscow Mitch, who will not permit any debate without Trump's OK.

CNN reported that Senator Paul is criticizing Trumpanzee's actions toward Iran, saying his decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement and last week's drone strike that killed the country's top military general have made the US less safe. "The Iran agreement wasn't perfect-- and I was a critic of the Iran agreement-- however, I think it was a big mistake to pull out of the Iran agreement. We should have tried to build upon the Iran agreement. We've now killed one of their major generals. I think it is the death of diplomacy and I see no way to get it back started until the revenge of the Iranian people is somehow sated... I hate this. I hate that this is where we are going. I have been someone who has been for engagement, but there was much less killing, there was much less violence after the Iran agreement. In fact, there was a lull, a period in which I think we were headed towards a much more stable situation with Iran, and now I think that's gone. And I think it may be gone for a lifetime... Nobody in their right mind would actually think that would lead to negotiation."

Ending The Catastrophe In Yemen?

by Reese Erlich

I’m on a low-budget book tour, sleeping in spare bedrooms and munching granola in the kitchens of progressives all along the East Coast. Many had felt beaten down and pessimistic from two years of Trumpism. But I now sense some optimism and a renewed fighting spirit.

Just look at the surprising battle in the Senate over US participation in the Yemen War. On Nov. 28, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Mike Lee (R-UT) co-sponsored a War Powers Resolution calling for an end to U.S. participation in the conflict. Trump tried to quash the effort, but 63 Democratic and Republican senators defied the administration and voted to discharge the bill from committee so it can be voted on as early as the first week of December.

Senators were reacting to Trump’s failure to take decisive action against Saudi leaders responsible for the murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul.

But the Senate tumult also reflects the overwhelming American sentiment against the Yemen War, according to Cole Harrison, executive director of Massachusetts Peace Action and a friend.

“Saudi Arabia has one of the most hated regimes in the Middle East,” he told me. “It’s a repressive dictatorship. The murder of Khashoggi was just the spark that lit a fire.”

Humanitarian crisis

In March of 2015 Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates began bombing Houthi rebels in Yemen. They claim the Houthis are controlled by Iran and part of an Iranian plan to dominate the region. In fact, the Houthis are an indigenous political Islamist movement allied with, but not controlled by Iran. The Saudi military promised a quick victory, but the war has dragged on for over three and a half years.

In June of this year Saudi Arabia and the UAE launched an offensive to seize the important port city of Hudaydah, declaring it would be a “turning point” in the war. Instead the offensive bogged down in a war of attrition, with no victory in sight.

International relief organizations now consider the Yemen War the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. The country faces a devastating cholera epidemic. An estimated 14 million Yemenis are on the brink of starvation and 85,000 children have already died of hunger. The Royal Saudi Air Force intentionally targets civilians according to a UN report and human rights groups.

“The human rights community has played a key role in exposing Saudi atrocities,” peace activist Harrison said.

Grassroots groups are also building opposition to the Yemen War. Four activist organizations took out full page ads in local daily newspapers urging support for the War Powers Act resolutions.

Eric Eikenberry, Director of Policy & Advocacy at the Yemen Peace Project, one of the groups sponsoring the ad, said, “Many in the administration … inanely think that other countries will bear the brunt of both blame and accountability. With a potential famine impacting millions, we can only hope that Congress acts with more foresight, and more humanity.”

A few Republican senators have also come out against the war, such as resolution co-sponsor Senator Mike Lee.

“This is a war of bipartisan creation,” he noted. “A Democratic president has gotten us involved in a civil war in Yemen. We now have a Republican president, and that war has continued.”

Potential presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have spoken out against the war. Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA)) introduced a War Powers Act resolution in the House, but Republicans used parliamentary maneuvers to block its consideration. Democratic Party leaders have promised to allow debate on the anti-Yemen War resolution when they take control of the House in January.

Passage of the War Powers Act resolutions are far from certain. While Democrats won the majority in the House, conservative, mainstream Democrats will head key committees such as foreign affairs, intelligence and armed services.

“Some good new Democrats were elected from whom we can expect a more progressive stand on foreign policy, but plenty of absolutely terrible Democrats were elected too,” according to Howie Klein, founder of DWT, which specializes in analyzing the House of Representatives.

Don’t rely on Congress

While the House and Senate debates are significant, don’t hold your breath waiting for Congress to stop the war. Because the House can’t vote on the resolution during the lame duck session, anything passed by the Senate would have to be re-introduced next year. Trump could veto the measure, thus requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses to override.

That’s why building a grassroots movement is so important. Peace activist Harrison admits that the anti-war movement is quite small these days. But he has seen increased activism on the issue of Israel and Palestine, and expects to see more interest in opposing Trump’s other Middle East policies as well.

A recent opinion poll shows 75 percent of Americans oppose the Yemen War and 57 percent oppose all arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Increasing numbers of people are seeing the connection between Trump’s disastrous domestic and foreign policies, according to Harrison.

“The United States wastes trillions on war when we could use those funds for vital domestic programs,” he said.

As I continue my book tour talking about The Iran Agenda Today, I’ll keep readers posted on the growing anti-war sentiment and prospects for building a wider movement.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

-by Noah

Once in a while, a panic-filled little worm of a politician lets slip what a certain bit of legislation is really all about, or at least, what is behind the frantic push for that bit of legislation. Such was the case with the Trump/Ryan Republican Tax Scam.

New York Republican Rep. Chris Collins let the mangy cat out of the bag when he blurted out the truth

My donors are basically saying 'Get it done or don't call me ever again'.

