Fresh air from Capitol Hill

The Senate Judiciary Committee held their vote yesterday on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Most Republicans on the Committee voted "no" by proxy, but one, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, voted "aye" along with a heavy dose of perspective. Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, whose daily Washington Sketch article gives readers a fly-on-the-wall account of some of the more mundane happenings in the District, provided the details.

Graham stated, "I think there's a good reason for a conservative to vote yes, and that's provided in the Constitution itself." He then read aloud from Federalist Paper #6, written by Alexander Hamilton: "The Senate should have a special and strong reason for the denial of confirmation," such as "to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from family connection, from personal attachment and from a view to popularity." Graham said Kagan "has passed all those tests" envisioned by the Framers, then he challenged his colleagues: "Are we taking the language of the Constitution that stood the test of time and basically putting a political standard in the place of a constitutional standard? That's for each senator to ask and answer themselves."

After his speech, Dick Durbin (D-IL) weighed in with equal sensibility: "During the course of his statement, I reflected on some of the things that I have said and how I've voted in the past and thought that perhaps his statement suggested there was a better course for many of us to consider in the future."

Some additional excerpts from Graham as outlined by Milbank:

First he read from a letter written by conservative legal scholar Miguel Estrada, a George W. Bush nominee blocked by Democrats in 2003, stating that Kagan should be "easily confirmable." He then read from a letter Kagan wrote recently containing similar praise for Estrada. "That gives me hope," Graham said, that people of different "legal philosophy and political interaction can at the end of the day say nice things about each other. . . . I think it would make a lot of Americans feel better if we could react that way ourselves a bit."

"Seventy-three of the 126 Supreme Court nominations," Graham continued, "were done without roll-call votes. Something's changing when it comes to the advice-and-consent clause. . . . The question I have for the body: Are we living in an age of legislative activism where the words haven't changed in the last 200 years, but certainly the voting patterns are?"

He reminded his colleagues that "no one spent more time trying to beat President Obama than I did, except maybe Senator McCain." But "President Obama won," he said, and "the Constitution in my view puts a requirement on me as a senator to not replace my judgment for his, not to think of the 100 reasons I would pick somebody differently or pick a fight with Ms. Kagan."

"Objectively speaking, things are changing, and they're unnerving to me," Graham's lecture continued. It is, he said, "our obligation to honor elections" -- an obligation that led him to vote "yes" for Kagan. "It would not have been someone I would have chosen," he said, "but the person who did choose, President Obama, I think chose wisely."

I suspect this account will not get much attention, but it should. Senator Graham has taken a bold step that I truly hope does not bite him in his 2014 re-election bid. For now, I'm going to enjoy a welcome breeze coming from the general direction of the Capitol.

A great pick for around $10

I am always hesitant to recommend things in price categories. It is not generally a good idea, because if you set a limit on what you want to spend, say $30,000 on a car, you could very well miss out on that $30,500 gem with the leather and premium sound system. In that case, you might be more than happy to snatch up the great deal because you value the perks more than the $500.

The same is true of wine. People who say they will not spend more than $10 on a bottle of wine are doing themselves a great disservice. Not that there are not solid offerings at the $10 and below price point; it's just that people eliminate some great wines just beyond that arbitrary cut-off (not to mention that moderate inflation will make that $8 bottle that's right in your sweet spot today just outside your reach in 2017 (better stock up while you can)).

All of that to say that I enjoyed a fantastic zinfandel the other night that set me back $11. It was very full bodied, with big, ripe flavors of cherries and plums and a spicy kick that would go great with pizza or spaghetti. You're looking for the 2007 Rosenblum Paso Robles zinfandel.

Paso Robles is an appellation in the center part of California known as the Central Coast. Growers there produce some of the best zinfandel grapes in the state. Rosenblum is one of the most noted zinfandel producers in the state. That combination comes together to make an outstanding value that you should plan to enjoy in the near future.

Don't be daunted if you look for this in a well-stocked wine shop - Rosenblum produces a lot of zinfandel. Just zero in on what I'm describing here and you can save the rest to try later. I've included a picture of the label to help you out.

Cheers!

A little dose of Bordeaux

Once again, I've gotten lazy on writing. Truth be told, I'm still trying to find my voice in this medium, and I've often found myself conflicted. In essence - what qualifications do I really have to opine to you, the consumer, on political matters? Aren't there eminently more-qualified individuals out there dispensing roughly the same quips and observations? Perhaps it's just a phase that will soon pass, but it's where I am today.

Wine, however, is a topic that is truly a joy to discuss and comes with far less bloodshed. How about let's focus there for a while?

For those who enjoy a high-quality, traditional Bordeaux, 2009 is shaping up to be the vintage of the decade. Take that how you please - 2000 and 2005 were also vintages of the decade. But the weather in the Bordeaux region was on the side of the vintners in 2009, and barrel tastings are indicating that 2009 will at least rival some of the great vintages of past decades.

