The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
The Winning Trump Ticket & Cabinet (Part I)
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If Donald J. Trump wishes to lessen the impact of his disappointing second in the Iowa caucuses and walk back the tack he’s taken with Ted Cruz—he must begin to think big and talk big.

Loud in not necessarily big.

Call it triangulation, a concept associated with Bill Clinton’s successful strategies, or call it “the art of the deal”: It’s time for Trump to DO IT.

To this end, Trump must quit the “we don’t win anymore” formulaic rhapsody, and start fleshing out substantive positions. A pragmatist does so by introducing the people he’ll be recruiting to “Make America Great Again.”

To Cruz belongs the Trump Department of Justice portfolio. Offering Justice to Cruz allows Trump to both put Ted in his place as unsuited to the presidency; while simultaneously making him part of Team Trump and repairing that relationship.

Ted is too soft to be US president in these troubled times. But he’d make a spectacular attorney general in charge of DOJ.

There’s a reason George W. Bush hates Ted Cruz. In 2008, Cruz gave America reason to cue the mariachi band and celebrate the death of detritus José Medellín.

As part of a gangbanger initiation rite, Medellín had raped (in every way possible), strangled, slashed, and stomped two young Texan girls to death.

“In Texas,” to quote another Ron from the Lone Star State, “we have the death penalty and we use it. If you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back.”

Bush 43 would wrestle a crocodile for a criminal alien. Backed by Bush—and on behalf of Medellín and other killer compadres awaiting a similar fate—Mexico promptly sued the US over procedural technicalities in the International Court of Justice. The president ordered Texas to halt the execution of murderer and rapist Medellín.

Texas’ heroic solicitor general said no.

Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court. There, he bested Bush and his lickspittles. As the Conservative Review gloated, Cruz “won the case, 6-to-3.” He had sought justice for Americans against a president who subjugated them to international courts. Ted, moreover, was forever gracious about Bush; Bush and his bambino bro routinely slime Ted. (In trashing Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Trump is in bad company.)

The American government currently outsources the job of vetting Muslim refugees headed for the US to the most corrupt of UN agencies: the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

If anyone can vanquish the UN and extricate America from sovereignty sundering international treaties—it’s the victor in Medellín v. Ted of Texas.

Next is Rand Paul. The senator has abandoned hopes of becoming president of the United States, in 2016. With his departure, the libertarian bloom is off the Republican race for the White House.

Rand has been the only Republican in the running to sound a strong trumpet against the warfare state of his rivals. If a giant welfare state is unconservative, what of the warfare state?

By logical extension, not signing on to the bombing of Bashar Hafez al-Assad was a good thing, observed Rand. Assad was the source of stability in Syria, much as Saddam Hussein was in Iraq. Have we learned nothing about the perils of toppling dictators, only to see the rise of barbarians worse than their predecessors?

Besides, why are we still at war in Afghanistan? Why are we dropping bombs there? Why have we been “helping” Afghanistan for over 10 years, inquired Rand in the course of his campaign? We’ve spent more in that blighted and benighted region than we did on the Marshall Plan. “Why can’t the Afghans defend themselves after a decade? Will we have to defend them in perpetuity?”

And what’s unconservative about diplomatic engagement?

As impure a libertarian as he is, when compared to father Ron Paul, Rand has mocked his rivals’ military chauvinism and jingoism as incompatible with conservatism. In particular, why was the robotic Marco Rubio being given the time of day? Rubio is spoiling for fights that’ll dwarf the wars Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton waged on Libya, surreptitiously in Syria and in Afghanistan. As president, “the Boy in the Bubble” (Governor Chris Christie’s moniker for Marco) has promised to use American power extremely liberally. Or, as Rand has kept reminding Americans, there is no daylight between the Rubio and Hillary Clinton regime-change foreign policy.

Rand has been rather rude to Donald Trump, who, in turn, has not spared Senator Paul his repartee. But the front-runner, not Rand, has some placating to do.

Promise Rand Paul a cabinet position as secretary of state in charge of US foreign policy. Trump will thus bring the libertarians in from the cold. (By Gallop’s count, the libertarian-leaning vote might be as large as 24 percent.)

Rand can have State on one condition.

In the past, Trump has praised Representative Ron Paul. Trump will further solidify libertarian backing if he places Paul senior in charge of the US Department of the Treasury. Independents and some on the Left may follow (although they’ll lie to pollsters about it). No one is better suited than Congressman Paul to the task of halting further debasement of the coin courtesy of the Federal Reserve Bank. He will also put an end to the depravity that is the Internal Revenue Service.