The Collins quote became the rallying cry of the Republican Party. At the same time, Utah $enator Mike Lee admitted that if the tax giveaway didn't come to fruition, "We might as well pack up and go home."

There you have it, in the words of two spineless cretins: The reason that Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan rammed their Tax Scam through Congress and down the throats of America, all without hearings. We can waste taxpayer money on all sorts of hearings but we couldn't have those hearings. The idea was to ram it through us like a sword before we knew what it was about in all its gory details. Even when that failed and the public became so aware of those details that 75% of the nation hated the plan, the Republican Party screamed "Fuck You" to the American people and passed their scam. They even managed to all but completely destroy the Affordable Care Act in the process. For Republicans and those who vote for them, that was a cherry on the top; might as well spread some cancer and heart disease around. The Republican Party might as well be giving away free cholera and ebola. They would first try to sell it, though, if only to raise the funds that would keep them in Congress where they can still get their pockets stuffed with corporate cash.

There's nothing in the Tax Scam that will make anything close to a significant improvement in the lives of 98% of Americans. No, instead, money will go from them and be redistributed upward to the top of the economic ladder and things will get worse, much worse. Think of Russia as the model that puts smiles on the faces of psychotics like Donald Trump and Paul Ryan. One $enatorial scumbag whore named Marco Rubio was so desperate for donor cash that he sold his vote for a meaningless increase of $300 in a child tax credit. He'll try to fool his constituents with that, but that piddling amount will essentially disappear when factored in with the rest of the Republican scam. Rubio sold cheap. Call girls on Capitol Hill get up to $2000 for a night.

Tax Scam 2017 has nothing to do with business growth. Corporations have already said they won't be re-investing the money they gain in pro-growth activities other than raising their stock value. If you can afford to buy stock, great, but most Americans can't and now that number will shrink. Who benefits by raising stock values? The CEOs, of course. CEOs are not incentivized to do anything but raise the stock value that raises their pay and their bonuses. CEOs have another name: Donors. When Republicans talk about donors threatening them, they mean corporate CEOs. CEOs are happy, now. How long before they ask for more again?

In 1965, CEO pay outpaced the pay of workers by 20 to 1. Sounds pretty outrageous, doesn't it. However, by 1989, after the years of Reagan altered our course, the ratio had grown to 59 to 1 and was in runaway mode with no attempt from either party to apply the brakes. By 2016, CEOs in America's largest companies were making an average of $15.6 Million in pay. The ratio over workers had grown to 271 to 1. The new Tax Scam will dramatically and exponentially increase that ratio. And, there will be plenty of kickbacks to those who made it possible. Those who made this possible will be free to call their donors again. Not to worry. Economic Inequality anybody? That is what we call oligarchy. The TAX SCAM was never for us. It's the biggest cash grab of all time. You were a fool if you ever thought otherwise. It was all for them; the politicians and their precious donors. Those who voted for the politicians who have done this to America must be so proud. So proud they should burn in Hell.

Domestic Spying Controversy Comes To New Jersey

Thursday, Congressman Ted Lieu posed an interesting question on Twitter: "What happens if the Patriot Act expires?" He wasn't trying to panic anyone; he was trying to reassure everyone: "Americans start getting our Fourth Amendment rights back." 

Utah Tea Party radical Mike Lee is leading the fight in the Senate to reform that horribly flawed legislation so hated by Americans of all political flavors. The law expires on Memorial Day, which will force the NSA-- if they follow the law (a ridiculous assumption)-- to stop its unconstitutional bulk spying on American citizens, which both Lee and Lieu would like to see happen. 

Jerry Nadler, (D-NY), Congress' most knowledgable constitutional law expert, said he's happy to see the Patriot Act sunset this weekend, even though he's a cosponsor of the bill to replace it, the USA Freedom Act. "It’s fine with me. I’d rather they pass the USA Freedom Act, but I can live with sunsetting." Sunsetting is also the option libertarian Republicans are backing, especially Justin Amash (R-MI), who is the most active force in the House among Republicans against renewal.

National security state backers in both parties-- and that includes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who walked away with a handsome $185,550 in legalistic bribes from the military-industrial complex last year alone-- are running around with their hair on fire shrieking about ISIS taking over South Carolina. The Senate doesn't like working on Fridays, let alone on weekends, but McConnell is forcing the chamber to stay in session today to vote on the USA Freedom Act, which already passed the House 338-88, and on a two-month extension to the Patriot Act. Most House progressives voted NO May 13, and they were joined by 47 Republicans who prefer to shut the whole domestic spying operation down. 

Among the progressives who voted against it were Alan Grayson (D-FL), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), and Alan Lowenthal (D-CA). Most of the incumbents Blue America is targeting for defeat in 2016 voted for the bill, including reactionary New Dem Patrick Murphy (FL), corrupt transactional machine candidate Donald Norcross (NJ), the heinous Steve Israel (NY) and reactionary Blue Dog Dan Lipinski (IL), 4 shameless pawns of the military-industrial complex lobbyists, as well as Republican warmongers like Dave Reichert (R-WA), Peter King (R-NY), DCCC-protected Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Fred Upton (R-MI), John Kline (MN), and the 3 most vulnerable California Republicans, Steve Knight, Jeff Denham and David Valadao.

This week, a desperate Chris Christie, who is finding himself being taken less and less seriously by Republican primary voters, stepped right in the mess, blurting out, "You can't enjoy your civil liberties if you're in a coffin," infuriating Senator Lee, who went on CNN to say Christie "should be ashamed of himself" and to accuse him of "political pornography." Lee said, "That's absolutely ridiculous. It's absurd. And if Mr. Christie wants to play a part in the national discussion regarding privacy and security, he should choose his words more carefully.... I would ask Mr. Christie, how many lives has it saved? I would ask Mr. Christie, how many acts of terrorism have been thwarted simply because the NSA is collecting telephone data on what your grandmother calls-- on calls that she makes or calls that she receives?"

