Nasty, Brutish & Short

Alcohol Archives

The Candidates' Homes, an NBS Tour

January 17, 2008 02:59 PM

Of course, Mother Jones put these photos up because they want you to think we're ruled by monied, hypocritical, gas guzzling aristocrats, no matter which party wins.  I'm putting them up because real estate is porn for married people.  So let's begin!

Here's Huckabee's house.  Not surprisingly, the candidate that I like the least has the house I like the least.  It's weighs in at 5,124 square feet, with a deck and a swimming pool.  It's also boring, and has atrocious landscaping:


Here's Rudy's pad in New York.  I really can't relate to it, but it's got a Walnut-paneled dining room and a cigar room.  I don't smoke, but I like the sound of that.  There's no rule that says you can't use your cigar room as a drinking room.


The McCains do the tall building thing too, but theirs is a $4.7 mill condo in Phoenix.  They also have a ranch in Sedona, which was profiled in Home & Garden.  I think I also saw it in Architectural Digest a few years ago.  It was nice.  Better than their condo, anyway:


Turning for a minute to the other side of the aisle, here's Hill and Bill's place in Westchester County.  I have no problems with it, and it certainly comports with whatever their pollster told them to buy.  I just wonder if they've ever seen it themselves?


Can't you just feel the love radiating off of the Clinton's house?  You know it's just a place of intimate diners for two, and passionate, romantic interludes.  When Hillary's in D.C.

The Obamas' place in Chicago is also nice.  And, it has a 1,000 bottle wine cellar.  Me like the sound of that!  Party at the Obamas!  They need to learn to bring the trash cans back up promptly though.  How rude.


You've already heard me opine in the hideousness of the Edwards home in North Carolina.  It is too big (21,000 square feet).  And it has an indoor basketball court.  They also have a beach house in North Carolina.  Presumably it's more suitable to his "Two Americas" crap than this is:


Here's one that's big and tasteful.  It's the Romney's ski retreat in Park City, Utah.  Looks like a house the Bushes would own.  Mitt has residences in several states, I believe.  Mrs. Romney must do a lot of dusting.  Of course, when you don't smoke or drink, what else is there to do?


NBS is ready to call the winner in the taste department, though.  This is the Thompsons' house in McLean, Virginia.  A seven bedroom, five bath stunner with a real Presidential air.



Another book I won't be writing...

January 11, 2008 10:43 PM

Someone beat me to it!  One nephew, at the age of three, once pointed to beer in their refrigerator and explained "Das daddy juice."  So it runs in the family.

"We are facing an epidemic of cocktails served in inappropriately large glasses."

January 10, 2008 09:54 AM

Well at least it's not bird flu.  A oversized cocktail epidemic?  Is this really a concern?  Apparently so:

"A too-large glass gives the drink more time to lose its chill and initial zest, and a half-filled glass looks unexciting, so an average-size cocktail glass of 4 1/2 ounces is the most satisfactory," wrote Collette Richardson in the 1973 edition of "House & Garden's Drink Guide."

Thirty-five years later, just try finding a 4.5-ounce cocktail glass. In fact, most glassware called for in cocktail books has become exceedingly difficult to find. Retailers also are stocked with ridiculously huge double old-fashioned glasses, clocking in at 10 to 15 ounces. Finding the normal six- to eight-ounce old-fashioned glass that most drink recipes call for is difficult but not impossible....

The same is true with wine glasses these days.  The sizing has gotten ridiculous.  Now you don't buy a glass, you buy a "pour."  And that's usually a third of a bottle.  And apparently, it's not a good thing.  The Washington Post tells us:

"Cocktail geeks have always known that small martini glasses are better."

I'm a cocktail geek and I didn't know that.  I like the oversized glasses because they look less... dainty.  But apparently the theory is that if the drink is too big, you won't finish it while it is still ice, ice cold.  Makes sense to me.  Have two small ones instead of one big one.  Or, four small ones instead of two big ones.  Or, six small ones instead of three big ones.  You get the idea.

Iowa. So what's the dream scenario for tonight?

January 3, 2008 04:38 PM

I'd just love the Republicans to poll as follows:

(1) Romney, (2) Huckabilly, (3) Ron Paul, (4) Fred Thompson, (5) McCain and (6) Rudy.

Why?  Because Romney is the well-rounded conservative in the case (other than Thompson, who can't win).  Huckabee at No. 2 because well, that's just where he's going to be if he doesn't get No. 1.  I'd like Huckabee to poll lower (last, actually), but that's just not possible.  I'd like Ron Paul at No. 3 because I will delight at the gnashing of teeth.  Fred at 4 because that's the only way Paul gets the 3 slot, and because Fred needs to drop out.  McCain at 5 because we want to burst the latest "we love John McCain" media bubble before New Hampshire gets out of control (if it is not already).  And Rudy at 6, just because he's not trying in Iowa at all.

As for the Democrats, I'd love to see:

(1) Obama, (2) Edwards and (3) Hillary. 

Why?  Because OH MY GOD if Hillary Clinton finishes third it would be just about the happiest day I could possibly ever have.  Obama in first because he's not John Edwards and because if Edwards finished first he may actually win the nomination and that would be a disaster because he could actually be elected President.  And we do not want that.

Can you imagine what tomorrow morning will be like if Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul both finish third in their respective primaries? 

So I'm ready for a glass of wine, a spot on the couch, and Henry (the black lab) in his wing-back chair.  Hopefully Shepard Smith is still on vacation.  His annoying face is the only thing standing in the way of a great evening.

The paps confront a pregnant Jamie Lynn...

December 24, 2007 10:18 AM

And while we're on the topic of pants, did I mention the NBS humiliation of the weekend?

October 15, 2007 09:18 PM

So we're sitting there at a very, very nice steakhouse (St. Elmo's in Indianapolis--if you haven't been there, go) for my father-in-law's retirement party.  And we all consume a fantastic meal of Thanksgiving-sized quantity.  And when it's all done, we're all sitting there talking about how full we all are, and how much we all had to eat.  You know how you do. 

And so we're sitting there talking about this, and Mrs. NBS says, jokingly, "I'm glad I'm in my elastic pregnancy pants."  And so what do I, who was still in the  "I had waaaaaay too much to eat mode" then loudly proclaim, like a complete idiot?


This was met by TOTAL SILENCE.  Mrs. NBS just totally froze.  I totally froze.  Her dad and her brother started talking about something else.  Maybe they were so polite that they just pretended not to hear.  We still don't know.  They didn't even twitch.  I have to think if they were paying attention, they would have at least twitched.  I mean how far can good manners take you?  You just can't hear something like that and not twitch.

So we decided they didn't hear it.  And I then decided the situation was hysterical, and started cracking up.  It's amazing what two martinis and a glass of pinot noir will do to help you speedily recover from an embarrassing faux pas.  Thank you martinis and pinot noir!