Disclosure and sex

[Ideologue]

Hence, backup.

Doesn't really answer the question though.  Do most people fear, and reasonably fear, a loss of control?

[CountDeMoney]

Center-right: Yi (for now, he drifts up and down the spectrum), Malthus.  Moderate right: Ed, Berkut, Barrister Boy, Habbaku, dps, derspeiss, crazy canuck, OvB (sober).  Radical right: OvB (intoxicated), Strix.  Schitck right: Neil, Slargos.

I demand to know how fucking crazy I am.

[Ideologue]

Center-right: Yi (for now, he drifts up and down the spectrum), Malthus.  Moderate right: Ed, Berkut, Barrister Boy, Habbaku, dps, derspeiss, crazy canuck, OvB (sober).  Radical right: OvB (intoxicated), Strix.  Schitck right: Neil, Slargos.

I demand to know how fucking crazy I am.

I said already.

Then the moderate left is Jacob, Zoupa and Sheilbh, the radical left is me and Mihali, and the chaotic evil left is CdM.

[CountDeMoney]

That works.

[Ed Anger]

chaotic evil left is CdM

Or in nerd terms, Vecna.

[CountDeMoney]

chaotic evil left is CdM

Or in nerd terms, Vecna.

LOL, holy shit that's old school, man.

[Sheilbh]

Isn't that essentially the worldview of the classic limousine liberal?

Not at all.  There's no contempt on the part of a champagne socialist (our equivalent), they're just from a different class background.

I think Marti is the person I most disagree with on almost every subject

[Admiral Yi]

Not at all.  There's no contempt on the part of a champagne socialist (our equivalent), they're just from a different class background.

Which explains why limousine liberals were so offended by Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment.

[Sheilbh]

Not at all.  There's no contempt on the part of a champagne socialist (our equivalent), they're just from a different class background.

Which explains why limousine liberals were so offended by Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment.

Limousine liberals knew he was referring to Thomas Frank's nuanced and rather considered argument, albeit in a clumsy way.  Why would that offend anyone?

[Admiral Yi]

Limousine liberals knew he was referring to Thomas Frank's nuanced and rather considered argument, albeit in a clumsy way.  Why would that offend anyone?

Because you just made that up.

[Sheilbh]

Because you just made that up.

What do you mean?

Edit:  And the Clintons did try to make that play, so at least they were 'offended'.

[Razgovory]

Well, I would do everybody.  (Lol. )  Bearing in mind that I'm bound to forget some folks so don't be offended like I asked some other girl to the cotillion.  And some of you just don't talk politics enough for me to know where you stand.

Center-right: Yi (for now, he drifts up and down the spectrum), Malthus.  Moderate right: Ed, Berkut, Barrister Boy, Habbaku, dps, derspeiss, crazy canuck, OvB (sober).  Radical right: OvB (intoxicated), Strix.  Schitck right: Neil, Slargos.

Ahem, you seem to forgot someone.

[Ideologue]

Anti-Yi left.

[Admiral Yi]

What do you mean?

I mean I've never heard of Thomas Frank's nuanced and rather considered argument and I doubt most (if any) limousine liberals have either.

[Sheilbh]

I mean I've never heard of Thomas Frank's nuanced and rather considered argument and I doubt most (if any) limousine liberals have either.

Well that you've not read it doesn't say much, but it's probably part of the reason why you're not a limousine liberal. 

The book itself was basically suggested that the white working class used to be leftwing, the right used cultural issues - like God, guns and gays - as a different populist strategy.  So they captured that vote.  Rural areas that were once bastions of progressive politics, like Kansas, started voting for a party that went against their economic self-interest.  It attracted a lot of attention and spent 18 weeks in the NYT bestseller list.  It is probable that a significant number of limousine liberals read it.  I think it's almost certain Obama did, I think he's explicitly cited it.

If they didn't then it was widely disseminated through the liberal blogosphere.  Especially in response to Obama's comments.
Krugman wrote a column on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18krugman.html?ex=1366171200&en=3e6cf2aa5e0536b5&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
HuffPost interviewed Franks about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/14/thomas-frank-on-obama-not_n_96528.html
Andrew Sullivan called it 'the Thomas Franks argument': http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/04/the-red-blue-divide/218055/
Larry Bartels, a more straightforward lefty than Franks, and a critic of Franks' work wrote an article about the comments advancing his own argument: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17bartels.html

All of which indicates that this idea was swishing round the left-wing that reads blogs and enjoys the NYT, which I'd suggest is a better definition of limousine liberal than someone who's left-wing but contemptuous of the poor.  So I think most of the limousine liberal left either thought the remarks referred to Franks, or read someone who made that connection, or spoke with someone who did.  I think they probably thought the words were poorly chosen and inartfully expressed.  I don't think they felt anything offensive was said.

It's worth noting the right noticed the Franks connection too.  Some found that entirely offensive such as Canadian mentalist, Mark Steyn: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120805672535010747.html
The WSJ were at least relatively interesting in their article on it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120805672535010747.html