Howard Shultz closed shop on a possible independent presidential run. We received his lengthy email explaining why he had to drop out. After many paragraphs explaining why we needed an option for the vast middle of the country, he bailed because he was terrified of being seen as a Jill Stein taking votes from a possible moderate Democratic candidate. An odd assertion for an independent seeking to draw votes from both parties. He also mentioned back problems but it’s hard to see how he could be less effective with a bad back than he was when he was healthy. At no time did he put forth any ideas or program to appeal to the middle of the electorate. It wasn’t because he wasn’t offered any. We and many others favoring a third option proffered a wide range of ideas to solve the nation’s problems. Not one idea ever saw the light of day. A strange way to run for President. His run was more about Democratic Party politics than a truly independent run. The only thing he accomplished was diverting efforts and resources away from other possible independents and third parties.
Shultz’s maybe run was so bizarre, it brings forth possible conspiracy theories. We’ll offer ours. The recent Democrat debate shows most of the oomph is on the far left, with only the doddering but somewhat closer to the middle Joe Biden having a chance to prevent a far-left candidate. Betting on Joe finishing the race is a poor wager, leaving the nomination to someone on the left fringe. This was what Shultz claimed he was against. He must be convinced some more moderate Democrat will appear at the last moment to save the day. Was all this to help pave the way for Michelle Obama? Remember we’ve been predicting for years the 2020 nominee will be Michelle. Maybe Howard thinks the same way. Maybe this is what it was all about.
As we predicted, the 1619 project movement goes ever onward. Papers like the Washington Post are running Op-eds demanding the “truth about slavery” be taught as early as possible in our schools. From the debate stage, Beto O’Rourke claims the “USA Should Date Its Creation to 1619 When First Slaves Came, Not to 1776.” The left’s campaign to diminish our nation’s history, its founders, and its market economy marches on. As we noted, the defense of our history and institutions has been tepid. Sadder, supposed conservatives have gone over to the enemy. The Washington Post’s stable of contributors on the right numbers among the herd, Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, and Michael Gerson. These “conservatives” spend all their time showing their absolute disdain for President Trump rather than defending our heritage. Some Conservatives! Gerson even took it further. He chastised the few conservatives to take on the 1619 project with the claim the founders were well aware of abolitionist arguments and therefore were forever stained by not outlawing slavery right from the beginning. He based this on the writings of three contemporaneous abolitionists. That’s it. Of course, had the founders taken this advice there would be no United States. Probably just two smaller nations, one allowing slavery and one free. Is this what Gerson really thinks would’ve been a better outcome? The piece lacks all context and therefore t isn’t acceptable writing. Worse it comes from a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush. Dislike for the present President is no excuse to turn your back on the foundations of conservatism. If the founders and what they risked their lives to bring forth isn’t the bedrock of conservatism, what is? We sent him a link to our timeline in hopes he could put the era in proper perspective. We won’t hold our breath waiting for his reply. He’s probably too busy dissing conservatives.
It bothers us the Post continues to retain columnists that supposedly give opposing views but are playing for the other side. These are the things destroying the press’s credibility with at least half the country. Turncoat conservatives like Gerson only add to the contempt the major press is held by so many. This only helps Trump. We’re no friends of the President but we don’t appreciate this backward firing that buttresses him. If the Post wants present to conservative ideas to show fairness it might try hiring some. It can easily identify them by their willingness to defend conservative values. Our Founders, our brave beginnings and our free markets are good places to start.
If our media can ever get away from “sharpiegate” maybe they’ll spend more time on the most important event of our time, the Hong Kong demonstrations. The outcome for this amazing city will determine whether we descend into another cold war with all that entail s or China changes its path to an open trustworthy society. Right now the outlook favors the big chill. Yet there is no reason for China to fear greater openness. When it introduced some open markets, the country greatly benefited. Why turn your back on success just for some at the top to maintain control. Why do party members want to live in endless fear? Yet, that is exactly where China is headed. Crushing Hong Kong would be the final proof. After, there will be no way we can deal with China other than the way we dealt with the old Soviet Union. Our leaders including the President seem only dimly aware of the high stakes involved. Tough action by the US still might change China’s direction. With a slowing economy and a highly dangerous debt structure, China can ill afford to lose the special privileges Hong Kong enjoys with the US and the rest of the world. Getting behind H.R.3289 – Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith would send a powerful message of the high price China will pay if it continues down the road of oppression. China allowing freedom for Hong Kong would be a signal to the world it wants to join an open world. It may be unlikely but considering the alternative, it’s surely worth the effort.