The urgency of the strategy offered in this column dawned when a ghastly idea was floated on Twitter to approving “Retweets”: “Trump should choose Colin Powell as VP.” Powell was the establishment toady who endorsed the war on Iraq while in the employ of Genghis Bush. Later, General Powell backed Barack Obama, using the pathos of racial justice as his excuse. In Trump parlance, Powell would be a “horrible” mistake. The same can be said about Ann Coulter’s calamitous Trump-Mitt Romney suggested ticket.

No, Trump must go outside the political tribe for a vice president.


A previous column suggested “the talented James Webb” for the Trump ticket. Webb is a decorated Marine who served as Ronald Reagan’s secretary of the navy. In particular, Webb is the recipient of the “Navy Cross for heroism in Vietnam,” the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts.

Indisputably the last salt-of-the-earth Democrat of his generation, Webb had considered a bid for president as a Democrat, last year. However, he appeared out of place at the first dominatrix-dominated debate in October of 2015, where he confessed to killing a man or two in battle. He soon dropped out.

Citing paleoconservative thinker Pat Buchanan, Mr. Webb had argued forcefully against affirmative action and for poor whites, well before reports about the early demise of white working-class America percolated to the public.

Webb the Southern Democrat can galvanize Reagan Democrats as well as fans of the military on the Left.

Rand Paul will bring libertarians along provided the little guy brings his dad to work with him.

Wasted on the presidency is an outstanding mind like that of Senator Ted Cruz. An outstanding businessman like Donald Trump should appreciate the intellectual value of such an asset.

Upcoming: And the Trump United States Department of Defense portfolio goes to …

• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Donald Trump 
Hide 76 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Thomas Sowell criticized Trump in the National Review for failing to lay out substantive policies. And he does have a point. Trump’s bluffing about being unpredictable and being unable to predict the shifting sands of negotiation, but at some point you have got to have something beyond ‘Carl Icahn.’

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  2. Bill Lind for D0D?

    The State Department is an Augean stable, it needs someone who can clean house. I’m not sure Rand Paul is forceful enough to do it. Otherwise sounds good.

    • Agree: Vendetta
  3. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I’m the same anonymous commenter (or “troll” to those in the Trumpet section with their “real handles”) who has been bitching for weeks about Ms. Mercer’s infatuation with Mr. Trump. Rather than re-recycle what I’ve been saying, I’ll pose a question to her and the rest of the DT Fan Club:

    When this laudable dream that your candidate would ever put either of the Pauls or Webb anywhere near his campaign ticket is dashed, will you at least pause to ask yourself why?

    When he does, I’ll say that you were right about him.

    And no, I expect no reciprocity. So dream on, and ignore this comment.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    , @jtgw
  4. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    Teddy Kruzer

  5. @anonymous

    Webb if anything seems more plausible than either Paul, to me. Trump is not a Libertarian and I haven’t seen any indication he wants to shake things up to the extent putting Ron Paul in government would imply (far more radical than a Muslim travel ban!).

  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    No Ted Cruz. He’s for the North American Alliance…which would completely destroy our sovereignty. He’s also for a Theocracy and his interpretation of the Constitution is not that of an American who understands and believes in the separation of church and state. Cruz can go back to Texas and do his thing. He’s a neo con and I don’t trust him in the government. Trey Gowdy would be my pick for Attorney General. Cruz is ultra politically ambitious and will exploit anything to get power. Intelligence without allegiance is no good.

  7. jtgw says: • Website

    Don’t be silly. Ilana doesn’t support Trump. She supports the Process of Trump. Make sense now?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  8. @Anonymous

    Trey Gowdy got housed by Hillary Clinton at the Benghazi hearings in what should have been a lead pipe cinch. Not exactly a great résumé enhancer.

    I agree with you about Cruz, however not with regard to the theocracy angle. I don’t want Ted Cruz anywhere near a Trump administration. He is revealing himself more and more to be a conniving, dishonest sleazebag.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  9. Far too much for a general comment. But his I think is critical.
    Ron Paul as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. It is one of the few areas where the libertarians are completely right. While the Sec Tres has some influence, he does not have much except that he be one of the clan who control the apparatus. In which case he is a participant and not a counterweight.
    If we want someone to reform and eventually dismantle this den of vipers, we need someone on the inside and in control who understands they are a den of vipers, and who is dedicated to their ruthless eradication.
    Where Ron’s curly haired cuckservative boy might fit in profitably is a question. But methinks empowering the real Paul to do the greatest damage to our second greatest enemy will pull the real libertarians into the populist conservative movement.
    We could all do without the “libertarians” who think they are such because it will let them smoke dope at work. Or the Stosselians who think we can dispense with community and effective government in some utopian mishmash masquerading as a libertarian vision. They and the socialists pray at the same church.

