A dinner bet three years in the making

At dinner tonight with a pair of Squire Sanders attorneys at Lons at the Hermosa, the talk turned to politics, and I expressed my opinion that Hurricane Katrina and Bush’s low approval ratings create the perfect conditions for a Giuliani candidacy. One of the attorneys, Christine, said she thinks it will be McCain; I said I think he’s too reviled by too many conservatives (I read in The Economist the other day that he has a higher approval rating among Democrats and independents than among Republicans), whereas Giuliani might just be able to get over the pro-choice hump because of his other qualifications. So she proposed a bet, which I of course accepted. If Giuliani wins the nomination, she owes me a dinner at Lons; if McCain wins the nomination, I owe her a dinner at Lons; and if neither one wins the nomination, we go out for drinks anyway, but nobody owes anybody anything. (Presumably our respective significant others will be involved in this as well, lest anyone get any ideas.) She then insisted that I post about our bet on the blog, so that it will be recorded for posterity. So, here you go. :)

25 Responses to “A dinner bet three years in the making”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Strikes me as somewhat inappropriate for a:

    1) very junior associate

    2) of a major firm

    3) to not just permit, but encourage

    3) an under-consideration 2L

    4) to very publicly comment on a

    5) contraversial topic

    6) discussed during a firm-related outing.

    I realize that this is all in good fun, and probably harmless. However, blogging is a bold new world, particularly for AmLaw 100 (?) firms. For her to encourage this posting might strike a junior partner as unprofessional behavior. Brendan obviously has nothing to be concerend about; Christine, on the other hand…

  2. Charles says:

    Geroge Allen.

    ‘Nuff said.

  3. Sean says:

    Forget “blogaholic.” You may need some help with that gambling addiction. :-)

  4. Briandot says:

    Recorded for posterity? Or to create a public record and therefore make it arguable in the court of public opinion? :-P

    (can’t have you welching, now)

  5. Moonbat_One says:

    McCain’s more popular with Democrats than Republicans? Well of course he is. He consistently sells out the GOP in favor of the Democrats. I’m sick of watching him do it over and over and the press adulating him as an example of a “good” Republican.

  6. Bill says:

    As a Republican, I will not vote for McCain. Period. He has lost pretty much any and all credibility with the Republican base.

  7. David says:

    McCain sells out the GOP? How exactly, I’d like some examples.

    Do you mean he isn’t a good Republican (i.e. he doesn’t support the major aspects of the party) or that he isn’t a good lap dog to the current administration (who frankly are about as Republican as I am).

  8. David says:

    actually they are probably LESS Republican than I am, come to think of it

  9. David B says:

    Perhaps an outside shot, but I would vote for Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas. Mike Pence of Indiana would be good, too. Would not vote for either McCain or Guiliani. As for Guiliani’s pro-abortion stance, I don’t think he, or any other nominee, will win the ’08 election. They will not get many social conservatives’ votes, and with the country as closely divided as it is now, any Republican nominee will need social conservatives votes.

  10. Pete T says:

    Bet you’re both wrong. The Republican Party is finally going to nominate someone who actually represents their party, someone like Brownback of Kansas, someone who will never win in the general election.

  11. former ssd'er says:

    putting this out there during your interview period is a bad idea. ssd is a very conservative firm and will not like this at all. blogging is consuming your life and clouding your judgment. i worked at ssd in cleveland and in arizona and kelly singer of the az office is about as loose as it gets, and even he is a tight wad.

  12. Andrew says:

    And how many drinks are you both going to buy me when the nominee is Condi Rice?

  13. Da Man says:

    SSD is not conservative in AZ. Whomever posted that SSD in Phoenix is conservative and decided to take a pot shot hiding behind anonymity is ridiculous (and pretty weak for not being brave enough to post their name when calling someone out). I would estimate that half or more of the attorneys in Phoenix are registered as Democrats.

    As for the nomination, the elder idiot Jeb, is the likely candidate (unless GW continues to smear the family name while serving as a completely incompetent president).

  14. Kelly says:

    This made me laugh out loud, and I can’t determine who would say this about me. Clearly, however, the person hasn’t been in the PHX SSD office lately–we’ve had a ton of free thinkers here for a while now.

  15. Looking for hotties... says:

    Who is that blonde chick you interviewed with. She was lights out man… any luck with that?

  16. Mike says:

    Have you taken the Seinfeld-influenced precaution about defining what qualifies as a “dinner”?

  17. Brendan says:

    putting this out there during your interview period is a bad idea. ssd is a very conservative firm and will not like this at all. blogging is consuming your life and clouding your judgment.

    When it comes to interviews, I am myself. I don’t worry about what I’m “putting out there.” If they don’t like something about me, well, it would eventually become a problem someday, so they probably shouldn’t hire me in that case! What you see is what you get. This strategy, “clouded judgment” or not, seems to be working okay: I already have one offer from a major law firm in Phoenix… which is another reason I’m not going to freak out about something like this. The “worst” case scenario is that I don’t get any more offers, yet I still have a job… so what’s to freak out about? But regardless of that, I think the real “bad idea” is censoring myself and putting on a fake persona in interviews. People seem to like my real persona pretty well, and I don’t see the need to alter it, or hide part of it, in an attempt to get a job.

    I talk about my blog a lot during interviews. Generally, people seem quite impressed with it, perhaps because they don’t talk to too many candidates who have had articles about them in the New York Times and so forth. For better or worse, it sets me apart! I always hasten to point out, however, that I have a strict policy of not blogging about work. In fact, this is the first time I’ve said anything at all detailed about even the interview process, and I only did it because the attorney wanted me to. :)

  18. John says:

    Kelly- You know you are a tight wad.

  19. Looking for hotties... says:

    Too bad you didn’t get to interview with that Kelly chick. She sounds hot too.

  20. David says:

    still no answer to my McCain question???

  21. Anonymous says:

    Well, Brendan, you might want to reconsider the “no blogging about work” policy as if you take a job with one of these places you’re not going to have much of a life to blog about.

  22. Russian Bear says:

    Kelly is really hot for a female impersonator.

  23. Irish Spartan says:

    I don’t care how many people say Kelly is loose. He’s worked under me for years, and I still say he’s as tight as it gets.