Turns out TPM’s inane story did produce something useful after all — a bona fide metric of conspicuous consumption keyed to ideology. If you oppose letting entitlements cannibalize the budget until we’re at the point of fiscal collapse, then yeah, $350 for vino is too much. If, however, you support that collapse in the name of “protecting the poor,” then you’re fine at $80 a bottle.

Question: What if you support a combination of modest tax hikes and significant reforms to entitlements in the name of sustainability? Can you get away with a $150 bottle then? $200?





Ace asks a good question. Why didn’t this moron bide her time in the restaurant until Ryan and company had paid their tab? Once she freaked out and put him on the spot, it was a lead-pipe cinch that he would scrupulously cover every cent of his share of the meal to avoid any ethics suspicion. That’s not to say he wouldn’t have done so anyway, but the angry outburst erased any chance of finding out. A toast then, my friends, to mindless, counterproductive liberal rage: Pop open a bottle of $350 wine for this one if you’re got it.

Two exit questions for you. One: Given her long track record of caring, how expensive a bottle could Pelosi get away with drinking? Whatever the answer is, rest assured, she can afford it. And two: Isn’t the news today about Michelle Obama scarfing down burgers kinda sorta the flip side of Wine-gate? Granted, the detail about a political opponent screaming hysterically at her is mercifully absent, but FLOTUS never said you can’t indulge occasionally. Or did she? As a New Yorker in the age of Bloomberg, I’ve lost track of all the clean-living guidelines I’m supposed to follow.