I did not see the 60 Minutes interview of former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, but it does strike me how he has managed to spook Democrats with the possibility he might make an independent bid for the White House:
Sarah Kendzior: "No one wants you. The only thing you will unite this country in is a mass boycott of Starbucks."
Congressman Ted Lieu: "A rich businessman with no government experience has wrecked America as @POTUS the past 2 years. Howard Schultz thinks the solution is another rich businessman with no government experience."
Charles Johnson: "Don't."
Kevin M. Kruse: "I’m an American political historian and I can assure you that the only thing you’ll accomplish by running for president as a centrist independent is helping re-elect Donald Trump."
There's seem to be a contradiction here. On one hand, the presence of Schultz on the ballot guarantees Trump's re-election. On the other hand, nobody wants Schultz. Well, both statements cannot be true. If Schultz has no constituency of speak of then he will be but a footnote in the 2020 race regardless of his resources.
I believe Congressman Lieu's statement is quite unfair. Are all rich businessmen with no government experience the same? While Trump grew up wealthy, Schultz is a self-made man. Nor does Schultz possess any of Trump's appeals to racism.
It seems to me Democrats believe they are entitled to the White House. No one is.
I don't know if Howard Schultz is the best person to succeed Donald Trump in the White House. There is a good chance he might be entirely ill suited to the position. But before arriving at any such conclusion I intend to give him a fair hearing just as I intend to give Kamala Harris, Julian Castro and most other Democrats bidding for the White House.
No comments:
Post a Comment