Home | About | Donate

Howard’s End

Howard’s End

Robert Reich

America is the only place in the world where any citizen over the age of 35 can run for president. No experience in government necessary. No support from a political party necessary. You don’t even have to have any ideas or policy proposals.

Take Howard Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks whose most notable achievement to date has been the Mocha Frappucinno.

Last Tuesday, CNN made Schultz a Serious Presidential Candidate by giving him an hour-long “town hall” in which he fielded questions from an audience.

"More Money, Than Brains."

Again more BS from the corrupt wing of the Democratic party.

If Mr Schultz , a billionaire many times over siphons votes off from the Democratic Candidate it because said Democratic Candidate is looking for votes of the persons who would normally support the Billionaire class.

Why on Earth would a poor black woman vote for Mr Schultz?

Select a candidate who reprsents the LEFT and the poor and the working class poor and those struggling just to get by and you do not have to count on votes that would go to the Republicans. Centrism in the Democratic party was championed by Clinton, under who Reich served and has been the greatest con ever. Centrists are the enemy of the working class and not Trump. The reason the Democrats are to the Right of Nixon on policy is because of the fraud called Centrism.

Schultz should run as if he does in fact “bleed votes from the Democrats” it would clearly show the Democrats have not moved left at all and are still a party of the 1 percent.

4 Likes

Given that Schultz is running on a “I am not Trump, but have little else to offer” platform, he may well steal votes from the Democrats when they select their neoliberal “I am not Trump, but have little else to offer” candidate. That’s why the party establishment is so infuriated with Schultz. How dare he steal their platform! That, and the party, in its arrogance, always assumes that any independent or third party candidate is stealing votes from them. Ask any Green.

7 Likes

Near as I can tell, Schultz simply lifted Clinton’s 2016 platform and relabeled it as his own.

3 Likes

Didn’t this guy open fifty Starbucks shops in Russia. I’ll bet he had to talk to Russians. He may even have dealt with Russian lawyers. Why aren’t the Democrats screaming Russia, Russia. Hmmh.

Peace
Po

9 Likes

Don’t be so quick to disregard billionaires. I read an article this morning about one of Warren Buffets friends. Ninety seven year old billionaire who had advice on how to lead a long and happy life. He skipped over the part about being able to afford the best food and medical care but really went in big on this. “. Always live within your means.” I kid you not that stupid MFer actually said that. And yet we look bad for wanting them dead.

6 Likes

heads on pikes time has arisen

the plutocrats run this country and nothing will change without the american version of yellow vest protests

4 Likes

So Reich longs for the days when the parties had all the power.

For the days when an organization like the DNC could determine who had paid their dues (or, in the case of Hillary, who had paid off the DNC’s debts, and in so doing, had taken over the DNC itself).

Well, I look forward to the day when our 2-party farce is dismantled and we actually have real choices instead of packaged bullshit artists selling us whatever they think we want to hear.

And Schultz isn’t going to win anything. After he squanders a few million and still polls in the low single digits, he’ll crawl back under his luxurious rock.

3 Likes

Apparatchik Reich has it wrong. CNN didn’t give him a town hall because he’s a billionaire. They gave him one to threaten to “Divide the Left,” (as if all the centrist candidates of the unDemocratic Party are on the ‘left’,) in case Tulsi, Bernie, or Warren get the nomination, and thus make it sure that Trump wins.

I can’t really say if this would happen. But the establishment that orients towards the unDemocratic Party is convinced this would happen. They pull back in horror at the idea of Schultz running, but it is fake horror. The point is to scare the base. They actually (and I include you Apparatchik Reich in this accusation) would actually be filled with glee if Schultz ran if Tulsi, Bernie, or Warren was the nominee and they know he won’t run if Biden, Harris, O’Rourke, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Castro, or Booker is.

This is a threat.

And Apparatchik Reich is carrying water for his masters in attempting to scare the base.

2 Likes

I don’t support candidates Inslee and Shultz because they are from Washington State and Seattle. Wsdot is among the nation’s worst DOT agencies and it shows in the Seattle area which likewise employs with great fanfare, completely ineffective transit systems. Writing from Portland Oregon, I became aware of a disparity between these bordering states in several transportation infrastructure projects. In a major bi-state bridge project, Wsdot menacingly pulled rank on ODOT and replaced respectable and finished engineering with Wsdot crap that was ultimately rejected as “structurally unsound.” In this time of a critically important Green New Deal, mass transit, travel and transport systems reform is key. From first hand experience, I do not see the least understanding how this may happen from Washington State phonies. Even Bill Gates places electrifying the travel sector a low priority. Anyway, my post makes a distinction between candidates, not on their party or personality or platitudes, but on their competence. I defend Bill Clinton’s war record as far less insanely destructive than any republican President. The duopoly argument is weak.

