WASHINGTON (AP) – Even the White House’s top spokesman is getting in on the act of mocking former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin for looking to talking points written on her palm during a speech to “tea party” activists.

Robert Gibbs showed the words “hope” and “change” on his hand as he started his daily briefing with reporters on Tuesday. [Note: He also included a short 'grocery list' on his hand. - ST]

Many in the room, where President Barack Obama had spoken just moments before about the need for bipartisanship, groaned at the political shot.

CBS has the vid.

The blogprof is short, sweet and to the point:

Note the reaction from the White House Press Corps (corpse?) was not one of laughter but initially one of dismay that such a classless tactic was used by an Obama minion to mock a private citizen, something that used to be far below the office of the president.

Heckuva job, Fibbsie.

He should have crossed out 'hope' and 'change' instead.
(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

In a brief op-ed in USA Today, White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan charges that critics who question the Obama administration’s decision to grant Miranda rights to accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab are “serv[ing] the goals of al Qaeda.”

“Too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points,” Brennan writes. “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”

Now, however, those critics are questioning whether Brennan is trying to score a few political points of his own. First, Brennan supports the administration’s position, which most critics find absurd, that the initial 50-minute interrogation of Abdulmutallab — all the Justice Department would allow before he was read his Miranda rights — was somehow adequate. “Immediately after the failed Christmas Day attack,” Brennan writes, “Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information.”

Second, Brennan writes that, “The most important breakthrough occurred after Abdulmutallab was read his rights…” What Brennan does not say is that that breakthrough reportedly occurred several weeks after Abdulmutallab was read his rights. In the intervening period, apparently, investigators got little out of the suspect.

In the meantime, we can safely assume that his fellow Yemen suicide bombers were adjusting their strategies and tactics while Abdulmutallab was mulling over his “legal options.” York has a related piece on the GOP’s response to Brennan’s Sunday accusation that top GOP leaders were briefed on the so-called Christmas Day bomber and didn’t raise a fuss on the issue of Miranda rights:

Just a few hours before Obama spoke, some top GOP lawmakers were astonished to hear White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan, appearing on “Meet the Press,” claim that they had known about — and had not objected to — the administration’s decision to read Abdulmutallab his rights.

Brennan said he called four top GOP lawmakers — Sens. Mitch McConnell and Christopher Bond and Reps. John Boehner and Peter Hoekstra — on Christmas night, just hours after Abdulmutallab tried to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Brennan said he told the Republicans that the FBI had a suspect in custody; from that, Brennan claimed, the lawmakers should have inferred that Abdulmutallab would be read his Miranda rights.

“None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point,” Brennan said. “They didn’t say, ‘Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized?’”

Within hours of Brennan’s TV appearance, all four GOP lawmakers denied the story. “Brennan never told me of any plans to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber,” said Bond. “It never came up,” said Hoekstra. Spokesman for McConnell and Boehner denied it, too.

It makes sense that the issue never came up, says former Bush administration speechwriter Marc Thiessen, a fierce critic of this administration’s war on terror policies and author of Courting Disaster, who wrote a blistering response to Brennan at National Review’s Corner blog yesterday:

The problem with Brennan’s claim?

As I point out in Courting Disaster, just a few months earlier, the Obama administration announced that its new FBI-led “High-Value Interrogation Group” (HIG) would not necessarily Mirandize suspects it was questioning.

In its story on the announcement, the Washington Post reported:

**Interrogators will not necessarily read detainees their rights before questioning, instead making that decision on a case-by-case basis, officials said. . . . “It’s not going to, certainly, be automatic in any regard that they are going to be Mirandized,” one official said, referring to the practice of reading defendants their rights. “Nor will it be automatic that they are not Mirandized.”**

In other words, Republicans were assured by the Obama administration that the decision on reading Miranda rights to captured terrorists would be made a on “case-by-case” basis.

So if Brennan is wondering why the Republicans he spoke with did not just assume Abdumutallab would be automatically Mirandized, it is because the Obama administration told them so.

