Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

"Chairman Steele, I think, has lost the support of two important constituencies in the Republican Party," he said, referring to the Congressional leadership and "a lot of our major donors, the donors who provide the money, the lifeblood, the oxygen the Republican Party needs to succeed on its mission to take back control of the House
"Perhaps a change in leadership here would thaw that and allow that support to flow," Castellanos said.

"I think a change in direction now at this point would do the party good," he said. "I think a change at this moment would be a good thing."

Castellanos also said he'd lost "my ability to be of service to the RNC" and that people "found me less than useful" there, and that his always nebulous unpaid adviser role had ended.
Posted by Ben Smith 06:31 PM

When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.

We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war*1, pro-immigration restriction*2 and anti-abortion*3, and they often support "nation-building*4."

And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.

By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.

Suite...

*1 *2: cela fait part de la protection du pays. responsabilite primordiale de tout president americain.
*3: Pas mon cas. C'est la responsabilite du couple, le gouvernement n'a rien a y faire, ni l'interdire, ni le financer
*4: La encore, ca peut largement passer sous la coupe d'une politique de protection des Etats Unis lorsque les dirigeants en sont des ennemis jures (Irak, Iran...).

A week after revelations that the Republican National Committee reimbursed a fundraiser for expenses incurred at a sex-themed nightclub, the reverberations continue to shake the GOP.

The committee’s chief of staff has been pushed out and one of RNC Chairman Michael Steele's closest advisers followed the aide out the door. A top donor indicated he would no longer help the national party and a high-profile consultant very publicly cut ties with the national party leadership — while urging Steele to resign.

Steele seems to have stopped the immediate bleeding but his moves also left a host of unanswered questions about what the turmoil means for his fate and the GOP’s prospects this fall.

Here are some clues about what to watch in the days and weeks to come as the RNC emerges from it all.

Are there any more drips to drop?

Steele hoped the apparent firing of chief of staff Ken McKay and the departure of Steele’s longtime adviser Curt Anderson would send the signal that the chairman understood the level of outrage in the party over the spending of $2,000 on a tab at the Voyeur nightclub and other concerns about the committee’s finances.

But for many Republican professionals, particularly those who have been critical or ambivalent about Steele, it simply underscored what a mess the RNC has become.

The decision by former Ambassador Sam Fox, a longtime GOP donor, to relinquish his fundraising post at the party as well as the call on CNN Tuesday night for Steele to step down by veteran consultant Alex Castellanos, who had been assisting the RNC on a volunteer basis, only reinforced that perception.

Should other committee staffers also flee, it would suggest that what took place Monday wasn’t the culmination of an internal power struggle but rather a sign of chaos. Even among senior Republicans who would like the chairman to step down, the hope following the shake-up was that it would put an end to the stream of stories about Steele’s rocky tenure. A rush to the exits could threaten the committee’s ability to function on a day-to-day basis and prompt GOP elected officials to step in.

Morale among some RNC staff members was low on Tuesday, multiple sources told POLITICO. None of the grumbling aides wanted to speak for attribution, but the common view is that McKay, who was actually back home in Rhode Island last week dealing with the flooding there, was the fall guy for expenses that others should have been held accountable for.

Still, by Tuesday night, no more full-time staff members were quitting or being pushed out. More leakage within the RNC apparatus could offer fresh oxygen to the party-in-disarray story, but for the moment that’s not happening.

A deafening silence
Also not happening right now: any organized effort to push Steele out of his job. Two-thirds of RNC members – the state chairs and each state’s committeemen and committeewomen – would have to support a resolution ousting Steele. Even while party members were disgusted at the sex club revelations and concerned about some of the turnover Monday, they say there is no movement afoot to dump the chairman less than six months before the mid-term elections.

“I’m confident that Chairman Steele and the committee will make appropriate changes and clean up things that need to get taken care of internally,” said Glenn McCall, South Carolina’s national committeeman.

McCall’s view reflects the difference between how Steele is viewed by the GOP activists who elected him and the Republican professionals who think he’s been a disaster for the party. Aside from hearing complaints from some of their donors, the activists in the states, who don’t follow Steele and the committee as closely as the operative class does, generally think he’s performing fine and haven’t even considered a coup.

A deafening silence, cont.

As notable as the quiet among committee members is what elected Republicans have said about Steele – not much. While they haven’t exactly offered the chairman a vote of confidence since last week’s reports, those GOP governors and members of Congress who have discussed the matter publicly also haven’t urged him to resign.