The spat between Utah’s junior senator and Christie, a 2016 presidential hopeful, is the latest example of Republican-on-Republican feuding over the future of the controversial law which was originally passed in the wake of 9/11.

On Wednesday another 2016 Republican contender, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), spent 10½ hours on the Senate floor voicing his opposition to bulk surveillance of American citizens’ so-called metadata.

Lee has not drawn a hard line against all data collection and instead has backed an alternative called the USA Freedom Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives last week with a large bipartisan majority. The USA Freedom Act aims to limit bulk collection of metadata about American citizens, as well as mandate more transparency about court decisions relating to surveillance.

Paul has said that he does not believe the USA Freedom Act goes far enough, while Lee has joined Democratic colleagues like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia in supporting it.

“I’m not saying that we ought to let [the PATRIOT Act] expire,” Lee told CNN. “I’m saying that there’s a middle ground and the USA Freedom Act accomplishes that.”

“Instead of collecting everyone’s phone records simply because they exist, the NSA ought to be focused on collecting those phone records that are connected in some way with a phone number that’s involved in a terrorism ring.”

Barbara Lee, the only Member of Congress at the time to possess the foresight and moral courage to have voted against Bush's illegal attack on Afghanistan, sees it differently from Lee. She's aware that the USA Freedom Act is better than the Patriot Act but she voted against it: "The USA Freedom Act that passed last week takes some good steps toward reigning in domestic spying, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough in protecting Americans’ civil liberties. I’m committed to fighting for stronger protections. That's why I’m supporting the Surveillance State Repeal Act, which would do exactly what it says-- repeal the Patriot Act." 

And she's far from alone in those sentiments. Blue America has endorsed Alex Law for the South Jersey seat occupied by pro-war ConservaDem Donald Norcross. This morning, Law told us that he's not buying into the hype either.

"As progressives we must oppose this extension. I am a millennial, and my generation has grown up in a post-911 world where it seems almost commonplace that the government has the authority to monitor us. We have grown to have less expectations of privacy, and, by extension, liberty. All of this has been sold to us as the cost of security, but that narrative is flawed and manipulative. There has to be a way for the strongest, wealthiest, most creative nation in the world to secure ourselves without sacrificing the liberties that make America so great.

It is no surprise to me that my primary opponent, Donald Norcross, one of the more conservative Dems in the House, voted for the extension of NSA power. However, other members of the New Jersey delegation that I am fighting to join like Frank Pallone and Bonnie Watson Coleman voted against the Freedom Act. They are two people I admire and respect as examples of true progressive leaders. Our founders envisioned the debate we are currently having as a threat to our future. Benjamin Franklin commented on it saying, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." In this new age of technology, we would be wise to heed that advice.

Blue America candidates like Alex Law favor peace over war. If you'd like to help elect them to Congress... there's an ActBlue page just for that. There is no contribution too small.




UPDATE: House Domestic Spying Extension Fails In Senate

Just after midnight-- and on a Friday; the Senate almost never votes on Fridays, like maybe once a year-- the Senate refused to shut down the deficit filibuster on a motion to proceed to debate the USA Freedom Act, which would have allowed for some of the unconstitutional activities that make up the NSA's domestic spying regime. The motion needed 60 votes (3/5) and it wound up at 57-42. A dozen Republicans, including extremists likeTed Cruz (TX), Jim Lankford (OK), Cory Gardner (CO), Mike Lee (UT), and Dan Sullivan (AK) voted with the Democrats. It had passed the House 338-88 with a very different political dynamic.

Military Industrial Complex shill Dianne Feinstein was a top shill for the bill: "I've taken a good look at this. For those who want reform and want to prevent the government from holding the data, the Freedom Act is the only way to do it. The House has passed it, the president wants it. All of the intelligence personnel have agreed to it, and I think not to pass that bill is really to throw the whole program, that whole section 215 as well as the whole business records, the lone wolf, the roving wiretaps into serious legal jeopardy." Enough senators saw through her bullshit to allow the USA Freedom Act to die. "This is a debate," explained Rand Paul, "about whether or not a warrant with a single name of a single company can be used to collect all the records, all of the phone records of all of the people in our country with a single warrant. Our forefathers would be aghast." The PATRIOT Act expires June 1. McConnell says the Senate will return from it's Memorial Day break a day early to try to pass a bill to allow the NSA to continue its unconstitutional domestic spying agenda. He tried some scare tactics: "This is a high threat period and we know what's going on overseas. We know what's been tried here at home. My colleagues-- do we really want this law to expire? We got a week to discuss it. We'll have one day to do it."

What Does It Take To Be "An Embarrassment To The State Of Utah"?

Utah's Mike Lee (R), Jim Matheson (D)-- it doesn't get any worse

Far right Utah Republican Mike Lee has been playing Tonto to Ted Cruz's Lone Ranger since the day he managed to get into the Senate. And plenty of Utah Republicans don't appreciate that-- nor the way he did get into the Senate, namely by smearing mainstream conservative 18-year Senate veteran Robert Bennett. The Utah GOP Establishment is actively considering taking on Lee in 2016 with a more mainstream conservative candidate. Many aren't happy seeing Utah's senator as a mere appendage of the ambitious, self-serving Texas radical, whose shut-down-the-government extremism isn't popular with the business community that dominates the Utah GOP. Lee is running around trying to placate Utah business leaders, but some just refuse to even see him.