As a side note, for those not accustomed to deciphering the labels on many old-world wines, the region generally indicates the grapes used to make the wine. In the case of Bordeaux, you can count on cabernet sauvignon as the base, particularly in wines of the Left Bank (of the Gironde River - go ahead, grab your world atlas). A traditional Bordeaux blend will also usually include merlot, cabernet franc, petit verdot, and/or malbec as blending grapes. Remember the Meritage (rhymes with "heritage") from several posts ago? That is our name for a Bordeaux blend.

The 2009s won't hit the market for another year or so (a little longer for some), but the futures market is lighting up, with Chateau Haut-Brion's first release Wednesday morning going for $612 per bottle, and Chateaux Margaux, Lafite, and Mouton-Rothschild going for $550 per bottle. That's right - you can purchase futures that lock in a price on release. Be careful, though. As with any investment, you're assuming the risk of the price on release not meeting or exceeding the price you paid today. Also, note that you don't have to pay over $500 a bottle - futures of high quality wine can sell for much less.

So what are you waiting for? A little direction from yours truly on some of the more-familiar, New World wine? Ok, ok. I'll have some of that up for you soon.

Until then, salud.

Census participation

Remember the recent "movement" by the anti-government establishment to boycott the census? While some popular conservatives promoted answering only the question regarding the number of people in a household, others took it a step further by suggesting that people ignore the census altogether as a sign of civil disobedience (many immigrant groups oppose participating in the census for other reasons). Interestingly, many of the groups boycotting the census are the ones who wrap themselves in the Constitution as they decry the continued degradation of individual liberties.

In addition to the irony that taking the nation's headcount is mandated by the Constitution, higher participation rates translate to taxpayer savings. Each percentage point increase in the response rate is estimated to save taxpayers $85 million by reducing census workers' efforts to physically count individuals. So boycotting the census not only obstructs carrying out a Constitutional mandate, it wastes taxpayer dollars.

I applaud any person's (or movement's) principles when they have a solid foundation that supports a consistent view on a wide range of issues; the libertarian Cato Institute is a fantastic example of that type of organization. Unfortunately, many of those who propose boycotting the census are caught up in a contradiction that is difficult to unravel.

Where are they now?

Arizona's new state law to combat their problem with illegal aliens infringes on personal liberty and gives the government the authority to question people without reasonable cause. Surely this represents an unprecedented widening of government's power to detain anyone they want for questioning. And the state is now claiming that they will require federal funding to help pay for the hiring and training of additional law enforcement; state officials have even started a preemptive campaign of knocking Washington for not giving them the money based on their initial read of federal officials' reactions.

Does this not rock the very core of Tea Party beliefs? Where is the outrage? Where are the demonstrations? Or is an overstep of the Bill of Rights acceptable when the goal is to send "them" back "there?"

I've not written in a while - sorry about that. It's not for lack of material: final passage of a health care bill largely written by Congressional Republicans, the feared anti-nuclear President's administration taking huge steps toward securing rights for power companies to build nuclear power plants, the opening of several new sites for off-shore oil drilling, a likely repeal of the military's don't ask/don't tell policy, and a continued ramping up of drone and special forces strikes in Afghanistan that are incredibly demoralizing to the Taliban.

I have realized that by opening myself up to writing about issues of the day, I am becoming more partisan, and I can't say I like that very much. Not that I am consistently landing on one side of the aisle; but I find myself in awe and somewhat ashamed of the current discourse in Washington.

I'll get back on the horse soon. For now, I feel like taking this in for a little while longer...

A talking point that's run its course

Not a lot of substance on this one, really just more of a rant. Can we please dispose of the notion that passing anything in either house of Congress constitutes "ramming" it through? I realize that this description conjures up a tidy notion that can rally the troops, but I think it's unfortunate that the troops eat this stuff up. A bill passes in the House and Senate when the majority votes Aye. That's it. If a bill garners 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate, it heads to the President for signature. Many pieces of legislation pass by slim majorities. These days, unfortunately, most everything in the Senate needs 60 votes because it takes 3/5s of that chamber to close off debate on an issue (still only requiring a simple majority to pass the legislation itself).

Today the angst comes from Republicans on the Hill, who accuse Democrats of "ramming through" healthcare legislation, especially with talk of reconciliation back in the air. The Democrats take the wrong stance when they respond that, for example, the tax cuts passed in 2003 were rammed through when brought to a floor vote under reconciliation procedures that garnered a split 50/50 vote, with passage secured when Vice President Cheney broke the tie. By responding with such anecdotal evidence, the Democrats only perpetuate the illusion that any of this constitutes "ramming through," or is somehow unfair. If it weren't for talking heads getting both conservatives and liberals angry at perceived injustices perpetrated by the "other side," we would probably avoid much of the grandstanding by the legislators themselves.