David Swanson and Glen Ford running on the Green Party ticket would be the perfect counterweight to Howard Schultz’s independent run.
These two gentleman’s writing and speeches should be front and center on CD’s article scheduling. Then, we can just sit back and read what the true cognecenti of American political thought would critique about their proposed solutions to America’s various dilemmas.
Like we say in Portland, " Just do it ".
Or, like they say in Seattle, " Would like a maple brownie with that? "

1 Like

Don’t drink his starbucks crap and don’t drink his political kool-aid. Hopefully he is a no-starter along the lines of Ben Carson. Funny how their egos make them think they can lead the United States.

Really? That’s just so Nike!

I live in Seattle, and I say, “I wish I didn’t live in Seattle.”

1 Like

Because it appeared that Donald Trump couldn’t win either, but then he proved that with the right breaks a self-centered immature billionaire who could not win can win and become the President, and then afterwards further enrich himself while getting massive amounts of attention and amusement. If I understand recent history correctly, Trump’s original plan involved profiting while loosing the election.

1 Like

So Robert Reich is concerned about splitting the vote. Splitting the vote is a problem because of how our elections are organized.

One method to change that (and I expect that likely there are better ways) would be for the candidates to run to get as many votes as they can, and then to have a lottery to select the winner where the chance of a candidate winning the lottery was proportional to the percentage of the vote that the candidate had obtained. While there would be problems with selecting candidates in this fashion, splitting the vote would not be one of them, and the every four years lessor evil blackmail arguments would be a thing of the past. Imagine, people actually voting for what they want (democracy), instead of voting for the second worst possibility left to them (oligarchy presenting two vetted candidates).

:: Prolonged applause for the idea of Swanson and Ford front and center here at CD ::

It seems entirely likely that Howard Schultz does not particularly approve of Robert Reich’s usual conservative Democrats, still less to anyone to their left.

CNN has or ought to have enough sense to imagine that they can get ratings out of Schutz, at least this early in the program, and that they can do so without coming anywhere near issues or offending their owners, their advertisers, or their paragovernmental and governmental sources, or providing information.

The idea that Schultz has some responsibility to stand down for the Democrats strikes me as not only ridiculous, but offensive and telling. The Democrats have not been able to come up with a progressive candidate, so he has an opening.

I doubt that he’s likely to split the left, unless by “left” you mean something like “the Democratic Party,” as Reich well might. Schultz may draw the Macron, Clinton, Clinton, Obama, NAFTA-TPP, drone-bombing financier and oil magnate crowd. Were he to manage to do so during the Democratic primaries, the results might be interesting.

It seems counterintuitive to even consider Schultz as a candidate. But frankly, look at where the debacle of moneyed politics has brought the United States. We really may be looking at a 2020 that goes to Trump and Pence over Biden and Beto O’Rourke. Go ahead, try explain why underpaid and over-regimented baristas are the most serious of shortcomings among that crew.

No, as usual, Reich is fixed on the wrong problem. Get a candidate, and every Tom, Dick, and Harry might not run for office. If you can’t produce one, they all ought to.

3 Likes

“America is the only place in the world where any citizen over the age of 35 can run for president. No experience in government necessary. No support from a political party necessary. You don’t even have to have any ideas or policy proposals.”

A bit of a false premise to start this (pretty much useless) article. It includes at least one inaccuracy, as not all citizens of the US can run. The law discriminates against the naturalized ones. Which must be at around 10% of the citizens at least.

But more importantly, the article refers to the ‘de jure’ conditions for running, not the ‘de facto’ conditions for running. Which are either falsely represented in his opening paragraph, or being omitted entirely. Once in a while, Reich writes a good article, but this is not one of those times.

This is a letter I wrote to the Editor of the Washington Post about Mr. Schultz:

Howard Schultz, former CEO of Starbucks, is considering a run for President as an Independent. He thinks the Democratic Party has gone too far left. Left of what? Too far for what?

Lord, deliver us from billionaires with trillion dollar egos. Does Father Know Best? Is Big Daddy going to save us from the Communists? He has no experience in elected office and no experience dealing with co-equal governors (is he forgetting Congress and the Supreme Court?).

As Donald Trump found out (although he has yet to admit it), being President of the United States of America is not quite like being Chief Operating Officer of a large corporation. He is not autonomous.

The Gross Domestic Product of the United States is $23,874.93 billion. Starbucks’ Net Worth is $30 billion. Howard Schultz going from CEO of Starbucks to President would be like a Girl Scout going from selling cookies to CEO of Starbucks.

And, if his statement about health care is any indication of his grasp of national issues, his candidacy is in big trouble before he even declares.
“Every American deserves the right to have access to quality health care. But what the Democrats are proposing is something that is as false as The Wall, and that is free health care for all . . . . “ He is beginning his run with a big, fat lie! Medicare for all is not free health care. It is the government offering a place for buying health care insurance. Medicare is not free. Neither would Medicare for All be free.

If Mr. Schultz cannot tell the difference between single-payer health care insurance and free health care, then he is not qualified to run for President of the PTA, let alone the United States of America. And if he is deliberately engaging in fear-mongering by telling a lie, then he is no better than the current occupant of the Oval Office.