[Jon] Huntsman, who founded the petrochemical giant that bears his name, refuses to meet with Lee because of his “extremely radical” positions and is considering putting his political and financial muscle behind a primary challenger.

Scott Anderson, a prominent bank president in Salt Lake City, has privately commissioned polls to assess Lee’s race while meeting with some of his prospective foes to gauge their interest.

And one former state GOP party chairman, Thomas Wright, is actively considering a bid against the Utah freshman, while others in the business world are keeping the door open about a prospective bid.

“All I can say is Mike Lee is an embarrassment to the state of Utah,” Huntsman said in an interview, calling Lee “an extremist” for his role in the government shutdown fight that he said cost his cancer research institute millions in federal dollars and hurt small businesses affected by the closure of national parks. “He’s been a tremendous embarrassment to our family, to our state, to our country to have him as a U.S. senator.”

Huntsman, who has longstanding ties to Lee’s family, added: “He’s tried to come in and see me several times. … I have no interest whatsoever in chatting with him.”

Asked if he had a response to Huntsman, Lee simply said: “I don’t.”

What is happening in Utah marks a new chapter in the tea-party-vs.-establishment wars that have defined Republican politics since 2010. At that time, Lee seized on conservatives’ frustration with a veteran GOP senator, Bob Bennett, to win the party’s nomination and emerge as one of the country’s most prominent tea party senators. But after four years in Washington, where he’s aligned himself with the most conservative wing of the party, some Republicans are weighing whether there’s an opening to challenge Lee now as an insurgent bankrolled by the establishment-- or whether they should wait until 2018, if veteran Sen. Orrin Hatch carries through on his pledge to retire.

...“Business leaders who are successful learn to compromise and move forward as necessary,” said Lane Beattie, the president and CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, who said he has had “strong encouragement” from the business world to run against Lee. “Strictly speaking on behalf of businesses, the frustration is when you have people who refuse … to work together to come up with solutions that can move us forward.”

A former state Senate president, Beattie said he’s not taking any steps toward running against Lee and would evaluate what happens in the new Congress before making any decisions. As part of his outreach, Lee has met regularly with Beattie and local Chamber officials, with Beattie saying he’s “confident” the senator is trying to do what’s best for the country.

...As part of his pitch to party elders, Lee has quietly wooed Harris Simmons, chairman of the board of Zions Bank, to back his bid, several sources said. (Simmons did not return phone calls.) But Anderson, who serves as president of that bank, appears to be still weighing his options. Anderson, one of the most influential forces in Utah GOP politics, has enlisted a prominent pollster in the state, Dan Jones, to assess Lee’s strengths and weaknesses.

In the aftermath of the shutdown, Anderson met with prospective foes to the Utah senator, including Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who declined to run, and others like Wright, the former state GOP chairman, who is considering a primary challenge. Sources said he has spoken with Josh Romney, the son of former Gov. Mitt Romney, and University of Utah political scientist Kirk Jowers, as well as Beattie. (Romney did not return multiple inquiries about his interest in the race, while Jowers declined to comment on whether he was considering a bid.)

...A couple of months before this November’s elections, Anderson met with Huntsman in his Salt Lake City office to show polling Jones had conducted on the Lee race, detailing how the senator could be vulnerable with primary voters after the Utah GOP convention in 2016, according to Huntsman.

“I would suspect that not only Mr. Anderson, but several other leading business and professional people are looking for an appropriate candidate,” Huntsman said.

Whether Anderson gets behind Lee or a challenger remains to be seen. Anderson, who declined to be interviewed, “has been supportive” of Lee, plans to meet with him on Monday at the bank’s headquarters as part of their regular interactions and has held fundraisers for the senator in the past, according to bank spokesman Rob Brough. When asked if that meant Anderson would support Lee in 2016, Brough would not go beyond his statement.

Wright declined to discuss his meeting with Anderson, but he said he’s been encouraged by business leaders, GOP insiders and tea party activists to challenge Lee. If he ran, he would try to challenge Lee in the convention, Wright said.

“They tell me that they think Mike has done a lot of pandering in Washington, D.C.,” said Wright, a real estate executive in Park City. “They are frustrated because there are lots of costs, but the only result on the résumé right now is the shutdown-- and we didn’t get anything for that.”

...Jones, the pollster, declined to say whether he has been tasked to conduct such surveys on Anderson’s behalf. But he noted that he polls the Senate race “all the time.”

“He could be vulnerable, but it would take somebody with some real money and great name ID to be able to defeat him,” Jones said of Lee. “It would be difficult to defeat him in the convention because most people that go there-- they have a strong leaning towards the right. But if this Count My Vote remains legal, they have a primary, I think he becomes vulnerable, opposed by another Republican.”

What Jones is referring to is a law enacted in March that allows a candidate to get his or her name on the primary ballot in either of two ways: winning support by delegates at a party convention or securing 28,000 signatures.

The old system required candidates to only go through the convention, something that benefited Lee in 2010. Under that system, candidates would compete for the support of typically hard-core conservative party delegates; if no candidate reached 60 percent of support among the delegates, the two leading vote-getters would face off in a primary before a more diverse electorate. If one surpassed that threshold at the convention, the candidate would go straight to the general election.

The new law, known as Count My Vote, was pushed by a former Utah governor, Mike Leavitt, along with Jowers, who argued that more voters should be included in the process. The law is now being challenged in federal court by the Utah GOP.