Such a public call from an elected Republican would weaken Steele’s standing, but no senior GOP official is making such a move.

“The only folks who could organize a movement that may force Steele out would be the governors,” said former congressman and party strategist Vin Weber. “They’re the ones who have the critical relationships with the members of the RNC from their states. They raise the state parties the most money and hand out patronage, which varies from state to state. I don’t hear anything from those quarters.”

Asked directly by POLITICO if they thought Steele should remain in his post, representatives for Republican leaders in the House and Senate as well as spokesmen for the chairmen of the NRCC, NRSC and RGA either answered in the affirmative or declined to answer the question directly.

Also telling: a Tuesday afternoon House GOP caucus conference call didn’t include a single mention of the RNC or Steele by the members, according to two sources on the call.

“Everyone is concerned but I think everyone has resigned themselves to the fact he’s not going anywhere,” said a senior GOP Hill aide. “And more carping doesn’t really do anyone any good.”

Will the March take quench the fire?

Thanks to conservative outrage over the passage of healthcare reform and the RNC’s aggressive promotion of a website designed to monetize the fervor, firenancypelsoi.com, the committee’s March fundraising haul could be strong enough that it enables Steele and his allies to make the case that the worries about his money-raising ability are overblown. How strong? $11.4 million, according to an RNC spokesman. That's the best March the committee has ever had in a non-presidential year.

But even while these numbers may help ease the pressure on Steele, the better test may be if big-name Republicans are willing to be identified with the national party.

Will image-conscious members of Congress, governors and potential presidential hopefuls continue to raise money for the RNC?

As long as Steele and the party have a perception problem -- as made clear when their miscues transcend the political universe and become fodder for late-night comics -- image-conscious politicians may steer carefully when it comes to the committee.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will be in New Orleans this week while the party is staging a high-dollar fundraiser there but she had her name be taken off the event’s invitation and made clear that she would not be in attendance.

So far, the RNC has stemmed the damage of the past week’s revelations but if that sort of reluctance spreads to other major fundraising draws, Steele will have difficulty drumming up crowds.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35471.html#ixzz0kPA3lqdl

Sarah Palin could be a shoe-in but would she accept?

Gary Quarles, 33, of Naoma, W. Va., was one the miners known to be killed in an explosion at Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Coal Mine Monday.

MONTCOAL, W.Va.—Hope slipped away Tuesday night for four coal miners missing in an underground explosion here that killed 25 and critically injured two others.

Safety officials said it would take at least 96 hours to ventilate the mine of toxic methane gas to make it safe for search crews to enter.

"The explosion was very violent, so their chances of survival are very low," said Don Blankenship, chief executive of the mine's owner, Massey Energy Co., in an interview.

The exact cause of the explosion, the deadliest in the U.S. in more than two decades, is under investigation. Kevin Stricklin, an administrator for the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, believes it is related to high methane levels.

The Upper Big Branch mine has a history of citations involving the ventilation of methane, which is found naturally in coal seams. The MSHA cited the Massey mine for hundreds of violations in recent years, including 10 so far this year related to legal requirements for ventilation systems to control methane and highly explosive coal dust.

The company has contested numerous fines, including two in January totaling more than $130,000 related to mine ventilation.


Jeanie Sanger, left, and her husband, Bobby Sanger, spoke Tuesday about the death of her brother, Bennie R. Willingham, who was killed in the mine disaster.

Mr. Stricklin said violations don't necessarily result in mine closure and that each time a company is cited, it has time to address the safety issue.

"When violations are corrected, we allow the mine operator to go back to work," Mr. Stricklin said. However, he said it appeared the mine was not operating safely. "An explosion wouldn't have happened if it was operating safely."

Suite...

OK, sure, the poor guy committed a grievous baseball sin. But now he's taking a beating, the kind Cubs ace Carlos Zambrano would give his own catcher, or maybe his manager.

It almost reminds me of the time CBS' Katie Couric sweetly asked Sarah Palin what she liked to read. Palin drew a blank and reporters never let her live it down.

But I say, let's leave the poor president alone. After all, he's a White Sox fan, isn't he?
Obama's troubles started Monday after he threw out the ceremonial first pitch at the Washington Nationals home opener.

He threw lefty and missed the plate, which wasn't surprising. What was surprising is what happened after he joined announcer Rob Dibble in the booth for some happy talk.

Dibble commented on Obama's hat — a nicely faded black Sox cap — which the president proudly wore on the mound reminding all of us once again of the heroic team from Chicago that has actually won a World Series in the past 100 years.

