Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

FEAR: Democrats, Media, Never-Trumpers Continue to Pile On Howard Schultz

FEAR: Democrats, Media, Never-Trumpers Continue to Pile On Howard Schultz

He’s liberal, but he’s not buying Democrat socialism, so his independent run presents a threat to uniting the left against Trump.

For two solid years, Democrats and their media allies have called Trump a threat to Democracy.

Now many of the same people are in full meltdown mode and are even threatening boycotts of Starbucks because a successful businessman might run as an independent, which they believe will hurt their chances.

Alex Seitz-Wald of NBC News:

The Democratic Party’s public enemy No. 1: Howard Schultz

He’s only been in the 2020 presidential fray for two days, but Howard Schultz has already accomplished the near-impossible: He’s united the Democratic Party.

Against him.

Everyone even loosely affiliated with the party, from billionaire centrist Michael Bloomberg to the hard lefties at Justice Democrats, has paused their ideological infighting to join together in open season on the coffee mogul and his potential independent presidential bid.

The hostility is prompted by a fear that Schultz, the ex-Starbucks CEO, would split the anti-Trump vote and get the president re-elected. The threat might be overblown, but the fear and anger is real, especially since Trump himself reportedly sees Schultz as an asset to his campaign.

“We are focused on defeating Donald Trump, and anyone who shares that goal should vote for the Democrat nominee in 2020,” said Democratic National Committee spokesperson Xochitl Hinojosa.

One of the other reasons Democrats don’t like Schultz is because he is one of them, but doesn’t share their desire to lurch to the left. As a result, he reminds voters just how far Democrats have drifted as a party and they don’t like that.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to know where he gets the nerve. Jenna Amatulli writes at the Huffington Post:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Pushes Back At Howard Schultz After He Scorns Her Tax Plan

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) responded on Wednesday to criticism of her tax proposal by former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz with this sharp question: “Why don’t people ever tell billionaires who want to run for President that they need to ‘work their way up’ or that ‘maybe they should start with city council first’?”

Schultz, who has never held elective office, announced this past Sunday that he is “seriously considering” a 2020 run for president.

Schultz appeared on Morning Joe on Wednesday. Joe and Mika decided to ask him how much a box of Cheerios costs, in a blatant attempt to paint him as out of touch with average people. The Week reports:

Howard Schultz has no idea how much a box of Cheerios costs

Howard Schultz is apparently more of a reduced-fat turkey bacon and cage-free egg white breakfast sandwich kind of guy.

The ex-Starbucks CEO announced his probable presidential ambitions on Sunday, and appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Wednesday to discuss the widespread backlash he’s received to his “centrist independent” affiliation ever since. Hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough promptly served Schultz some rapid-fire questions, including one intended to prove how well the billionaire relates to the average American.

“How much does an 18-ounce box of Cheerios cost?” Brzezinski asked. “I don’t know, I don’t eat Cheerios,” Schultz reasonably responded. Brzezinski let him know it’s “four bucks,” just a bit less than one bowl of hearty blueberry oatmeal at Starbucks.

Here’s the video:

There are also never-Trump conservatives who are losing their minds over this:

This treatment of Schultz is a warning to anyone who might stand in their way of defeating Trump. The Green party better nominate someone with a very thick skin in 2020. They’re going to need it.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


casualobserver | January 31, 2019 at 9:28 am

There is nothing more revolting than someone who “hides” behind the conservative label. Thankfully there are some who at least stick to principles while hating Trump. But not all.
The beauty of the new hard left push is that there is no longer a quiet or even secret agenda. It’s all out in the open. And the beauty of the anti-Trump “conservatives” now speaking freely is we are learning so many never really bought what they were saying. Even though for many (Kristol, as one example) it earned them millions. For those it has always been about power and control from DC.

If nothing else good comes out of the “Trump era”, this might be enough.

    maxmillion in reply to casualobserver. | January 31, 2019 at 12:14 pm

    NeverTrumpers are NOT conservative. They’re either liberals in drag as conservatives, or they’re the R establishment equivalent of “apparatchiks,” preserving their little sinecured status such as it ever was. They have marginalized themselves and will never be taken seriously again. Raghead, this is your life.

Just another reason for the incredibly immature left to throw a tantrum. Appears to me that Schultz has accomplished far more than AOC ever has and ever will. And given his employees – even part-time employees – far better healthcare than the government promises to deliver.

    zennyfan in reply to Dagwood. | January 31, 2019 at 9:57 am

    He’s given them health insurance not healthcare.

      amatuerwrangler in reply to zennyfan. | January 31, 2019 at 10:46 am

      I’m glad someone ‘gets it’. The whole healthcare debate is, and has been, over who pays the bills, not the services rendered. If you have ever had to get a new doctor when your long-time one retires, or you move away, when you are a Medicare patient (or will be one in a few years) you know what it is like to have doors slammed in your face.

      It’s nice Schultz provided the coverage, and its nice of the people who think its good to pay $5 for a fancy coffee drink to pay for it. No one has done anything to improve the options for using the coverage.