If it survives the legal challenge, it could give way to a more moderate candidate to get onto the primary ballot, a potential threat to Lee. But Rich McKeown, a business associate of Leavitt’s who also helped lead the push on the initiative, said that the effort was launched before Lee was even a candidate in the 2010 race and is simply designed to change voter participation-- “not candidate outcomes.” McKeown said Leavitt has not yet endorsed anyone in the 2016 Senate race “but there will be a time when he will.”

The new system could also benefit Lee. If a candidate skips the nominating convention, he or she could face backlash among the base and lose critical earned media, something that would be important to cut away at an incumbent’s name ID advantage.

There’s still a possibility, too, of Lee facing a potentially tough Democratic opponent in retiring Rep. Jim Matheson. But given the conservative leanings of Utah, most political observers believe Lee’s most serious threat remains in the primary.

Lee, who had just $350,000 in cash through the end of September, said he’s planning to step up his fundraising and would be prepared to compete in both the convention and gather enough signatures to be on the ballot.

“We’re prepared to fight under the new system, and I’m confident in my ability to defend my position,” Lee said.

Asked about his lack of money, Lee added: “It’s not easy-- particularly when you’re out of cycle. But we are putting things in motion, and we’ll be in good shape.”

Whether prominent figures like Huntsman can persuade party elders to abandon Lee remains to be seen. Huntsman has long ties to Lee’s family, saying his “dearest friend in life” was the senator’s late father, Rex Lee, who served as Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general. Huntsman’s son, former Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., hired Lee to serve as his general counsel. When the younger Huntsman ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, Lee declined to endorse him in the primary.

But the 77-year-old Huntsman said his real concern is Lee’s policies and position during the shutdown, saying the senator is a “terrible disappointment” who did not follow in the footsteps of his father.

“I think there will be a major primary challenge against him,” Huntsman predicted.

Matheson, of course, is just the kind of grotesquely corrupt, transactional fake Democrat that has the DSCC drooling. The single worst Democratic vote in the House. Last week he ended his miserable career in the House with the single worst ProgressivePunch crucial vote score of any Democrat-- and abysmal 25.86, meaning he voted against progressive positions almost three-quarters of the time. Matheson has been John Boehner's ideal Democrat and has voted with the Republican on key issues more than several Republicans (Chris Gibson, Walter Jones, Justin Amash). Across every issue important to Democratic voters, his record is ghastly. There was not a single issue in his entire career in which he voted with Democrats rather than Republicans... so, of course, the DSCC wants to recruit him to run for the hopeless Utah Senate seat. Having a reactionary like Matheson inside the Democratic Senate caucus-- constantly pushing the GOP line to water down the party message and make every piece of legislation worse-- would be a far worse catastrophe than seeing a Republican sitting in the Utah Senate seat, a state after all that gave Obama just 34% in 2008 and 25% in 2012.

Prediction: CitiGroup Will Finance Pat Toomey's Reelection Bid-- But Not Elizabeth Warren's

When Ronald Reagan hustled off to Washington in 1975 to declare that he was challenging Jerry Ford's reelection bid-- Ford eventually won the Republican Party convention battle on the first ballot-- he made a typically nice-sounding but superficial speech. "Our nation's capital has become the seat of a 'buddy' system that functions for its own benefit-- increasingly insensitive to the needs of the American worker who supports it with his taxes. Today it is difficult to find leaders who are independent of the forces that have brought us our problem... If America is to survive and go forward, this must change. It will only change when the American people vote for a leadership that listens to them, relies on them and seeks to return government to them."

Who could argue with that? And who wants anything to do with that damn buddy system serving special interests? Mike Lee, a radical right extremist from Utah claims to be a Reagan-Republican. Yesterday he analyzed the Cromnibus situation for his constituents back home. "Most Americans," he wrote, "would be shocked and appalled by what is going on in Washington right now." Sounds about right. And then he wandered off into right-wing neverneverland.

With a new Republican majority set to take control of the Senate, Harry Reid and his Democrat allies are doing all they can to cram through secret provisions before the end of the year that will reward their special-interest friends. All at taxpayer expense.

The so-called "omnibus" was cobbled together in back rooms out of sight of the American people. Members of the House and Senate have had very little time to read, decipher and decode its 1600 pages of spending increases, bad policy, and cronyist giveaways. The House has had just hours to review it before being forced to vote on this $1.1 trillion legislation.

This is not the way Congress is supposed to represent the American people. The country deserves better than to pass another monument to Washington dysfunction.

I need your help to spread the word to patriots like you across the country. Your support of $50, $100, $250, or your most generous contribution will allow those of us who are willing to do the right thing to show strength as we take the fight to the status quo.

We are going to demand that policies receive full and open debate. We will force the new majority to allow amendments, so we can improve reforms that work for the middle class and improve economic mobility among the poor.

And we will guarantee that any major legislation will have plenty of time for debate, so that members can do their job of informing and educating the public about what is going on in Washington.

No more back rooms. No more arbitrary deadlines. No more all-or-nothing spending bills.

And yet, and yet... Lee very much wants to deregulate the banksters and allow them to prey on whoever is unfortunate enough to fall under their awesome power. Like his right-wing ally from Pennsylvania, Wall Street whore Pat Toomey, Lee isn't backing Reagan's plea to end the buddy system or Elizabeth Warren's hard-nosed attempt to stop the special interest back-scratching that is the hallmark of this Cromnibus. Toomey, who has only be in the Senate for less than 4 years has already taken a handsome $4,865,798 in legalistic bribes from the Financial Sector. He guards their special interests like a mother hen; they're his buddies. He went onto a vicious rampage against Elizabeth Warren on Pennsylvania radio station WPHT yesterday. “I hope," he demanded, "you’re not going to fall for Elizabeth Warren’s nonsense."