Of course, the HIG was not interrogating Abdulmutallab because — despite all the fanfare with its announcement — it had not yet been stood up. But how were Republicans to know that? Especially since Obama’s own director of national intelligence didn’t know that either?

Anymore questions?

With regards to Brennan’s accusations that Republican criticism of President Obama’s counterterrorism policies equates to aiding Al Qaeda, a couple of things:

1) Where’s the outcry from the left over the questioning of patriotism here? They screamed bloody murder everytime an accusation remotely sounding like that came from the GOP during the Bush admin. Now? Crickets chirping. Which brings me to my second point, which is:

2) On the issue of criticizing a President in a time of war, contra to the left’s wild spinning and hand gesturing on the issue, it never was about wanting to shut down all criticism of President Bush; rather, it was about the types of criticisms, how they were leveled, and how those criticisms were affected perceptions of the Commander in Chief by both friends and foes alike, how they translated morale-wise by our military men and women in the battlefield – whether it was in the sands of Iraq or Afghanistan – and how they would affect our intelligence agencies’ information-gathering abilities globally. Not only that, but there was a valid concern – concerns held by Democrat and Republican presidents alike in the past – that certain types of “criticisms” coming from the left, namely, the despicable accusations by top Democrats like Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Durbin and Congressional reps like Charlie Rangel, “criticisms” that suggested that our President, our troops, and our intelligence agencies were no better than the respective regimes of Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot and Hitler, would greatly aid the enemy.

It’s clear that Brennan and his left wing brethren both in and out of the WH don’t understand the difference between making baseless, repugnant moral equivalencies between the US and its worst enemies during a time of war, which effectively sends dangerous signals to the enemy during a time of war that they have unwitting allies in the United States government, versus legitimately expressed concerns that the President of the United States and his national security team might not be doing enough to keep Americans safe, both home and abroad.

It’s the difference between one party wanting to weaken a President’s wartime powers during a time of war for partisan political purposes – no matter the cost in terms of both loss of life and America’s beacon of light reputation worldwide, versus one party wanting a President to utilize, not water down, the tools he has at his disposal to wage an effective war against those who seek to destroy us.

It’s frightening that over 8 years after 9-11, these people still don’t get it. Will they ever?

Reading some of the reactions to it today, though, I see that some people were freaked out about the ad, looking at it as a possible sign of things to come right here in the US. While I can certainly see where that concern comes from, considering the current administation’s ultra liberal agenda on all things “green,” at the same time I can’t help but think this ad did more harm than good to the “Green” movement. The cops arresting private citizens for non-issues like a too-warm hot tub and things of that nature just go to show how ridiculous the whole idea of “green punishment” actually is and I think there would be a major outcry here if anything like that ever happened here and was widely reported by the MSM (big IF there). On the flip side, though, is the issue of another type of “Green Police” punishment – the kind that will hit you right in the wallet:

The ad works for me far better as a warning of an overreaching government dictating choices — like incandescent lightbulbs, paper vs plastic in the grocery store, and choice of cars. Audi may convince some people to look into its clean-diesel offerings, but the ad itself is likely to elicit more concern over the direction of regulatory efforts, especially at the EPA, which declared carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant last year and has started the effort to regulate manufacturing as a way to get around the legislative hurdles to cap-and-trade bills in Congress.

If the government really does intend on creating regulation over these kinds of choices, a “green police” will not be far behind, although not in the humorous style presented here. It will instead insert itself in home purchases, car choices, energy rationing, and in the use of private property. Government will pick the winners and losers rather than a free people making their own choices, and they will use the power of government to ensure that those winners prevail for the purposes of a governing elite.

Your thoughts?

———–

To see the other ads that ran during the SB, click here.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A spokesman said Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha died Monday at 1:18 p.m. at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Va.

Murtha had been suffering complications from gallbladder surgery. At his bedside was his family.

Murtha, 77, was chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

The 19-term Democrat was the first Vietnam veteran to serve in Congress. He most recently led the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense spending.

Murtha was a representative for Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District since 1974. This past Saturday, Murtha became Pennsylvania’s longest serving member of Congress.