        I went on medicare last year. I have had ZERO problems getting doctors and relatively quick appointments. I have not had a single doctor including specialists turn me down because they didn’t take medicare. All I know is medicare is working GREAT for me. I pay basically $700 a month for medicare and a medicare supplement plan that picks up all the deductibles and copays that medicare doesn’t pay. Its a great supplement plan. And for that reason one that Obamacare outlaws for people just a year or two younger than me. I hope Obamacare doesn’t end up outlawing it for me and others on Medicare.

        Medicare drug plans aren’t bad but if you have extremely serious illnesses requiring amazingly expensive drugs, then the drug medicare supplement plans require many of thousands of dollars be paid by the insured. Medicare without a drug supplement plan doesn’t cover any drugs, but the drug supplement plans are cheap for what you get.

        If the democrats were to succeed with “medicare for all” the first thing they will do is destroy medicare that exists now for those on it, and require each medicare insured elder person to suddenly pay $5,000 to $10,000 dollars more per year for healthcare, so medicare for all can take care of young illegal aliens, etc. Medicare for all will mean that supplement plans that cover all copays and deductibles like the one I have at a very reasonable price won’t even be allowed to be sold at any price.

        What the democrats want to do to medicare recipients and medicare plans, etc. is reprehensible given a lifetime of a course of dealing and promises that were made to those current on or just about to be on Medicare.

          tom_swift in reply to garybritt. | January 31, 2019 at 1:29 pm

          I have had ZERO problems getting doctors and relatively quick appointments.

          Good for you. I have.

          What supplemental insurance do you have? Just Medicare. Oh, sorry, the doctor isn’t taking new patients. We do have a nurse practitioner you can see . . .

          Sorry you are having problems with medicare acceptance. Maybe it varies based on where one lives. I’m in texas.

          Medicare acceptance doesn’t depend on any supplement plan. They don’t ever ask about that. Probably they can’t by law. Just call up doctor ask if they take medicare and they say yes. At least that has been my experience.

          Insurance companies that offer medicare supplement plans have to offer by law plans A through g or h or something. Supplement plan F is the one that covers all copay and deductibles. The trick is you have to sign up for the F plan when you first join medicare. Otherwise they don’t have to offer it to you as an option later. It is a great deal if you happen to be very sick when you first sign up for medicare. Otherwise some of the other plans may be a better deal.

          Obamacare has done away with the plan F requirement for new medicare insureds beginning in 2019. it’s part of the obamacare screws the elderly provisions.


      Dagwood in reply to zennyfan. | January 31, 2019 at 10:55 am

      I know of a young person who worked part-time at a Starbucks while attending school. Developed a serious physical condition that required weeks in the hospital and repeated surgeries. His bills were paid in full.

      Now do you really want to nit-pick over the phrase I used?

        amatuerwrangler in reply to Dagwood. | January 31, 2019 at 12:33 pm

        Not nit-picking, Dag, just pointing out that “coverage” and “medical care” are not necessarily the same thing. Maybe someone has a way to streamline the education and training of doctors so that there are more of them available. Also, the availability of medical care varies greatly by geographic region.

        I’m glad your friend had a good outcome all around.

        And Gary, have you thought about where that supplemental coverage would come from when the plan is to eliminate all private insurance?

          tom_swift in reply to amatuerwrangler. | January 31, 2019 at 1:35 pm

          just pointing out that “coverage” and “medical care” are not necessarily the same thing

          Actually, they’re not even close. Just as fire insurance doesn’t put out fires.

          Maybe you missed it but I’m not in favor of medicare for all. That would ruin medicare for everyone. My experience gas been it works pretty well for elderly if you can navigate its rules. Medicare for all would be a the ruination of medicare and lousy health care for all.

The Friendly Grizzly | January 31, 2019 at 9:46 am

I hope businessmen and other non-politicians will run for more offices. We need people who’ve had real jobs.

$4 for Cheerios? I don’t care how big the box may be, that’s grotesque.

Maybe the socialists are right—we need price controls. As we know, in practice those usually cause shortages. So socialist control could make Cheerios both cheaper and almost impossible to get. Win-win!

There’s nothing like a good beclowning. Knock yourselves out, lefties. I wish you guys loads and loads of angst and turmoil.

Streisand Effect. Knock yourselves out ranting against him.

That’s how Trump got a billion dollars of free publicity.

That same box of Cheerios is $2.79 at my supermarket, so why does it cost so much more in NY, Mika? Besides, what does it prove that he doesn’t eat Cheerios? I don’t eat them, either (I keep them for my brother-in-law for when he and my sister are visiting). That has little or nothing to do with his politics.

    phdwyphe….Why does Mika pay so much for her Cheerios ?

    It’s because Mika only buys her Cheerios from The Che Do-Da LeCheerios Boutique… The Os are hand formed and They only use free range oats.