The Pennsylvania Republican suggested Warren’s outrage came out of personal ambition, calling it “absolute nonsense.”

“This is Elizabeth Warren ginning up the leftwing of the Democratic Party who are professional haters of business. This is absolute nonsense,” Toomey said.

“There is a tiny provision in Dodd-Frank that forces banks do something that is counter productive, it forces, in fact it increases taxpayer risk because it forces them to do some of their risk management outside the bank in a separate subsidiary where they can’t manage their risk as well. Nobody thinks this is a good idea. No regulators do, nobody who understands banking does, nobody who understands risk management. So all it does is it says banks can conduct their ordinary risk management processes within the institution itself.”

“Elizabeth Warren sees this as an opportunity to just gin up the leftwing. Let’s not go for that.”

For the third day in a row, Senator Warren was railing against the buddy legislation that comes from the Wall Street whore like Toomey (not to mention Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer), none of whom want to go on record supporting this unpopular legislation but all of whom are unwilling to allow the government to continue functioning if they don't get their way by gutting taxpayer protections.

I’m back on the floor to talk about a dangerous provision that was slipped into a must-pass spending bill at the last minute to benefit Wall Street. This provision would repeal a rule called, and I’m quoting the title of the rule, “PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS OF SWAPS ENTITIES.” 

On Wednesday, I came to the floor to talk to Democrats, asking them to strip this provision out of the omnibus bill and protect taxpayers.

On Thursday, I came to the floor to talk to Republicans. Republicans say they don’t like bailouts either. So I asked them to vote the way they talk. If they don’t like bailouts, then they could take out this provision that puts taxpayers right back on the hook for bailing out big banks.

Today, I’m coming to the floor not to talk about Democrats or Republicans, but about a third group that also wields tremendous power in Washington: Citigroup.

Mr. President, in recent years, many Wall Street institutions have exerted extraordinary influence in Washington’s corridors of power, but Citigroup has risen above the others. Its grip over economic policymaking in the executive branch is unprecedented. Consider a few examples:

•          Three of the last four Treasury Secretaries under Democratic presidents have had close Citigroup ties. The fourth was offered the CEO position at Citigroup, but turned it down.

•         The Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve system is a Citigroup alum.

•         The Undersecretary for International Affairs at Treasury is a Citigroup alum.

•          The U.S. Trade Representative and the person nominated to be his deputy-- who is currently an assistant secretary at Treasury-- are Citigroup alums.

•          A recent chairman of the National Economic Council at the White House was a Citigroup alum.

•          Another recent Chairman of the Office of Management and Budget went to Citigroup immediately after leaving the White House.

•          Another recent Chairman of the Office of Management of Budget and Management is also a Citi alum-- but I’m double counting here because now he’s the Secretary of the Treasury.

That’s a lot of powerful people, all from one bank. But they aren’t Citigroup’s only source of power. Over the years, the company has spent millions of dollars on lobbying Congress and funding the political campaigns of its friends in the House and the Senate.

Citigroup has also spent millions trying to influence the political process in ways that are far more subtle-- and hidden from public view. Last year, I wrote Citigroup and other big banks a letter asking them to disclose the amount of shareholder money they have been diverting to think tanks to influence public policy. Citigroup’s response to my letter? Stonewalling. A year has gone by, and Citigroup didn’t even acknowledge receiving the letter.

Citigroup has a lot of money, it spends a lot of money, and it uses that money to grow and consolidate a lot of power. And it pays off. Consider a couple facts.

Fact one:  During the financial crisis, when all the support through TARP and from the FDIC and the Fed is added up, Citi received nearly  half a trillion dollars in bailouts. That’s half a trillion with a “t.” That’s almost $140 billion more than the next biggest bank got.

Fact two: During Dodd-Frank, there was an amendment introduced by my colleague Senator Brown and Senator Kaufman that would have broken up Citigroup and the nation’s other largest banks. That amendment had bipartisan support, and it might have passed, but it ran into powerful opposition from an alliance between Wall Streeters on Wall Street and Wall Streeters who held powerful government jobs. They teamed up and blocked the move to break up the banks-- and now Citi is bigger than ever.

The role that senior officials working in the Treasury department played in killing the amendment was not subtle: A senior Treasury official acknowledged it at the time in a background interview with New York Magazine. The official from Treasury said, and I’m quoting here, “If we’d been for it, it probably would have happened. But we weren’t, so it didn’t.” That’s power.

Mr. President, Democrats don’t like Wall Street bailouts. Republicans don’t like Wall Street bailouts. The American people are disgusted by Wall Street bailouts. And yet here we are-- five years after Dodd-Frank-- with Congress on the verge of ramming through a provision that would do nothing for middle class, do nothing for community banks-- do nothing but raise the risk that taxpayers will have to bail out the biggest banks once again.

There’s a lot of talk lately about how the Dodd-Frank Act isn’t perfect. There’s a lot of talk coming from Citigroup about how the Dodd-Frank Act isn’t perfect.

So let me say this to anyone who is listening at Citi: I agree with you. Dodd-Frank isn’t perfect.



It should have broken you into pieces.

If this Congress is going to open up Dodd-Frank in the months ahead, let’s open it up to get tougher-- not to create more bailout opportunities.

If we are going to open up Dodd-Frank, let’s open it up so that, once and for all, we end Too Big to Fail. And I mean let’s really end it-- not just say we did.