Murtha was a retired Marine Corps officer and the first combat veteran of the Vietnam War elected to Congress.

The AP, surprisingly, has a pretty detailed description of Murtha’s political life in Congress, including his ethical scandals, unfair Haditha accusations and the fact that he was a master ‘bring home the bacon’ politico for his state. WaPo’s The Fix blog has a write-up on what will happen with Murtha’s seat going forward:

According to state law, the governor has ten days once the vacancy is officially declared to decide on the date for the special election, which can come no sooner than 60 days following that proclamation.

That likely means the special election will be held on May 18, which is the date already set for federal primaries around the state. (Special elections costs the state huge sums of money and it’s likely that Gov. Ed Rendell will choose to go with an already established election day to save some cash.)

I’ll reserve any political commentary I have about Murtha for another day. May he RIP, and his family and friends find comfort and peace in their memories of him.

RIGHT ON— On Sunday the left went bonkers after they discovered that the TelePrompter-less former Governor Sarah Palin wrote notes on the palm of her left hand for her speech to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville. The far left absolutely freaked over this non-issue rather than focus on her brilliant speech knocking the Obama Administration’s horrid record on economics and national defense.

Today Sarah fired back…

How? During a campaign stop for TX Governor Rick Perry, she wrote “Hi Mom!” on her hand – and made sure it was visible for photographs

"Hi Mom!"

Hehe – and nope, it’s not a Photoshopped picture. You can view more pix of her “Hi Mom!” hand at Jim’s site.

I’m sure Andrew Sullivan’s head is spinning right about now, alongside the HuffPo types at the HuffPo site itself and in the MSM

Related Reading:

• Bill Jacobson – Palin Exposes Misogyny In The Democratic Base, Again

President Barack Obama is planning to host a televised meeting with Republican and Democratic congressional leaders on health care reform.

The Feb. 25 meeting is an attempt to reach across the aisle but not a signal that the president plans to start over, as Republicans have demanded, a White House official said.

“I want to come back [after the Presidents Day congressional recess] and have a large meeting — Republicans and Democrats — to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” Obama said in an interview with Katie Couric during CBS’s Super Bowl pre-game show Sunday.

Obama said he wants to “look at the Republican ideas that are out there.”

“If we can go, step by step, through a series of these issues and arrive at some agreements, then, procedurally, there’s no reason why we can’t do it a lot faster the process took last year,” he said.

In a statement, the official said, “What the president will not do is let this moment slip away. He hopes to have Republican support in doing so — but he is going to move forward on health reform.”

[...]

But since the Democratic loss in the Massachusetts Senate race, Obama has been forced to rework his legislative strategy – both by striking a more bipartisan tone, and returning to his campaign pledge of providing more transparency. He’s been dogged by questions about why he failed to live up to his campaign promise of televising the health care negotiations on C-SPAN.

The half-day meeting will take place at Blair House, and be broadcast live, presumably by C-SPAN, making it the first televised White House meeting involving the president since a forum last March.

This is a joke. He’s had plenty of time over the last year to look over GOP ideas on heatlhcare reform but instead has taken every opportunity he can to lie about those ideas, suggesting that the GOP had no ideas, no plans, effectively painting them as not just the party of no ideas … but the party of “no.” His desire to host a broadcast of a “meeting of the Democrat and Republican minds” is just one more example of his penchant for exhibiting style and symbolism over substance. Sure, he promised during the campaign numerous times that he would open up healthcare reform negotiations on C-SPAN – but he didn’t say he was going to be a part of it. This “summit” would be better … but not much … if he kept his hands – and ego – out of it. His participation in the summit is designed solely to look like he genuinely “cares” about what the GOP thinks, and that he is “listening” to the American people on the issue, when in reality he doesn’t care what either thinks, and has said as much with his comments about him being content with being a one-term President as long as he can get his reform plan passed – in part by engaging in the same types of backroom deal-making (more here) he decried as a candidate for President, and as President.