The Friendly Grizzly | January 31, 2019 at 10:41 am

I’m a Jor’s Os man myself…

Another billionaire, who is a Democrat, is pointing out that the Party at the national level has gone nucking futs. It’s a kind of “Me-too” movement for politics.

After the Republicans got trounced, there was a huge debate over what they had done wrong, and how they could better align themselves with the desires of the American electorate. There were tons of articles about what was not working in our economy in particular, due to the high unemployment rate.

That self-scrutiny eventually led to win by a former Democrat espousing policies shared but not implemented by both parties over the last thirty years. He won because he got votes from Liberals and Democrats as well as whatever functions as the Republican base. Our system is set up so that broad appeal is an inherent requirement for the Presidency, and it worked as designed.

I am greatly disappointed that what I used to think of as my Democrats have done nothing positive about the voter criticism they have received. Instead, we have been treated to one highly public and nonsensical tantrum after another. It makes me think that this administration really has cut off the gravy train for Friends of both Democrats and Republicans at the national level. This was much-needed.

Yes, I have come to the conclusion that the opposition to DJT at the national level is venal. Unless the Party straightens up, I will continue to vote for Republicans or Independents.

    casualobserver in reply to Valerie. | January 31, 2019 at 11:21 am

    Our system is set up so that broad appeal is an inherent requirement for the Presidency, and it worked as designed.

    What alternative electoral system is there? Just curious what your point is.

    You talk like you prefer to “vote party”. After so many let downs, it seems more and more people realize that party matters little on many issues each individual cares about. For example, if you care about responsible government and spending, there isn’t a party for you. A lot of empty words from all. But zero differences when in power.

    It’s the growing trend away from parties that delivers candidates like Trump. Ones that are inept or dishonest about their “crossovers” are usually sniffed out. Like Crist in FL. It took him a long time to regain power and his role as US Rep is FAR from what he wanted. But he only had to convince a small number of people of his “earnest” political change.

    Not sure if “broad appeal” really applies. Appealing to the right voters does. After all, Dems cannot stop chanting about how Trump didn’t get the majority of the votes. Not sure that qualifies as broad.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Valerie. | January 31, 2019 at 11:36 am

    Lots of people in both parties were dissatisfied. When I voted for Trump I did so hoping it would catalyze change in both parties. Most certainly Trump’s win triggered a complete meltdown in the Democratic party, and a partial one in the Republican.

    I would most certainly like to see Trump win a second term, and then a string of outsiders winning after that. I think it would be good for American politics if both parties found themselves mostly sidelined for a decade or two. That is probably the best way to purge Rinos.

They already know that Jill Stein (or a Green Party equivalent) will take votes on the hard Left, so now they see a center-Left challenge.

    casualobserver in reply to Neo. | January 31, 2019 at 11:24 am

    I get the impression it isn’t even that deep. My hunch is most of the paid consultants (the thousands of them….!!) worry only about not being able to make the election exclusively about Trump. It’s their only focus. ANY dilution worries them. It effs up their strategy to have to address anything but him.

The comment from AOC – does she possess any self awareness at all? She may be the dumbest person in congress and that is not saying much.

I am confident he will bow out eventually when the death threats start rolling in from the tolerant left.

Medicare reimbursements are princely compared to those paid by Medicaid. The reason why “Medicare for all” would wreck Medicare as it now exists is because it would be more accurate to call these proposals “MedicAID for all.”

Low reimbursement rates can turn into a vicious cycle, as providers overschedule and/or over-treat patients to bring in more revenue, and Medicaid then requires ever-more paperwork to protect against this (thus raising the cost of seeing Medicaid patients even higher, leading to overscheduling/overtreating, leading to …).

Thus, the utopia offered by Ocasio-Cortez et al, a utopia where there are no co-pays or deductibles and no pesky waiting for insurance approvals (because everything must be approved) can be expected to (as utopias so often do) lead to its opposite, a dystopia in which demand for services of questionable medical value create a level of demand that can never be satisfied, leading to interminable waits and a survival of only physicians and other providers willing to commit fraud and/or accept bribes to keep the lights on.

Yet utopians never learn, do they?

Given Schultz’ anti-socialist vehemence it is possible that he has decided that Trump is the lesser of the Republican versus Democrat evils. That would give him good reason to stay in the race in the face of a full scream by our entire radical commie-left “mainstream” Democratic Party furious that he is “helping Trump.” Duh. Thats a feature, not a bug.

Shultz might well think Trump is doing a very good job on the economy (since it is hard to miss). What surprises me is that Shultz turns out to be giving priority to the economy. The phony charges of racism he leveled at his own company for the sin of holding blacks to the same standards as whites showed a radically opposite priority.

Can he possibly have learned a lesson from that fiasco? Is he saying to himself: “OK let’s not make that same mistake with the whole country, let’s put the economy before the SJW hyperventilations over the relative nothing of “micro-aggressions”?

Of course “micro-aggressions” aren’t just a relative nothing. They are a perverse fraud, but Shultz doesn’t have to accept that to recognize that the first imperative is to have a strong economy.