Instead of passing laws that create new bailout opportunities for Too-Big-To-Fail banks, let’s pass Brown-Kaufman.  Let’s pass the bipartisan 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act-- a bill I’ve sponsored with John McCain, Angus King, and Maria Cantwell. Let’s pass something-- anything-- that would help break up these giant banks.

A century ago, Teddy Roosevelt was America’s trustbuster. He went after the giant trusts and monopolies in this country, and a lot of people talk about how those trusts deserved to be broken up because they had too much economic power. But Teddy Roosevelt said we should break them up because they had too much political power. Teddy Roosevelt said break them up because all that concentrated power threatened the very foundations of our democratic system. 

And now we’re watching as Congress passes yet another provision that was written by lobbyists for the biggest recipient of bailout money in the history of the country.  And it’s attached to a bill that needs to pass or else the entire federal government will grind to a halt.

Think about this kind of power. A financial institution has become so big and so powerful that it can hold the entire country hostage. That alone is a reason enough for us break them up. Enough is enough.

Enough is enough with Wall Street insiders getting key position after key position and the kind of cronyism we have seen in the executive branch. Enough is enough with Citigroup passing 11th hour deregulatory provisions that nobody takes ownership over but that everybody comes to regret. Enough is enough.

Washington already works really well for the billionaires and big corporations and the lawyers and lobbyists. But what about the families who lost their homes or their jobs or their retirement savings the last time Citi bet big on derivatives and lost? What about the families who are living paycheck to paycheck and saw their tax dollars go to bail Citi out just six years ago? We were sent here to fight for those families, and it’s time-- it’s past time-- for Washington to start working for them.

Buddies of buddies

Josh Romney To Primary Mike Lee?

Josh

Utah may be the most right-wing state in the country. The nuts in Texas may be more vicious and dangerous but Utah only gave President Obama 25% of its vote last year-- compared to 41% in Texas, 44% in Mississippi, 46% in Georgia and even 33% in the 4th Reich Idaho. The least red district in the state, UT-04 (home of hopelessly conservative Blue Dog Jim Matheson) has a PVI of R+16. Matheson was one of only two Democrats-- the other being the equally execrable Mike McIntyre (NC)-- to have joined the Republicans in shutting down the government. But the federal government is the state's biggest employer and the shutdown went over very badly. It isn't Matheson, Jason Chaffetz, Chris Stewart and Rob Bishop, Utah's 4 right-wing Representatives who are feeling that unpopularity, nor is it pro-shut down Senator Orrin Hatch. The voters' animus is focused squarely on junior Senator Mike Lee-- or, as some people call him, Ted Cruz's lap dog.

So while the national news has been on how the shutdown and default threat turned voters against the GOP across the country, Utah has it's own special Mike Lee-oriented story. Again, the national story is that the mainstream Republicans put a few dozen of their colleagues in swing-type districts in severe jeopardy by insisting that 50 mostly-Confederate extremists be given the reins of the House caucus and be allowed too dictate a verity radical and unpopular strategy agenda. Polling shows the result could be catastrophic for the GOP. Here's how Sean Sullivan broke it down for the Washington Post yesterday:

• Democrats hold a comfortable 48 percent to 40 percent lead among registered voters in the generic ballot test. But it’s not just the topline national numbers (which are not perfect predictors) that should worry Republicans. It’s what’s going on in Republican-held districts that should turn more heads. Republicans hold an 8-point lead in districts they control, compared to Democrats’ 30-point lead in their districts. An 8-point lead might not seem all that bad. But consider that we’re talking about all GOP districts here, the vast majority of which are very conservative and not at any risk of switching control.  What that means is that in the swing GOP seats that will decide who wins the majority, the Republican advantage is probably smaller, if it even exists. Meanwhile, Democrats, who have to play heavy defense in addition to going on offense, appear to be in the better position to buttress their incumbents.

• An emerging anti-incumbent bent that is hitting Republicans harder. Voters are displaying widespread frustration with their members of Congress in the wake of the shutdown showdown, with half disapproving of their representative in the House. But that frustration is more concentrated in Republican-held districts than it is in Democratic ones. A majority of registered voters in GOP districts (54 percent) disapprove of the job their member is doing compared to just 37 percent who approve. In Democratic districts, voters are split. Democrats need to pick up 17 seats to win back the majority, a very tall task on a limited playing field. But if the negative perceptions about GOP members persist in their districts, Democrats’ task will be eased.

• More than half of voters (52 percent) hold congressional Republicans responsible for the shutdown, compared to just 31 percent who hold President Obama responsible. Views about the way Republicans handled the budget standoff and negotiations grew more negative as the days went by. And the percentage of voters holding an unfavorable view of the Republican Party jumped up to 67 percent. None of these findings are helpful to any GOP incumbents.

In Utah, this is all focused on one man, Mike Lee, who is very lucky he won't have too face the voters again until 2016. The Wall Street Journal reports from Salt Lake City that Lee didn't get the same kind of hero's welcome back home that Ted Cruz got in Texas.

Critics in the Republican Party, including former governors and sitting legislative leaders, openly blame Mr. Lee for helping chart a course they say weakened the party’s standing nationally and dented a state economy reliant on tourists drawn to its national parks.

“Among the tea party, Mike Lee is a rock star,” said Holly Richardson, a former Republican state lawmaker and political commentator. “Among everyone else, not so much. There’s real unhappiness about what he has done to Utah and to the image of the Republican Party.”

The debate over Mr. Lee’s role in the shutdown is part of a broader struggle over the future of not just the Utah GOP but the national party, one that both tea-party activists and the Republican establishment expect to play out for months.

