Patterico's Pontifications

For non-link-clickers: this is inspired by Obama’s “hilarious” joke at the Al Smith dinner: “Unemployment is at the lowest since I took office. I don’t have a joke here. I just wanted to remind people.”

And yes, it’s not, really.

Patterico (8b3905) — 10/19/2012 @ 8:39 pm

Was it Hugh Hewitt who said that unemployment will go down in the Romney administration because people found jobs, rather than abandoning the workforce?

Dustin (73fead) — 10/19/2012 @ 8:46 pm

Food Stamp is a horrible President.

JD (8a1df4) — 10/19/2012 @ 8:49 pm

Is record enrollment optimal?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/19/2012 @ 8:56 pm

I continually hear ads on the radio for SNAP, the new, less pejorative term for food stamps.

It makes it sound so cool I want to sign up.

AZ Bob (1c9631) — 10/19/2012 @ 9:49 pm

Yeah, I saw what you did there even before I read comment #1, Patrick. Droll.

To anyone who has not watched the video of both Romney and Obama at this dinner, I highly recommend it, even if — maybe especially if — you’ve read some of the jokes already in news reports: Romney and Obama are both in good form, and you need to see and hear it to fully appreciate it of each of them.

Because we’re used to Obama making wisecracks, though, it’s the video of Romney that’s the more striking. The gags are written by professional gag writers, of course, but still: It occurred to me while watching it that it’s too bad that what it takes for Romney to really come across as loose and natural is to be in white-tie and tails in a room full of very rich east coast elites. Nevertheless, it’s a bravura performance. I’m touting it to my Facebook friends of both parties on the secret premise that we get the better of every comparison that humanizes Mitt Romney.

Beldar (1bf096) — 10/19/2012 @ 11:37 pm

(That link, by the way, is just to USA Today’s highlights from each candidate’s remarks. The lighting sucks and I don’t think this event is telecast anywhere in full, but if any of you happen upon a link to more or all of it, I’d be interested in that.)

Beldar (1bf096) — 10/19/2012 @ 11:41 pm

And …

My bad, I ought to have skimmed further down the page before posting the link, since I see that our host already has posted some video.

Beldar (1bf096) — 10/19/2012 @ 11:43 pm

This is because they “waived” the “3 months in 3 years max” rule for situations without children. Of course, all those getting the waiver are bound and determined to vote for Obama. They know this rule gets unwaived the moment Romney gets in.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/20/2012 @ 12:13 am

The gags are written by professional gag writers, of course

Romney’s were. I’m willing to bet that Obama wrote his own, being The One and all.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/20/2012 @ 12:16 am

Listen to Obama first, because you wil hear the standard applause for his lines, some of which are actually funny.

Then listen to Romney, and notice how many times his “jokes” about Obama not only hit home, but how the audience reacts. The delay, the soft “oohh” that gives you the feeling that they actually know the line is not just a joke, but true.

All good humor must have a ring of truth to truly be funny….

reff (5e9e00) — 10/20/2012 @ 5:12 am

It occurred to me while watching it that it’s too bad that what it takes for Romney to really come across as loose and natural is to be in white-tie and tails in a room full of very rich east coast elites.

eyeroll

MayBee (4901b0) — 10/20/2012 @ 5:13 am

I was going to comment on the same thing, but will just echo MayBee with a ditto.

JD (8a1df4) — 10/20/2012 @ 6:28 am

Romney said it himself, about wardrobe changes, that it’s good to finally relax and wear what you usually wear around the house.

nk (875f57) — 10/20/2012 @ 6:35 am

Seeing Romney duded up for the Al Smith dinner made me remember how awesome Ronald Reagan used to look when he appeared in white tie and tails. Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama just don’t pull it off as well. (And it has nothing to do with their backgrounds or bank accounts.)

elissa (1014c6) — 10/20/2012 @ 6:45 am

Maybe he appeared comfortable because he knew it was supposed to be an entertaining affair with humor, he knew he had good material, and he didn’t think it would be hard to be funnier than Obama.

After all, going to a Catholic charities benefit where your counterpart has the most radical pro-abortion position of any main figure in politics is kind of a set up for things going well for you. Heck, I probably would have felt comfortable even though I’ve only been to a place with tuxes when I was married and the one in a tux, and I don’t know what to do when there is more than one fork at the side of the plate.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/20/2012 @ 7:11 am

16. You mention O as being radically pro-abortion, but the left paints Romney/Ryan as radically pro-life/anti-abortion. This is a big deal to many women. Old biddies are aghast that Romney will take away their ‘reproductive’ rights. Yeah, right. I’ve tried to explain to libs that lack of fed funding does not mean that their holy rights will be gone. The international community also fears that US aid to international women’s health issues will end. If so, how nice. Let China finance all those follies directly. I had nothing against Dubya sending big bucks to Africa to fight AIDS. I just wonder how much of our money that goes to things like the Muslim Brotherhood is used to line someone’s pocket or buy weapons to attack us or Israel. On the domestic front, why give tax dollars to further line the pockets of the lib elite, already making big profits from their own product sales? How much of fed money goes to a twerp like Bill Moyers, who is already making millions?
Binders! Isn’t it outrageous that women make less than men? Mika B. at msnbc makes half of what Joe Scarborough makes? The horror. The Smith dinner had plenty of media celeb millionaires and billionaires, I suppose. I recognized perky Katie Couric and Chrissie Matthews. Unless she had her salary cut, she makes more than most men.
So what are the odds that Choom attempts to preempt any more Benghazi bleeding with some kind of attack in Libyan before Monday night? What if it is a repeat of the Carter feckup? Good to see that unlike nbc and abc, cbs at least has made some effort to expose the Benghazi lies coming from Obama camp. I know Fox had a special last night at 10 on it.
No doubt that Obama needs to go, but I suggest he has been helped by the very low interest rates; otherwise the debt interest would further drive up the deficit. So what happens if Europe does melt down? I don’t doubt that it is possible to be energy independent here and to hell with the Mideast drain on our finances.

Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8) — 10/20/2012 @ 7:41 am

Nice coherent comment from Mr. Farrakhan.

Leviticus (17b7a5) — 10/20/2012 @ 4:27 pm

Bret Baier essentially did a one-hour interview with the security detachment commander that was pulled out of Libya in August (against his wishes and recommendations) interspersed with cuts of various pronouncements, speeches, butt-covering, that began on 9/11 and proceeded right up to virtually air-time.

It was hard hitting, effective, and not pretty.
After New Years, and with the new Congress, more than a few current Administration personnel are going to have to answer some very uncomfortable questions before various Congressional Committees.

AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434) — 10/20/2012 @ 4:38 pm

MD in Philly, you’d appreciate the NYT’s correction at the end of its story about the dinner, then: The Groaning Grey Lady apologies for mis-describing the attending men as having been in mere “tuxedos,” when in fact they were in the much more formal full white-tie and tail-coat. I’ve never worn one of those get-ups either, although I think I might have worn a polyester sky-blue imitation tailcoat to my high school prom.

Beldar (1bf096) — 10/20/2012 @ 5:06 pm

AD: I saw that too, and by the end I had to cancel my dinner plans. I was so very, very angry that if there had been lefties at the next table talking politics or praising The One, I might have gotten into a fistfight.

What literally started me weeping and pounding my fists was a particular factoid from the report: That not only was there no “spontaneous demonstration” going on outside the compound gates within which Ambassador Stevens had carefully remained throughout this 9/11 anniversary, but that shortly after his last appointment of the day, he’d chatted briefly and in Arabic with the pair of Libyan security guards by the front gate, and then went to bed early. The attack came after he was already in bed.

Beldar (1bf096) — 10/20/2012 @ 5:11 pm

Comment by Beldar — 10/20/2012 @ 5:11 pm

What literally started me weeping and pounding my fists was a particular factoid from the report: That not only was there no “spontaneous demonstration” going on outside the compound gates within which Ambassador Stevens had carefully remained throughout this 9/11 anniversary, but that shortly after his last appointment of the day, he’d chatted briefly and in Arabic with the pair of Libyan security guards by the front gate, and then went to bed early. The attack came after he was already in bed.

But now look at this:

After Benghazi Attack, Talk Lagged Behind Intelligence

That’s the online headline. There was a different headline on the front page and the URL is different still.

Intelligence officials, alarmed that their work has been turned into a political football, defend their approach…. The unclassified talking points were written by the C.I.A. with input from other intelligence agencies so that members of Congress and senior officials could say something preliminary about the attacks; the points would be expected to be somewhat cautious, American officials said.

“The points clearly reflect the early indications of extremist involvement in a direct assault,” the American intelligence official said. “It wasn’t until after the points were used in public that people reconciled contradictory information and assessed there probably wasn’t a protest around the time of the attack.”

That change in the intelligence community’s assessment did not happen until a series of reviews from Sept. 20 to Sept. 22, an American official said on Sunday. Some of the new information came from American officials evacuated from Benghazi on Sept. 12.

The American intelligence official said it took time to determine “whether extremists took over a crowd, or if the guys who showed up were all militants.”

That takes care of the State Department witnesses.

What about the CIA station chief?

The Associated Press reported Friday, for instance, that within 24 hours of the attack, the C.I.A.’s station chief in Tripoli, Libya, e-mailed headquarters that witnesses said the assault was mounted by heavily armed militants. But intelligence officials said Sunday that one report was not enough to establish the attack’s nature.

The CIA station chief wasn’t only one person!

he based what he said on what many people said.

So what were their sources?

That assessment, described to Ms. Rice in briefings the day before her television appearances, was based on intercepted communications, informants’ tips and Libyan press reports, officials said.

1. Libyan press reports.

2. Informants tips

3. Intercepted communications.

The whole article is worthy of the Onion.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/23/2012 @ 4:25 pm

One of the comments on the New York Times websoite is worth quoting:

This rubbish doesn’t even pass a laugh test. There were numerous streams of information, all indicating that there was no mob protest, just a sudden attack by scores of heavily armed men;

— The CIA station chief’s report within 24 hours.
— The live, real time reporting of the attack to the State Department from the consulate.
— Even press reports! For example, the BBC World Service was reporting live from the scene that the consulage was attacked by about well-armed 80 men from the radical islamist group Ansar al-Shariah.

And why isn’t the Times interested in the whereabouts of the 30 or so survivors of the attack? Wouldn’t some of them have a pretty good idea what happened? Isn’t it likely that they told their stories if not immediately, then surely well before FIVE days after the attack.

Why doesn’t the Times interview them instead of relying on quotes from anonymous Administration sources? Honestly, the idea that Rice gave a deceptive account five days later and the White House was still pushing that account until the House hearings because “analysts” were “sifting through” these information streams is preposterous.

Oct. 22, 2012 at 12:06 p.m.
Recommended

It’s not preposterous. That is, it is preposterous what these people in the CIA did. But not preposterous that they relied on them.

Just absurd.

And even worse, there’s no shakeup.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/23/2012 @ 4:39 pm

Republicans say this is preposterous and therefore the CIA could not have done it, and the Administration says the CIA did it and therefore it was not a preposterous way to behave.

And Romney just let this whole issue go.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/23/2012 @ 4:40 pm

10/19/2012

Food Stamp Enrollment at Record High: 46,681,833

24 Responses to “Food Stamp Enrollment at Record High: 46,681,833”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out