Dibble asked the fateful question, one so easy that Hawk Harrelson would have called it a "can of corn."

Dibble: "Who was one of your favorite White Sox players growing up?"
Obama: "You know … uh … I thought that … you know … the truth is, that a lot of the Cubs I liked too."

Ouch. The silence between the stammers was excruciating. America's No. 1 Sox fan couldn't name one Sox player.

Not former players like Hall of Famer Carlton Fisk or future Hall of Famer Frank Thomas or manager Ozzie Guillen. The least he could have done was mention a current player, say grizzled veteran Paul Konerko or our spunky new leadoff man, the fleet-footed Slappy McPopup.

Slappy McPopup's real name is Juan Pierre, an ex-Cub. Slappy earned his nickname with a signature swing so weak that it regularly results in harmless pop flies, negating Slappy's one asset, his speed.

You wouldn't expect Obama to name Slappy. But you would expect a Sox fan to know the name of the ballpark.

"When I moved to Chicago," Obama babbled to Dibble, "I was living close to what was then Cominskey Park and went to a couple of games and just fell in love with it."

What's that? Come-in-ski? Is that how Obama invites the Russian foreign minister into the Oval Office during a diplomatic crisis?

Clearly, there was no teleprompter upon which White House media wizard David Axelrod could type the words "Pudge = Carlton Fisk" or "Big Hurt = Frank Thomas."

A panicked Obama tried to escape by using an old standby I've used myself, ripping on Cubs fans for delicately "sipping their wine" at ivy-covered Wrigley. Then it got worse.

"I did not become a Sox fan until I moved to Chicago," said Obama. "Because, you know, I was growing up in Hawaii, so I ended up being an Oakland A's fan."
The Oakland A's?

Back when Obama was learning the Chicago Way of politics in the late '80s and early '90s — and becoming a true White Sox fan — there were two teams hated by Sox fans.

One was the insufferable Yankees. The other was the insufferable Oakland A's. Their colors were putrid, and they had the obnoxious Roid Brothers, and that pitcher — not the drunk with the ridiculous mullet but the intimidating yet squeaky-voiced Dave Stewart.

Naturally, Obama's flubs drove sports bloggers crazy and then the Republicans and conservatives jumped on. And Cubs fans like my young friend Wings became upset because of that "sipping their wine" crack.

"Hey, I'm a Cubs fan and I can name more Sox players than the president," said Wings. "And I bet I've been to ‘Cominskey' more than he has too."

Perhaps. But in the spirit of outlawing all political anger in America, I say, let's leave Obama alone!

He's got a lot on his mind. As the leader of the free world, he's dealing with the likelihood of a nuclear Iran and the prospect of naming another liberal on the Supreme Court. There are only so many facts a man can keep in his head.

Clearly, he was ill-prepared for the big Dibble interview. But who is responsible for preparing the president?

Why, none other than the famous Cubs fan, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
Emanuel so loved the Cubs that in 2008, as a U.S. representative, he introduced a flowery resolution congratulating his Cubbies on the club's 10,000th victory.

Unfortunately for Emanuel, he flubbed it. For one thing, he misspelled the name of Cubs great Ryne Sandberg. Oh, and he insisted that Wrigley Field was at 1600 West Ashland, not exactly the Friendly Confines.

A Cubs fan who doesn't know where Wrigley sits has no business prepping America's No. 1 White Sox fan.

"I'm a South Side kid," Obama told Dibble. "I've got to make sure that (Sox chairman) Jerry Reinsdorf doesn't get too angry with me."

Don't worry, Mr. President. This will blow over. Just look how quickly the media stopped twisting the knife into Sarah Palin.

So keep wearing that Sox hat, big guy.

We know what's in your heart. It's about proud South Side black and silver.
See you at Cominskey sometime, sir.

textSize()

Two weeks after President Obama signed the new health care bill, opposition to it remains strong. In addition, the president’s legislative victory did not help his job approval rating, which hit a new low in a Fox News poll released Thursday.

The poll also finds more voters would punish rather than reward incumbents who voted for the health care bill, and that the Democratic win did nothing to energize the party faithful for the midterms.

Read Full Poll Results.

President Obama’s overall job approval rating dropped to a new low of 43 percent. Nearly half -- 48 percent -- disapprove. In mid-March, it was 46-48 percent. His current rating among Democrats (80 percent) and independents (38 percent) are among his lowest ratings with these groups. He is now in single digits among Republicans (7 percent). By comparison, former President George W. Bush’s approval among Democrats went as low as 4 percent.