Even before the shutdown brought Mr. Lee to national prominence, some Utah party and business leaders had begun a $1 million petition drive to overturn the state’s caucus system that brought him to power. That system, which gives grass roots delegates a large say in picking party nominees, toppled incumbent GOP Sen. Robert Bennett-- a more conventional conservative-- in 2010 amid a wave of anger over passage of the health-care law. Mr. Lee went on to win the seat that November.

Fallout from the government shutdown, which ended last week, has opened a rift between the GOP’s activist flank and its more business-minded, establishment wing. National business groups say they are reconsidering which Republican candidates they should support.

That divide is particularly stark in heavily Republican Utah, which gave Mitt Romney his largest margin of victory in last year’s presidential election. Former Gov. Jon Huntsman describes the sentiment among Utah Republicans toward Mr. Lee, his former general counsel, as one of “widespread discontentment over how Mike Lee has handled his priorities in the Senate.”

“There is now massive, unparalleled frustration among mainstream Republicans toward the actions of a few in our party,” said Republican Kirk Jowers, who directs the University of Utah’s Hinckley Institute of Politics.

Discussions with more than a dozen party leaders and lawmakers found widespread support for Mr. Lee’s quest to unravel the health law championed by President Barack Obama, which helped to provoke the shutdown. But many fault Mr. Lee for a championing what they saw as a combative, unrealistic strategy that fueled dissension within the GOP, battered its public image and harmed the state.

“Our last chance to overturn Obamacare is to retake the Senate next year, and what Mike did in helping shut down the government made that a lot harder,” said Dan Liljenquist, a former GOP state senator who lost a GOP challenge last year to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah).

Since returning to Utah on Friday, Mr. Lee has made no public appearances and has none planned for the rest of the week. In an interview, he said he is catching up on calls while spending time with his family at home in Alpine, 45 minutes south of Salt Lake City.

“Utahns don’t like fighting in Washington, and they certainly didn’t like the fighting that led to the government shutdown,” Mr. Lee said, explaining the negative reaction locally to his role in the shutdown. But he thinks he will be vindicated: “I believe that over the next year, Obamacare will become even more unpopular, so that people we see what this was all about.”

Others agree. “You are going to have people angry at you whenever you take on a really tough issue,” said Utah GOP chairman James Evans. “But over time, people will come around to Mike’s views as he continues to articulate them.”

Still, even some of Mr. Lee’s backers note the contrast in the post-shutdown reception given to Mr. Cruz, who according to news accounts received an eight-minute ovation from hundreds ofpeople at a Texas GOP women’s group meeting Saturday, and Mr. Lee.

“Republicans here are polarized, no question about it,” said Spencer Stokes, who served for two years as Mr. Lee’s Senate chief of staff. “So, Ted Cruz went home to a standing ovation, and Mike Lee has hardly wanted to go shopping for fear of being confronted.”

Republican circles are now rife with talk of who might challenge Mr. Lee in 2016. So far, no one is firmly raising a hand. But the Count My Vote initiative to do away with the state’s caucus system, backed by many of the state’s largest GOP donors and business names, represents perhaps the best-organized effort in the country to counteract the tea-party wave in the 2010 elections.

Mr. Lee could face a tougher route to re-election in 2016 if GOP caucuses are replaced with a direct primary. That would allow a more centrist candidate to make an appeal to all Republican voters, not just the activists who dominate caucuses, political observers say.

Signs of Utah’s unhappiness over the shutdown are in plain view. A huge billboard along the route in from the airport thanks Republican Gov. Gary Herbert for reopening the state’s eight national parks during the shutdown with a $1.7 million check to the federal government.

Utah’s top radio talk show host, Republican Doug Wright, has persistently blasted Mr. Lee’s tactics on air. A running poll on the conservative station’s website has 81% of listeners describing Sen. Lee’s role in the budget battle as “a fool’s errand.”

A Brigham Young University poll taken in the midst of the shutdown battle showed the freshman senator’s approval rating falling to 40%, the lowest rating for a sitting Utah senator in years. Among Republicans, Mr. Lee’s favorable ratings were little different from those of Rep. Jim Matheson, the state’s lone Democrat in Congress.

“Lee looks vulnerable to a challenge from within his party, but the real danger could be a challenge in a general election from the right kind of moderate Democrat,” said Quin Monson, who directs the Utah Voter Poll at Brigham Young University.

"You gotta calm down, boy"

The Washington Post also looked at how his championship of the government shutdown is coming back to bite Lee in the ass back home. Philip Rucker points out that Utah "has a long tradition of being represented by pragmatic, business-minded conservatives in the U.S. Senate. Lee broke that pattern by governing as an ideological firebrand… As a result, Lee’s approval ratings in Utah have cratered, and prominent Republicans and local business executives are openly discussing the possibility of mounting a primary challenge against him. Top Republicans are also maneuvering to redesign the party’s nomination system in a way that would likely make it more difficult for Lee to win reelection in 2016."

Spencer Zwick, a Utah native and national finance chairman for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, was more direct, calling Lee a “show horse” who “just wants to be a spectacle.”

“Business leaders that I talk to, many of whom supported him, would never support his reelection and in fact will work against him, myself included,” Zwick said.

…A Brigham Young University survey conducted during the shutdown found that 57 percent of Utahans wanted Lee to be more willing to compromise. The senator’s approval rating dropped to 40 percent-- down from 50 percent in June-- with 51 percent disapproving.

Yes… even Utah. Meanwhile, Josh Romney is watching closely and if Lee looks like he could lose, the Romney son is likely to jump in against him.