Perhaps second to the “nail ladies” bit, one of my favorite quotes was: “We are V.I.P.”
So your position is that this is a criticism of all elitists, and could apply to either the left, or the right?
Interesting.
And YOUR position is that her attitude is fundamentally different from anything we’d see from the left.
So let’s see if we can reach a consensus: does the OP complain about something unique to the right, or not?
No you partisan piece of shit, liberals are not making the claim that people are “too stupid to think for themselves” regarding campaign spending. Speaking of condescending douchebags, huh?
Is it your contention that the smugness on the right is for the most part based on class?
Wow. Maybe somewhere some wealthy person with liberal leanings thinks they are better than other people.
Hypothetical hypocrisy identified! We are done here.
That would be the exact OPPOSITE of what my position is, given the bit you quoted about how the OP criticizes “a specific person’s obnoxiousness.” It’s not an indictment of a political party, it’s not an indictment of politicians in general, it’s not an indictment of elitists, it’s not an indictment of all humans, it’s not an indictment of carbon-based life-forms. It’s an indictment of a specific person.
The fact that there were several people at a single fundraiser who said similarly (although not quite as egregiously) obnoxious things might act as an indictment for their candidate, but I don’t really think that case is made.
Why on earth would we try to reach a consensus about such an incredibly trivial question?
If you’d like to start a different thread about elitism across the political spectrum, that sounds interesting to me. FWIW, I do think there’s a case to be made that elitism manifests differently in the two major US parties. But if I started a thread about my co-worker who says horrible racist things about black Republicans, it’d be an irrelevant hijack for someone to come into the thread to point out that there are racists on the right, too.
To be fair, I thought the same thing when I saw this brought up in the SRIOTD thread: lefties on this board accuse poor people of failing to understand their self-interest all the time.
'Course, we don’t do it in front of reporters at campaign events.
Well, not one who ate carrots whole. Anyway, we are kicking you out of the 99% club. See how your horses like it in Aspen, rich lady! 
Well I asked my maid Consuela if she thought this was the case and she said “Noooooo…” Then she said she needed more Lemon Pledge.
Well, I’m not wealthy, but I’m liberal and I’m quite certain that I’m better than all of you. Don’t take it personally; you’re a bunch of Philistines, but it’s not your fault.
Those people are always looking for a handout.
The difference being that lefties complain that people vote *against their own *self-interests, and they are baffled by that. This lady is complaining that people don’t vote *in favor her *self-interests and she’s pissed off over it.
Talk about entitlement.
No, she’s saying they aren’t voting in their own self-interest:
“A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. “I don’t think the common person is getting it,” she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits.”
While I can certainly appreciate the humor value in that statement, is that what passes as good journalism these days?
At least she understands that we only do it out of rank ignorance.
The first actual real life person I ever heard use the term “sheeple” was a woman who worked in my office. Liberals only vote the way they do because they are sheeple. She was wondering aloud one day as to what day of the week it was, but concluded it was Tuesday because “the man comes on Tuesday” to do the lawn.
I always wondered why she was working in a cubicle on a federally funded research project, but “the man comes on Tuesday” quickly became office legend.
What’s wrong with it? I think it tells a pretty clear story in a very compelling way.
The reporter didn’t tell us specifically which beach permit stamps were on her car. We need to know more about the beach permits. And I’d like to know specifically which model of Range Rover she was driving, and which options it had.
Beach permits were mentioned so the reader would know that this NYC couple *weekends *at the Hamptoms.
Why? I don’t see how those things would help advance the image at all. As it is, the writer clearly conveyed that this was a person sitting in a very expensive vehicle with special access to a fairly exclusive spot who is asserting that Romney needs to do a better job connecting with the common people.
Knowing which Land Rover she had wouldn’t really make a difference.
On the other hand, if she were sitting in a Taurus with community college parking permits on her car, that would markedly change the image, wouldn’t it?
The Man keeps busy. On Mondays he does windows, on Tuesdays he does lawns, on Wednesdays he keeps minorities down, on Thursdays it’s light dusting, Fridays are quashing of conspiracy theorists and more general suppression of little people, Saturdays he does laundry and Sundays are spent on the golf course.
This is what I love about this board. :rolleyes:
If I said the sky was blue someone would jump in and angrily assert that somewhere some other thing was also blue, or that the sky is sometimes gray, or that it’s not really blue it just looks that way because of refraction, or they’d derail the whole thing with discussions about whether or not it’s even a debate.
If the story in the OP is true (and I did express some skepticism in the OP) then this lady has an obnoxious attitude. Can anyone really deny that? Not obfuscate it. Not attempt to create an equivalence with someone else. Not use rhetorical hand waving. Deny it. Can you?