No Starbucks for you! (Or at least, no Starbucks money)

A screen grab from an official Starbucks video...

Perhaps that headline was a bit too alarmist. Because that would be TOO cruel — cutting anyone off from the black nectar. But to politicians, if not to normal people, being cut off from the cash flow would be as bad as losing the coffee itself. Because, you know, their priorities are seriously out of whack.

Thanks to Steven for reminding me of this item I meant to post a day or two ago (it was first brought to my attention by ADCO’s Lanier Jones:

Starbucks CEO to DC: You’ve been cut off

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is fed up with Washington.

And he is doing something about it.

Spurred by what he describes as a failure of leadership on the part of lawmakers, Schultz is mounting a one-man bull rush against apolitical culture that has “chosen to put partisan and ideological purity over the well being of the people.”

What does that mean? No more political donations — not for anybody.

And he’s recruiting other CEOs to join him…

If only Starbucks could run Washington. It would, at the very least, smell much nicer. And imagine if we could address the nation’s problems in the efficient, pragmatic way in which baristas fill orders. I’d want to hang out in Washington all the time. And then, and then… we could open more Starbucks governments in the state capitals! And so forth…

Why hasn’t the Coffee Party been pursuing this idea? Must the UnParty do everything?

9 thoughts on “No Starbucks for you! (Or at least, no Starbucks money)

  1. bud

    The REAL Coffee Party now resides at Rocky Roast. A cut above Starbucks. And with Italian ice cream to boot.

  2. Phillip

    Pure claptrap from Mr. Schultz designed to make us all think more highly of him and his corporation as we swill more double-tall lattes. The system (and the gridlock) is working perfectly for most CEOs and most major corporations, why would they mess with success? If a few CEO’s join him, it only means more proportional influence for the corporations that will continue to fund politicians.

  3. Brad

    Hey, I’ve tried those independents. I’ve also tried competing chains, like Caffe Nero, which you find all over Britain. Caffe Nero wasn’t a bad place to get an espresso, and I even drank tea there once, but…

    For consistently excellent coffee, anywhere in the world, there’s nothing like Starbucks.

    Before I got into it, I, too, was willing to dismiss Starbucks. Particularly when it replaced the Joyful Alternative. But the JA by that time had become a boutique, and was no longer the head shop it had been when it was across the street in the early 70s. No huge loss.

    And then, along about 2004, I tried Starbucks. And tried it some more. And they had me. I’ve tried other places since, but never been as pleased.

  4. Michael

    Howard Schultz is a big lib. He gives almost exclusively to Democrats. Whenever someone of his profile shows up on a show like “Morning Joe” and criticizes Washington for “putting partisan and ideological purity over the well being of the people” it is really code for just another attack on Republicans, conservatives, tea party…take your pick. So he says he’s not giving to both parties to make it appear non-partisan. This kind of stuff strikes me as very much un-UnParty.

  5. Brad

    Interesting. I would have guessed that he would be for anyone he perceived to be better for this business, without any ideological preference. That’s the way most business execs look at things…

  6. Elliott, South Carolina

    What a great idea!

    I need to take notes on these comments. Anyone who “criticizes Washington for putting partisan purity aver the well being of people” is actually attacking Republicans. Am I the only one who did not know this? I thought these were just comments from an UnParty supporter. What’s the code for criticizing Democrats?

  7. Phillip

    Michael is basically correct. Though I still think this is about “branding,” saying something that sounds reasonable to make people feel good about buying your brand, it is possible that Schultz really believes in what he is saying. If true, that certainly means he cannot be a Republican or conservative, since it is their sworn duty to put MORE corporate money into politics (witness their joy over the recent SCOTUS decision), in fact to actually replace politics and governance with a nation run exclusively by “market forces.” So you will not hear most CEO’s echoing Schultz’s call, especially since they are now seeing that there can be an economic “recovery” of sorts powered almost exclusively by the upper fifth of the population.

  8. Nick Nielsen

    I brew my own at home – Eight O’Clock 100% Columbian Whole Bean. Starbucks? I’d rather drink Maxwell House.

Comments are closed.