He should go self-reflect. “Rick Santorum has vowed to continue the fight against Mitt Romney, but a note from his team Wednesday announced that he will do so after taking a four-day break from the GOP presidential campaign trail.”

The White House had to go into spin mode again. “The White House was forced on the defensive on Wednesday as it sought to explain controversial remarks President Barack Obama made earlier in the week about the Supreme Court’s review of his signature healthcare reform law. . . . During robust questioning, when [Jay] Carney was told at one point that he had mischaracterized what the president had said, the press secretary was forced to repeatedly defend the remarks of his boss as an observation of fact.”

Peter Wehner says it is rich for the New York Times doyenne of snark to go after the Supreme Court. “[Maureen] Dowd’s columns are, without exception, an intellectual content-free zone. They are mood-pieces, a window into the unstable emotional state of liberal east coast elitists. Her words are unburdened by facts, reason, or analysis. That isn’t a crime, and it even serves a purpose of sorts. But she’s impossible to take seriously. And for her to criticize Antonin Scalia’s grasp of the law is like a third-string quarterback in middle school criticizing Peyton Manning’s grasp of football.”

Go figure. John Fund has something nice to say about Berkeley liberals. “In a radical city known sometimes for its liberal anger, it won’t surprise you, many of those in the audience were upset at the prospect of the Supreme Court’s overturning part or all of Obamacare. After all, Berkeley voted 88 percent for Obama in 2008. But almost no one present at the symposium was as petulant as President Obama was yesterday, when he incorrectly claimed that if the Court rules against his landmark legislation it would be taking ‘an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.’ The implication of his statement was that he hasn’t heard of Marbury v. Madison, in which the Supreme Court laid down the doctrine of judicial review in 1803, and by which the Court can strike down unconstitutional laws. Indeed, since 1981, the Court has struck down 57 specific legislative acts of Congress, an average of two per year.”

Why go for the jugular and then deny it? “The White House on Wednesday strongly denied that President Obama’s attack on the GOP budget was a campaign speech. ‘This was a policy speech, that again had a great detail of detail attached to it,’ said White House press secretary Jay Carney. Obama blasted the Republican budget from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Tuesday at a press luncheon, calling it a ‘radical vision’ for the country. Obama specifically criticized Romney, his likely opponent this fall, for praising the Ryan budget as ‘marvelous.’ It was the first time Obama had mentioned Romney by name in a speech.” You wonder how Carney says this stuff with a straight face.

It takes some nerve to go to voters and ask for six more years after this sort of stunt. “Politico reports today that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is so intent on having Democrats avoid stating their fiscal plans and principles that he asked the Senate parliamentarian (whom he appointed) to rule that last year’s Budget Control Act prohibits the Senate from taking up a budget resolution this year. The parliamentarian, to her credit, refused to do so, since the BCA says no such thing. Since Senate Democrats have not actually produced a budget of their own, they may now be forced to vote on budget proposals from various Republican senators (Rand Paul and Pat Toomey have both proposed budgets so far), to vote on the Ryan budget passed by the House last month, and — most difficult of all for the Democrats — to vote on the Obama budget.”

If you go regularly to Right Turn you’d know this already. “Romney’s confident embrace of the Ryan [budget] plan suggests that Romney thinks the Ryan budget will be a boon, not a burden, to his presidential campaign. If Obama’s plan is to attack the Ryan plan to reelection and Romney’s plan is to ride the Ryan plan to victory, then doesn’t it stand to reason that Ryan should be on the GOP ticket? That’s what more and more conservatives and liberals alike seem to be thinking.”

If the White House can’t go to Obama sycophant Larry Tribe for cover you know the president messed up. “‘Presidents should generally refrain from commenting on pending cases during the process of judicial deliberation,’ said Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, a close Obama ally. ‘Even if such comments won’t affect the justices a bit, they can contribute to an atmosphere of public cynicism that I know this president laments.’” Laments or fans?