Fill out this form to email this article to a friend

Your name		Your email
Recipient email	You may enter up to 20 multiple email addresses, separated by commas.
Your message
Validation Code	Hear validation code
	Enter validation code

We were unable to send your email.

Click here to try again.

Bourbon, scotch go head to head in spirited debate

By Laura Reiley, Times Food Critic
In print: Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Moderator David Mays, left, listens to kilt-wearing Simon Brooking extoll his loyalty to Scotland’s whisky in the Great Whisk(e)y Debate at the Tampa Improv in Ybor City on Monday. Bourbon proponent Bernie Lubbers is in the background.
	[BRIAN CASSELLA | Times]

Story Tools E-mail this story Contact the editor Print this story Comment on this story Social Bookmarking Digg Facebook Stumbleupon Reddit Del.icio.us Newsvine

ADVERTISEMENT Loading Video...

YBOR CITY — Nearly 200 concerned citizens convened at the Tampa Improv Theatre on Monday night to listen to two representatives debate their parties' relative merits. At issue: To "e" or not to "e" in the great whisk(e)y debate. In other words, which is better, bourbon whiskey or Scotch whisky?

Speaking on behalf of scotch, Simon Brooking, a member of the Robertson Clan who can trace his roots back to the 13th century and the Celtic earls of Atholl, took the stage suitably attired in kilt and garter flashers.

On the side of bourbon, Kentucky native Bernie Lubbers wore appropriate Louisville-inspired blue jeans and lizard boots. Moderator David Mays sported something forgettable yet Jim Lehrer-like, bestowing upon him the neutrality and gravitas of this country's fine arbitrators.

As the volatile aromas of Basil Hayden's and Knob Creek bourbon mingled with those of Laphroig and Ardmore single-malt scotches, the debate got under way.

On issues of environmental consciousness, the strong favorite was scotch. After all, as Brooking pointed out, bourbons use their barrels just once before scotch producers inherit them, one of that small country's most successful recycling programs. Brooking's parting riposte: "Go green, drink Laphroig."

In this election year when "change" has battled "experience" like Godzilla vs. Rodan, the two liquors came across as wishy-washy.

"Scotch represents a spirit of experience, definitely," said Brooking, citing the 600-year tradition of Scotch-making. But he also added: "And a spirit of change. Definitely."

For bourbon's part, Lubbers concocted the inane, yet perhaps usable "changesperience." While maybe a fad by scotch standards, its 1795 origins hint at elder statesman in the booze world.

In terms of a health care platform, bourbon was eager to showcase its past as wound-dresser and baby-teething remedy.

For scotch's part, Brooking relayed the peat-heady Laphroig's history in this country during Prohibition, when it was possible to get a prescription for the liquor because, "the government couldn't believe we wanted to drink the stuff."

While the two debaters went at it, attacking and parrying on behalf of their beverages, the audience was urged to sample the goods, sniffing open-mouthed (silly looking, but it minimizes the alcohol whoosh). While the moderator asked about each party's economic stimulus package (neither candidate was articulate on this topic, although Lubbers did volunteer that "I can tell you about Kentucky's stand on gun control. We use both hands."), the crowd drank on.

The winner? Bourbon by a mile.

Its advocates were hazy on the particulars — booze-addled hanging chads in evidence — but Lubbers may have summed up the prevailing sentiment.

"There would be no NASCAR without bourbon."

e

e