The GOP, of course, has no choice but to go along with this latest farce, as calling it for what it is – nothing more than a “show summit” a la the “Beer Summit” – will make them look flip-floppy in the face of their constant complaints over the last couple of months about the lack of open, televised-on-CSPAN negotiations. So Obama will get to do what he does best: stand in front of a camera and deliver meaningless, empty rhetoric to his adoring masses in the MSM, which will translate into breathless, fluffy “commentary” on news program after news program about how this President has “recommitted” himself to the process of “transparency” and “open government” and “bipartisanship.”

Whether or not this transparently smoke and mirrors political move is smart politics by the WH will be decided at the ballot box come November. Let’s hope and pray that the GOP is aware of this and is able to utilize the “summit” broadcast to their advantage.

Stay tuned …

In the battle for the biggest prize in football, who will reign supreme? (Photo courtesy of NFL.com)

Time to get in your last-minute predictions as to what will happen and who will win in tonight’s much-hyped match-up between the Indianapolis Colts and the New Orleans Saints in Super Bowl 44, being played at Sun Life Stadium in Miami Gardens, FL. Indy is favored to win today, while the Saints are the obvious “sentimental favorite” since they’ve never been to a Super Bowl, and of course, considering what New Orleans has been through since Hurricane Katrina. I’m inclined to root for the Saints on that basis, in spite of the fact that they are a division rival of the Panthers, and in spite of the fact that I think Peyton Manning is adorable.

Game time is 6 PM ET and it will be broadcast on CBS.

And don’t forget to be on the lookout for the Tim Tebow ad … sure to make many a raging liberal “feminist’s” head do a complete rotation around their neck a la Linda Blair in The Excorcist.

Update – 6:38 PM: There are apparently going to be two Tebow ads tonight. The first one (below) has already run (pre-game), with the second – supposedly more “controversial” one to air later tonight (via Ed Morrissey).

How offensive and eeeeevil!

Read/watch more of the Tebow story here.

Update 2 – 9:46 PM: Saints win! They dominated the second half, and came out on top 31-17.

You can watch the Full video of her speech, including the Q&A that took place after it, below:

Jim Hoft, PJM, and Founding Bloggers have some great Palin photos from the convention.

As expected there are a lot of write-ups of both Palin’s speech and the convention on the whole from the right, left, and the MSM. Probably the most humorous – and predictable – series of posts comes from a couple of “writers” at both the HuffPo and Think Progress blogs, who pointed out that Palin had a few words jotted down on her hand during the Q&A. MSDNC, of course, is making that a focal point of Palin’s appearance as I write this. Well, all I can say to that is at least it wasn’t a teleprompter she was reading off of …

She also sat down Saturday during the convention for an interview with Fox News’ Judson Berger. You can read the transcript of the interview – in which she doesn’t rule out a possible 2012 Presidential run – here. Berger’s write-up of the interview is here. She also did another interview with Fox’s Chris Wallace, which will air on Fox News Sunday at 2 PM ET. The transcript from that interview can be read here.

Update – 11:39: Here’s what looks to be the full video – in several parts – of the Chris Wallace interview with Palin (via Conservative New Media).

Yes, those are the words of the president, last night at the Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Washington. After listing his administration’s accomplishments and vowing that “our most urgent task is job creation,” Obama pledged to keep fighting for a national health care system. “We knew this was hard,” Obama said. And then he described a letter he received from a campaign worker who suffered from breast cancer and has since died:

“I got a letter — I got a note today from one of my staff — they forwarded it to me — from a woman in St. Louis who had been part of our campaign, very active, who had passed away from breast cancer. She didn’t have insurance. She couldn’t afford it, so she had put off having the kind of exams that she needed. And she had fought a tough battle for four years. All through the campaign she was fighting it, but finally she succumbed to it. And she insisted she’s going to be buried in an Obama t-shirt.”

Many observers have noted that the president often seems extraordinarily self-referential. It’s all about him, they say. But even those critics might be a little taken aback by the “buried in an Obama t-shirt” remark. Is it really that much about him?

I assume that was a rhetorical question.