The poll finds by a 54 to 39 percent margin, American voters oppose the new health care law. Just prior to the bill’s passage, 55 percent opposed, while 35 percent favored the overhaul.Among the key group of independent voters, 38 percent favor the law and 55 percent oppose it. When voting this November, more than twice as many independents say they are less likely (39 percent) to vote for a candidate who favored the bill than say more likely (18 percent).

More than two-thirds of Democrats -- 69 percent -- like the new law. While nearly four times as many Democrats say they are more likely (39 percent) rather than less likely (10 percent) to vote for a candidate who favored the bill, nearly half say it will make no difference to their vote (49 percent). Almost all Republicans (91 percent) oppose the overhaul, and 70 percent say they are less likely to vote for someone who backed it.

Overall, 38 percent say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who voted for the bill, while 22 percent say more likely. For another 38 percent it won’t make a difference. About a third of respondents (32 percent) say they don’t know how their Representative voted on health care.

Health care, however, isn’t the top issue to voters -- not by a long shot: 49 percent say the economy will be the most important issue in deciding their vote this year, while one in five says health care (21 percent).

Few voters like the new health care law in its current form. Only 12 percent think it should be implemented as is. Nearly half -- 47 percent -- think it needs to be changed, and 36 percent would repeal it all together.

“The fact that more than four of every five voters are unhappy with the new law as it stands is a testament to how difficult it may be for backers to sell their vote to constituents in the fall,” said Ernest Paicopolos, a principal at Opinion Dynamics.

The country is divided on the changes that will be made to the health care system under the law. While 21 percent think the changes don’t go far enough, twice as many -- 44 percent -- think the changes go too far. For another one in five the law includes about the right amount of change to the system (22 percent).

Voters split evenly on the big picture question of whether the law is good (45 percent) or bad (49 percent) for the country. There’s much more agreement on how the law will impact the nation’s debt. About three times as many think the law will push the country further into the red (65 percent) than think it will prevent the nation’s debt from growing (22 percent).

A majority -- 56 percent -- think their personal health care costs will increase under the new law. At the same time, by a 20 percentage point margin more people think the quality of their care will be worse (46 percent) rather than better (26 percent).

Voters are divided over whether they will have to change their coverage (42 percent) or not (48 percent) under the law. One in four people aren’t waiting to find out, and will visit their doctor or get a medical procedure done now -- specifically before the reforms take place.

A majority of voters think Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats changed the rules (54 percent) to get health care passed -- almost twice as many as think they played by the rules (29 percent).

Interest in this fall’s elections among Democratic voters continues to fall far below that of Republicans.

Since the law’s passage, the number of Democrats saying they are “extremely” or “very” interested in the elections remains unchanged at 50 percent, while a significantly larger number of Republicans -- 69 percent -- are at least very interested.

If the Congressional election were held today, 43 percent of voters say they would support the Republican candidate in their district and 39 percent the Democrat. That’s almost identical to last month when the Republican candidate had the edge by 42 to 38 percent.

On Obama’s handling of health care, 40 percent approve of the job he’s doing, up from 37 percent in late February. Fifty-three percent disapprove.

On the economy, 42 percent approve and 53 percent disapprove. He receives similar results on job creation: 40-54 percent.

The president’s highest approval ratings are on his handling of terrorism (50 percent) and Afghanistan (49 percent). His lowest marks are on the federal deficit: 31 percent approve and 62 percent disapprove.

For the job Congress is doing, 21 percent approve, while 72 percent disapprove. That’s a slight improvement from 18-76 percent the week before the health care vote (March 16-17).

Twenty-nine percent of voters have a positive view of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, up from 24 percent in February. More than half -- 53 percent -- have a negative view. More than twice as many voters view Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid negatively as positively, though nearly half are unable to give an opinion. Even fewer voters are familiar with House Minority Leader John Boehner: 12 percent have a favorable view, 18 percent unfavorable, and 70 percent can’t rate the Ohio Republican.

The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from April 6 to April 7. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Other findings from the new poll:

• By 65 to 25 percent, voters support the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That includes majorities of Democrats (58 percent), Republicans (77 percent) and independents (60 percent).

• In general, most voters -- 70 percent -- favor increasing offshore drilling for oil and gas in U.S. coastal. When the question specifically mentions “President Obama’s plan to allow offshore drilling,” that increases to 73 percent. Among Democrats, 61 percent favor offshore drilling whether Obama is mentioned or not.

