Warren was wrong about the Buttigieg wine cave event

Watching last Thursday's Democratic presidential debate, I was irritated by Elizabeth Warren's attack on Pete Buttigieg for having a fundraiser in a wine cave that featured a $900 bottle of wine.

It drives me crazy when Democrats expect absolute purity from their candidates, since Republicans, by contrast, tend to be pragmatists who do whatever it takes to win an election.

Buttigieg made this point after Warren attacked him, correctly pointing out that if Warren -- who is a millionaire herself -- donated $2,800 to his campaign, he certainly wouldn't be expected to do her bidding from that point on. He'd just be thankful for the contribution.

Further, today I was told a friend I had coffee with that the $900 bottle of wine is a fiction. Some Googling confirmed that what Warren said wasn't true.

First, there's an opinion piece in the Washington Post: "About Pete Buttigieg's wine cave dinner? I was there." Here's part of what an attendee said.

Of the roughly 50 folks in attendance, plenty were people of means, and certainly all of us who were able to go to an event like that should consider ourselves lucky. (For the record, I am neither a billionaire nor a millionaire. Oh, how I wish.)

But the whole experience fell well short of proving Warren’s suggestion that “billionaires in wine caves" will “pick the next president.” Nor is it an example of “corruption” — a word some Democratic candidates use far too casually to describe political and policy opponents in either their or the other party. Let’s save that term for folks who plainly belong in a jail cell and those who’ve taken up residence in one already.

Warren’s most damaging suggestion doesn’t really stand up if you check it out. She suggested in the debate that we were drinking $900 bottles of wine. Perhaps no one will care, but out of respect for pesky facts, allow me to report: That didn’t really happen, either. The wine, a 2016 cabernet, is the host couple’s signature bottle and it was very good. But it is available online for $185 per bottle — far more than I’ve ever paid in my life for a bottle of wine, but not unusual for wine collector enthusiasts. (I know a few; I wish I knew more.) Checking the price point isn’t hard to do.

Speaking of price, my bet is that you probably want to know: How much did it cost for me to go?

To attend the dinner, donors were asked to “max out” — to contribute the maximum allowed by law to a primary candidate. I made my first contribution to Mayor Pete back in May at a San Francisco fundraiser that was attended by close to 1,000 people. I’ve made additional contributions since, including buying a bumper sticker from his campaign shop. (It’s not every day in America that a gay man has a realistic chance of becoming president, so yes, my partner and I probably qualify as enthusiastic.) All of these contributions count toward the individual limit of $2,800.

So, exactly how much more did it cost to attend that infamous wine cave dinner? In my case, the answer is $11.

So where did the fictitious fable of a $900 bottle of wine come from? Here's part of a Slate story, "'Wine cave' attendee defends event as Warren says she learned from fundraising mistakes."

The owners of the “wine cave”—Craig and Kathryn Hall, who own the Hall Rutherford winery—also came to Buttigieg’s defense and say the fundraiser was misrepresented. “It seems someone’s intentionally trying to create a different image than the reality. And that’s unfortunate,” Craig Hall said. He also said that even though they do sell a bottle for around $900, it is extra large and equivalent to about four standard-size bottles. The winery’s most expensive wine costs around $350, and that’s not what they served at the fundraiser.

Thus the $900 bottle of wine wasn't served at the fundraiser, and even if it had been, the cost per normal bottle of wine would have been $225 -- since the $900 bottle is about as large as four usual bottles. That's a lot for a bottle of wine, but not a crazy amount (that said, I buy Trader Joe's $3.99 organic red wine, and it tastes fine to me).

I've donated to the Warren campaign, and still like her a lot. But this episode bothers me, since it shows that Ms. "I have a plan for that" is still prone to making factual mistakes that belie her reputation as someone who can be trusted to not act like a typical lying politician.

I'm about to send $100 off to the Buttigieg campaign. He's my wife's favorite candidate, and Mayor Pete is looking better to me after his recent debate performance. I definitely agree with this Buttigieg statement.

“We need to defeat Donald Trump,” he said, noting that Trump’s reelection campaign has already accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars. “We shouldn’t try to do it with one hand tied behind our back.”

Comments

[Skyline]

NONE of the current democrat self-promoters will ever come close to the oval office.
If you want to send money to another "flash in the pan", it's your choice.
Americans, weary of Obama's dreary negativity, are embracing hope and opportunity for all citizens.
America is re-emerging as the beacon of strength, hope and opportunity in the world as it once was.
Speaking personally; the democrat platforms do not interest me, my family, neighbors , industry leaders or friends.
The only people that I can even imagine that would vote for THAT are those that have absolutely nothing going on..
Sad....

[Jim Scheppke]

The honest truth is that Mayor Pete is unqualified to be President of the United States, despite being a good guy and a brilliant politician. His opponents need to say that instead of bringing up less important objections to his candidacy. Salem Mayor Chuck Bennett, who is mayor of a town that is considerably larger than South Bend, Indiana, would not be qualified either (sorry Chuck). It's a little ridiculous to me that Mayor Pete has made it this far. We are experiencing a totally unqualified POTUS right now. How's that working out?

[Jack Holloway]

Anyone who is buying in to the carefully self-crafted image of Mayor Pete had better take a look at the information below. He is, and will be if elected, a shill for the oligarchy.

Is Pete Buttigieg A Shill For The Donor Class?
by Miles Mogulescu | November 23, 2019
https://ourfuture.org/20191122/is-pete-buttigieg-a-shill-for-the-donor-class

//

The Insider: How National Security Mandarins Groomed Pete Buttigieg And Managed His Future
By Max Blumenthal 12/17/19
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/17/national-security-mandarins-groomed-pete-buttigieg/

Pledging to “end endless wars,” Pete Buttigieg claims he has “never been part of the Washington establishment.” But years before he was known as Mayor Pete, an influential DC network of military interventionists placed him on an inside track to power.

//

(this next one takes a while getting to the meat of the matter, but it is thorough and fascinating)
All About Pete | Current Affairs
by Nathan J. Robinson
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete