Correction: Howard Schultz is the former CEO of Starbucks, making the boycott even more asinine.
Where will they write their screenplays?
Over the weekend, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced he is “seriously considering” a run for president as an Independent in 2020.
Schultz said the same in an interview with “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday night.
Schultz’s remarks about potentially running for president were not received well by the Left, which hopes to unseat President Donald Trump and believes an Independent such as Schultz could siphon off votes from the eventual Democratic nominee.
In response to Schultz’s flirtation with a presidential candidacy, many on the Left suggested boycotting the coffee chain until the former CEO calls off his run.
Neera Tanden, the president of the left-wing Center for American Progress, said she would start a boycott against Starbucks because Schultz’s run “will help Trump win.”
“Vanity projects that help destroy democracy are disgusting. If he enters the race, I will start a Starbucks boycott because I’m not giving a penny that will end up in the election coffers of a guy who will help Trump win,” Tanden tweeted.
Side note: More choices do not “destroy democracy,” but one should expect nothing less from the president of a progressive think tank.
One of Tanden’s minions at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser, called on MoveOn, the Democratic National Committee, unions, and other Democrat campaigns to boycott the coffee shop to force Schultz to drop his bid.
“If Howard Schultz gets into the presidential race, @MoveOn, @IndivisibleTeam, the @DNC, the major unions, and the major presidential campaigns should all use their email lists to promote a Starbucks boycott until he drops out,” Millhiser tweeted.
As commentator Carol Roth noted, Millhiser and others are essentially calling on people to “impair the livelihood of myriad workers to bully someone out of running for office.”
David Klion said Schultz’s run “legitimately would justify a Starbucks boycott,” and suggested that “even a minimally effective one would probably get him to back down.”
The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake ended up asking if there was “going to be a Starbucks boycott,” though he did not indicate that he wanted one.
These are just the blue checkmarks that have called for the boycott. Hundreds of unverified accounts have also responded to each of these tweets and Schultz’s announcement by calling for a boycott.
Starbucks is about as progressive an establishment as one can get (remember their “conversation about racism” and opening up bathrooms to non-paying customers to appear inclusive?), so boycotting them is pretty much a sweet self-own.
As a non-coffee drinker, I look forward to the ensuing progressive-on-progressive battle.