Beyond our celebrity President’s now-legendary penchant for casting himself in the most dazzling of lights is the disturbing trend of trying to sell his healthcare “reform” package on the backs of the deceased. First it was the story of his mother’s passing from cancer, a story he told repeatedly on the campaign trail and beyond, in an effort to stir up support for passing healthcare “reform.” Next, it was during the immediate aftermath of Ted Kennedy’s death, where left wing pundits, the MSM, and Congressional Democrats were all crying out to pass the current healthcare reform bill “for Teddy!!!” Even at Ted Kennedy’s funeral, one of his grandsons was shamelessly used by the family during the “Prayers of the Faithful” segment to call for passing healthcare “reform” in his grandfather’s name. And now we have the story of the unnamed Obama activist who died from breast cancer because she couldn’t afford healthcare insurance, and who wanted to be buried wearing an Obama T-shirt.

Can’t this President, this party, sell this monstrosity of a bill without using the dead as political props in vain attempts to persuade people on an emotional basis rather than a substantive one? Apparently not, which may explain why his – their – “signature issue” is, well, close to being dead itself. Thankfully, for the sake of the republic, not many are buying the President’s empty rhetoric on “reform” anymore. It’s not about this President’s needs; it’s about the needs of the people. Which is as it should be.

So now, for Democrats, it’s on to Plan B – which is … ?

Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) election has been shown to be “a joke,” the son of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said Thursday.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) castigated Brown for having pushed to be sworn in ahead of schedule to permanently fill the Senate seat left vacant by the congressman’s father’s death in August.

“Brown’s whole candidacy was shown to be a joke today when he was sworn in early in order to cast his first vote as an objection to Obama’s appointment to the NLRB,” Kennedy said Thursday.

Kennedy was referencing some Democrats’ thoughts that Brown tried to bump up his swearing-in in order to give Republicans 41 votes, enough to filibuster the nomination of Craig Becker, a controversial nominee to join the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

“Seven out of ten of Brown’s voters were labor households and he stressed that he was independent and while he was originally scheduled to be sworn in next week, they moved it up to today so he could cast his first vote, the most anti-labor, the most anti-what his constituents thought they were voting for when they voted for him,” Kennedy said.

[...]

“This is where he shows that when they need him, he’s in the tank for the Republicans,” Kennedy said.

LOL. So just because he campaigned as an “indepedent” Republican means he’s not ever supposed to, you know, vote with Republicans every once in a while? Memo to Patrick Kennedy: Just because a Republican won the “Kennedy seat” doesn’t mean he’s supposed to, um, vote in lockstep with him.

As I said above, this is little more than sour grapes coming from a guy who can’t believe Republicans outfoxed the Kennedys in MA to win the seat formerly held by his dad. Not only that, but really – that Kennedy would call Brown someone who is “in the tank for Republicans” sounds strange coming from someone who is clearly in the tank with hardcore Democrats and their agenda, if you consider his 84% liberal rating and how reliable a vote he is for liberal special interests. Not to mention that he is, well, he’s a Kennedy – so of course he’s going to be a diehard liberal.

Who was that he was calling “in the tank” again?

BTW, Rep. Kennedy may be facing his own Scott Brown soon, if polls on him in RI are any indication (via Jim Hoft).

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) appeared on the Daily Show last night to chat with his old friend and roommate Jon Stewart.

Aside from the friendly ribbing and references to incriminating photographs of each other, Weiner took a shot at his healthcare nemesis Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)

“My question to you is this: Is [Lieberman] a d*ck?” Stewart asked.

“Yes, Jon,” Weiner jokingly replied.

Lieberman once explained that he changed his mind on supporting a Medicare buy-in after realizing how much Weiner supported it.

Watch video of the segment at the same link.

So … lemme get this straight. Some dude who I’m sure has gotten teased unmercifully for years about his last name childishly calls a senior Congressional colleague a derogatory term for that same name?

You stay classy, Rep. Wiener, er, Wanker, er, Whiner, er, Weiner.

After the swearing in was over, Senator Brown (great to be able to say he’s official now!) took some questions from the mainstream mediots, which you can watch below (via John McCormack):

Oh – one other thing: He’ll get the office formerly occupied by Senator Kennedy.

And now, it’s time to get down to business.