• Nearly equal numbers of voters have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party (42 percent) and the Republican Party (40 percent), and almost as many view the Tea Party movement positively (36 percent). The poll finds independents give a slight edge to the Tea Party. Thirty-five percent have a favorable view of the movement, compared to 34 percent for the Republican Party and 31 percent the Democratic Party.

• Seven months before the midterm elections, 13 percent of voters feel “enthusiastic,” and 34 percent “satisfied” with the Obama administration. On the other end of the scale, 25 percent feel “dissatisfied” and 27 percent are “very upset.” For independents, 45 percent feel enthusiastic or satisfied and 53 percent dissatisfied or upset.

• When Vice President Joe Biden described how important he thought passage of the health care bill was, he used some pretty foul language. He whispered to the president, “This is a big [expletive deleted] deal.” Nearly 4 in 10 voters (37 percent) think his choice of words was offensive, but most -- 57 percent -- disagree.

• Compared to 10 years ago, many people (65 percent) say they hear foul language used more often these days. Even when watching a presidential bill signing. *

* Biden s'est senti oblige d'utiliser le mot "F" le jour de la signature d'Obamacare.

Je suis certaine qu'un grand nombre d'Americains l'auront, eux aussi, eu en tete, mais pour des raisons opposees a celles de Biden.

The former Alaska governor arrived in New Orleans on Thursday evening and enjoyed a private dinner at Restaurant August, the flagship establishment of acclaimed New Orleans chef John Besh, according to an aide.

Besh, who has appeared on popular television series like Top Chef and Iron Chef America, welcomed the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee and a guest into a private dining room at his signature restaurant.

Palin shared a meal with Cathy Maples, a Huntsville, Alabama resident who bid $63,500 in an online last September to win a dinner with the governor. The proceeds of that auction went to Road2Recovery, a charity that assists wounded veterans. Besh donated the cost of the meal to the cause.

The chef, himself a former Marine, served several of the courses and shared stories of his service in the military, according to the aide. Palin and Besh also chatted about Hurricane Katrina's impact on the city - a topic that went unmentioned during the opening night of the SRLC on Thursday.

Palin is slated to address the nearly 4,000 GOP activists at the conference on Friday afternoon.
Go for it Lady!

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% of voters agree with the president’s decision to rule out a nuclear response if a non-nuclear country attacks America with chemical or biological weapons. Another 20% are undecided.

Only 31% favor a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal. Fifty-three percent (53%) oppose any such reduction. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

The president signed a treaty today with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev pledging a near one-third reduction in the nuclear weapons arsenals of both countries. Just 31% of voters trust Russia to honor the new agreement.

Only 38% think it is even somewhat likely that other countries will reduce their nuclear weapons arsenals and development in response to the actions taken by the United States.

That includes just seven percent (7%) who say it’s very likely.

Fifty-four percent (54%) think reciprocal disarmament by other countries is unlikely, with 35% who say it’s not very likely and 19% who view it as not at all likely.

The president told the New York Times in an interview earlier this week that his ban on nuclear responses would not include “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that do not honor the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of voters view the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal as at least somewhat important to U.S. national security, including 56% who regard it as very important. Only 14% say that arsenal is not very or not at all important to national security.

U.S. voters have mixed feelings about the president’s further plan to halt America’s development of new nuclear weapons. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has opposed this halt.

Thirty-four percent (34%) agree the United States should stop the development of new nuclear weapons. Forty-five percent (45%) disagree and do not believe America should halt development of these new weapons. Roughly one-out-of-five voters (21%) are not sure which course is best.

There are noticeable partisan differences on the questions. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans and 53% of voters not affiliated with either major party, for example, oppose formally limiting when the United States will respond to an attack with nuclear weapons. Among Democrats, however, just 42% oppose such a prohibition, while 33% think it’s a good idea.

Similarly, while 72% of GOP voters and 51% of unaffiliated oppose reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal, the plurality (45%) of Democrats favor such the move.

Republicans by a two-to-one margin over Democrats oppose a halt in the development of new nuclear weapons. Unaffiliated voters are more closely divided on the question.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the Political Class believe the United States should reduce the number of weapons in its nuclear arsenal. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Mainstream voters disagree.

But then 78% of the Political Class thinks it’s at least somewhat likely that other nations will reduce their nuclear arsenals and development in response to U.S. disarmament.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of Mainstream voters say that’s not very or not at all likely.
Forty-three percent (43%) of voters currently rate the president’s handling of national security as good or excellent, while 38% view his performance in this area as poor.

Belief that the United States is safer today than it was before 9/11 has hit its lowest level in over three years of tracking.

