I make beer bread from time to time and I've used a few different beers to do it. Since it's pretty much just baked away the beer need not be anything great, but it ought to be something that doesn't make one stare at the bottle in disbelief and wonder what the brewer has against people. This is a variant of what I've dubbed Child's Law. Julia Child said that one should never use so-called "cooking wine" to cook with. Use a wine that you would drink. It doesn't have to be anything great, just something you'd drink.
Some might argue that I've already been violating any variant of Child's Law by using Schlitz. The return to the 1960s recipe is an improvement over what it had been, but it's not a truly great thing. It is, however, good enough that I wouldn't refuse one for taste reasons. Thus it is good enough for baking.
I got curious about another name, Schmidt, which was (scarily) even cheaper than Schlitz. When I opened a bottle I got a whiff that reminded me of Schlitz. Turns out it's made by the same company (Pabst/Heileman). It did not taste like Schlitz, with that peculiar note of.. something I can't identify and am not sure I really want to... and is pretty much a typical cheap U.S. bland macrobrew. Inoffensive to the point of almost not even being there. I've decided it's a suitable "lawnmower beer" (one you'd have on a hot day to cool down and still claim to be having a beer) and might be reasonable with hot dogs or pizza. It's nothing great, but nothing that I'd pour down the sink either.
And a couple of days ago I made beer bread with it. That turned out quite well. I did make a couple changes to the recipe I had been using: I baked at 375 F rather than 350 F and for 45 minutes rather than 30 minutes. That seems to make for a less crumbly, higher quality bread and drives off more of any undesirable odd flavor (something that Schlitz would leave behind). I'm not sure that would work for Budweiser's American Ale, but that's almost upscale for baking anyway.