President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

C'mon. Howard Schultz has been a great CEO -- with some big failures, but that's besides the point.

But, what's his name recognition?

Trump was able to start his campaign with decent poll numbers not just because he was viewed as a successful businessman, but because he had been famous for over 20 years. He had a prime time, network TV show. He was a regular (phone in) guest/commentator on the morning shows.

And, I get it. People think Trump is a dunce, and that if he can do it, anyone can.

But, Schultz has never faced the kind of scrutiny he will in a presidential campaign. He's never been pressed on the issues the way he will be in a presidential campaign.

It's not as easy as it looks. Jeb! had no good answer when it came to drawing a distinction between himself and his brother. Bill Clinton was unprepared for a Monica Lewinsky question. Hillary Clinton blew two presidential races.

In a crowded field, a billionaire, who made his money leading a luxury brand, that employed mostly low wage workers, is not going to connect with voters, or break through the field.

 

It’s time to stop the WH visit for sports champions. Maybe the college kids keep going. The pro athletes don’t give a shit, and it’s becoming increasingly a thing to protest a president by declining to attend. Happened under Obama, too.

 

I feel naked without a watch. I even wear one to bed each night.

 

Wait.


You don't think he's a dunce?

 

This is a good point. Individual CEOs are unknown, even those of extremely well-known companies. Steve Jobs was the last one to achieve any kind of overall social profile. Trump was in the news for 30 years before he ran. Schultz would be better off running for governor or Senator where he can use his money to introduce himself to a smaller audience and where, most important, he can pick his audience.

 

Gosh, maybe ole Ted Cruz did study up on presidential pardons at one point.

79. The pardon power was not seen as suspension or dispensation. Traditional understandings of the pardon portray it not as a policy instrument, but as an instrument for achieving justice or ameliorating political dissent on a case-by-case basis. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote, “A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power intrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.” United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150, 160–61 (1833). The pardon power carries a scope specifically limited to crimes already committed. The pardon may not apply to acts that have not yet been committed, because it would function as a personal waiver, the impermissible dispensation of the laws. James Pfiffner, Pardon Power, in THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION 203 (Edwin Meese III et al. eds., 2005). As a result, the pardon power does not encompass an expansive policy of nonenforcement under the guise of prosecutorial discretion.

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Cruz_Final.pdf

Maybe having your recollection changing is a common thing in DC these days.

 

Guess I won’t be drafting Zach Ertz in my fantasy leagues!

 

Not even remotely true in Obama’s case. His speech st the 2004 convention put him on the map.

If you asked 100 random people today who Howard Schultz is, at least 99 would have no clue.