President Barack Obama called Stupak on Wednesday and asked him not to retire.

Stupak, 58, also resisted entreaties from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the dean of the Wolverine State delegation.


Republicans immediately attributed Stupak's decision to step down as a direct consequence of his health care vote.


“After selling his soul to Nancy Pelosi, it appears that Bart Stupak finally found the courage to tell her no," said National Republican Congressional Committee communications director Ken Spain. "The political fallout over the Democrats’ government takeover of healthcare has put the political careers of many Democrats in jeopardy thanks in-part to Stupak’s decision to abandon his alleged pro-life principles."


Republicans believe that other pro-life Democrats, like freshman Reps. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) and Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa.), will also face serious trouble because of their support for the health care legislation without strict anti-abortion provisions.


Stupak plans to continue to live in the district, the Democratic official said. He plans to say that as he opens a new chapter, he will continue to serve the people of the First District, just not as their congressman.


Friends said Stupak was not leaving because of the health fight but because of the exertion that would be required to hold his sprawling Upper Peninsula District. He made the final decision during a conversation with his family while in Indianapolis to root for Michigan State in the Final Four basketball game.


The Upper Peninsula seat gave President Obama just 50 percent of the vote, and supported former President Bush in 2004 with 53 percent. But Stupak never had faced difficulty winning re-election, always prevailing with at least 57 percent of the vote since first elected in 1992.


This year was shaping up to be a different story, with Stupak becoming a leading target on both his left and right flanks. Abortion rights supporters were rallying behind Charlevoix County Commissioner Connie Saltonstall after Stupak insisted on pro-life language being inserted in the health care legislation.


The Tea Party Express caravan, stopped in Stupak's Upper Peninsula district last night to protest his health care vote as part of a concerted attempt to oust the incumbent. The group had named Stupak as one of its leading targets.


The friend said he believes he would have won, and added: "More than 95% of the opposition from left and right has come from outside of his district."


And Republicans have rallied around surgeon Dan Benishek, a Tea Party favorite, who received very little attention until Stupak voted for the health care legislation even without receiving anti-abortion language in the bill itself. Benishek is expected to raise over $100,000 this quarter, according to GOP sources, a large amount for a first-time candidate who had virtually no campaign infrastructure before Stupak received national attention over his health care positioning.


Democrats who could hold the seat include state senator Jim Barcia (a former congressman), Mike Prusi and Gary McDowell, and state representatives Joel Sheltrown and Jeff Mayes.

"The surprising announcement that Congressman Bart Stupak is abandoning his campaign for reelection shows the power of the tea party movement," the group's political director, Bryan Shroyer, said in a statement.

"Stupak was no longer able to hide his betrayal of conservative principles because the tea party movement was determined to educate the voters in the district," he said.

Stupak, a pro-life Democrat representing Michigan's 1st congressional district, was under attack by the tea party movement and other conservative groups for his vote in favor of the Democratic health care legislation.

"I absolutely credit the mere threat of us coming through his district," Tea Party Express chairman Mark Williams told FoxNews.com. "We put the nail in the coffin."

The Tea Party Express, one of the most visible factions of the movement, rolled into Bessemer, Mich., late Thursday to stage a rally targeting Stupak. The group also launched an aggressive ad campaign against him – with the group’s political action committee,

Our Country Deserves Better, pledging $250,000 in radio and T.V. ads aimed at ousting him from office.

The group had planned 11 rallies in the state over the next three days, protesting Stupak's controversial vote and calling for his swift resignation.

Williams said Stupak's announcement on Friday in no way disrupts their plans.

"Now it becomes a celebration of the process and the power of the people," he said.

During the Cold War, we let the Russians know that if they dared use their huge conventional military advantage and invaded Western Europe, they risked massive U.S. nuclear retaliation. Goodbye, Moscow.

Was this credible? Would we have done it? Who knows? No one's ever been there. No one's ever had to make such decisions. A nuclear posture is just that -- a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice.

Our policies did. The result was called deterrence. For half a century, it held. The Soviets never invaded. We never used nukes. That's why nuclear doctrine is important.

The Obama administration has just issued a new one that "includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture," said Defense Secretary Bob Gates. First among these involves the U.S. response to being attacked with biological or chemical weapons.

Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory.

Again: Credible? Doable? No one knows. But the threat was very effective.

Under President Obama's new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is "in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," explained Gates, then "the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it."

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up to date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)

However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT-noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.

Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the United States without fear of nuclear retaliation?

SUITE