In any case, let's just recognize that the majority party in a given chamber will do everything it can to pass legislation that is in line with its party platform and polls well back home. It's okay if you don't like the legislation; but don't fall mindlessly into the trap of thinking that the "other side" is asserting an unfair advantage in the game.

A fantastic pairing

I recognize that I am supposed to write about wine and politics, so I will describe the wine that the Mrs. and I enjoyed last night as an excuse to also describe the steak we had with it - or more to the point, the way we prepared the steak.

I'll preface by saying that last night's pairing worked incredibly well because we paid as much attention to the steak as we did to the wine. This approach is key, and is often ignored by people who know one but just slide past on the other. In general, remember that fattier meat usually pairs better with younger, more powerful, tannic reds. That means that a super-lean, grass-fed filet might not pair as well with your favorite young Australian shiraz as it will with a more elegant Bordeaux or Meritage (an American word coined in 1989 that rhymes with "heritage" - don't try to impose any fancy-sounding French pronunciation here; you'll come across as either arrogant or ignorant (or both) if you ask your server to recommend a nice "meritaaaaj.")

Our choice of steak was grain-fed USDA Choice filets. Choice is one step below Prime in the USDA grading scale that is primarily based on the amount of marbling, or fat, in the meat. It's also a step below in price, which is good for the pocketbook. For preparation, I started with a tip from Morton's Steakhouse to get the meat out of the refrigerator about 30 minutes before cooking to let it approach room temperature. This is to allow the temperature to slowly rise before being exposed to the harsh environment of cooking, which will reward you with a more consistent, evenly-cooked steak.

While sitting out, I seasoned both sides of the steaks with a liberal amount of kosher salt, some fresh cracked pepper, and a little safflower oil. The jagged edges of the kosher salt stick better to the meat than other salt varieties, which helps create the flavorful crust on the outside after searing. The safflower oil has one of the highest smoke points of the cooking oils, which will come in handy. You see, all cooking oils have a temperature at which they will start smoking, indicating their molecular structure is breaking down and, more important to your taste buds, the flavors are turning bitter. I don't want to sear meat applied with olive oil over very high heat - I will be left with a smoky, bitter-tasting mess.

I pre-heated my oven to 500 degrees, and several minutes before searing, I placed a cast iron skillet on a burner over very high heat. At this point, I was using tips from Alton Brown of Good Eats fame. Once searing began, I was only a minute away from moving to the oven, so I wanted to make sure everything was ready to go. I placed the steaks on the skillet and did not touch them for 30 seconds, after which I flipped them and seared the other side for 30 seconds. One more flip and I quickly moved the skillet into the 500 degree oven. After two minutes in the oven, I flipped the steaks and cooked an additional two minutes. I removed the skillet, placed the steaks on a plate, and covered with foil. At that point, I needed to let the steaks rest, and I didn't want them to cool too much. Resting allows the intensely-heated juices to uniformly reintegrate themselves into the meat. The four minutes in the oven at that heat cooked the 1.5"-1.75" thick steaks to medium-rare, and any additional "cooking" under the foil while they rested was minimal. At no point in the process did we pierce the meat with a thermometer.

This method rewarded us with the most flavorful, juicy steaks we've cooked at home. The combination of searing on a burner and cooking in the oven allowed a mix of techniques best suited for achieving separate goals. This is something that can be more difficult to accomplish solely by using a grill.

Now onto the wine. Joe Heitz of Heitz Cellar served in the Army Air Corps (predecessor to the Air Force) during World War II and went to the University of California at Davis on the GI Bill, graduating in 1948 with a degree in enology. After several stints in different capacities, including working for California's 20th century wine Jedi, Andre Tchelistcheff at Beaulieu Vineyards, he and his wife Alice purchased eight acres of vineyards just south of St. Helena in the Napa Valley. Joe really got on the map, however, when he acquired the 1966 harvest of fruit from Tom and Martha May's vineyard in Oakville. Joe's first bottling of Martha's Vineyard Cabernet Sauvignon placed that particular wine among California's, and indeed the world's elite red wines. Many of the world's finest cellars and restaurant wine lists include choice vintages of this magnificent wine.

Heitz Cellar offers two other less-storied, but still outstanding cabernets: Bella Oaks (since 1976) and Trailside (since 1989), both from vineyards in Rutherford (Napa Valley) . We went with a 1998 Trailside. While 1998 is not a blockbuster vintage for Napa wine, primarily due to problems with El Niño, some vineyards and winemakers lucked out and made some beautiful wines. Our bottle aged gracefully and packed more elegance than power, which is what David O'Day, wine director for Del Frisco's Restaurant Group recommends for a lean cut of filet. Its core of currant and soft tannins was the perfect complement to one of our most memorable Valentine's Day dinners.