    • Agree: nickels
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    , @Wally
    , @Wally
  10. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    No, it makes no sense at all.

    So, please go ahead and explain how the author’s putting forward the names of worthy, principled (relatively speaking, in the case of Rand Paul) people as his cabinet enables the “Process of Trump.” It sounds to me like she’s hoping that the guy whose poster she must have on her bedroom wall is himself going to read and respond to her fan letter, or maybe even call today after she gets home from school.

    And while at that, tell me what this PoT is, if not (i) a distraction that, like the co-opted Tea Party movement, is intended to safely rechannel and ultimately discredit through mutation and caricature whatever aspects of this are truly threatening to the status quo and/or (ii) a fun ride into the sunset for a self-absorbed, rich ass.

    Look up and down this thread. A bunch of intelligent people who have become such fantasists about this that they are seriously discussing strategies of how and with whom their Hero will Make America Great Again. As suggested in my previous comment, maybe the ridiculousness to be revealed by this will wake up some of the sad little band here. Maybe it already has, as a few of the Trumpeteers have yet to chime in — are they hesitant to be seen in their MAGA ballcaps when someone takes it quite so seriously?

    And I’m “silly”?

  11. AlexT says:

    Jim Webb for VP is a great choice, but AG should go to Kris Kobach, an actual nationalist.

  12. Webb was SecNav for a very short period. There have been a number of reasons given for it, but the most reasonable was that he couldn’t take the pressure of a cabinet level position.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  13. MarkinLA says:

    You are silly because you continue to say the people here who support Trump have some fantasy about him “making America great Again”. Obviously, you do not comprehend what you read very well. Most of the people here supporting Trump only do so because he has brought the immigration issue front and center and he has Conservative Inc. squealing like stuck pigs. We are all a bit suspect of what Trump will really do or accomplish but we know that without him, immigration would not have been mentioned at all and Jeb might very well have been crammed down our throats with an ensuing amnesty for the illegals.

    People always like to speculate about the future with a bit of wishful thinking. Nobody who is doing it here is under any delusions about it’s chance of happening 100% the way we want.

    • Agree: Simon in London
    • Replies: @jtgw
    , @Hubbub
  14. jtgw says: • Website

    Yeah that does seem to be the greatest reason to like Trump: that the right people hate him. Lew Rockwell makes the same argument, although he is not as openly pro-Trump as Ilana.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  15. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This Lew Rockwell?

    Nice joust in #14, by the way. But you’ve still ignored the questions posed in #10.

    Wonder what title Ms. Mercer will hold in the Trump Administration? How about Cass Sunstein’s old job — that’ll really show ’em.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  16. I don’t think he should go Libertarian purist with Sec of State. He’s got to go with someone who can be an effective advocate of his pugnacious realism. The Pauls are good teachers/preachers but they are not negotiators: they are too enamored with the abstraction of ideological purity to take hard nationalist stances. The two planks of Trump’s foreign policy are muscular reserve and fierce protectionism (in borders and trade) – an anti-war/free trade libertarian ain’t gonna cut it. I think Webb would be a much better call at State or Defense than VP (Trump doesn’t need as much help with the patriotic Left in the general).

    For VP, I think Trump should go with another can’t be bought guy. Another outsider of considerable independent wealth or at least fierce individuality, not one of the 2016 field. I think Ann Coulter would be a pretty strong choice, in all seriousness. There’s no better polemicist on immigration than Ann and she’d free up Trump to focus his firepower on the areas where he’s most compelling in a general election: trade, defense and opposition to the donor oligarchy. There’s also no better antidote to Hillary – Coulter weaponizes her gender card better than any female politician I’ve ever seen. Also, while she’s done a lot to alienate Christian conservatives, she’s got tremendous pull in conservative media. They view her as “one of us,” and a VP slot for Coulter would give the commentariat a much greater stake in a Trump presidency.

  17. Ilana Issacson-Mercer bakes pies-in-the-sky. Donald Trump will not be Prez. In the highly unlikely circumstance he gets the Dead Elephant Party nomination, the globalist Cucks will desert and covertly support Mrs. Clinton; or sit it out if the Red Jew is the Demoncrats’ choice. If he doesn’t, the Nationalists will boycott the fake election in even larger numbers than 2008 and ’12. Perhaps the Issacson-Mercer will share her views on the runningmate and Cabinet of Mrs. Clinton, who will be the next and, I suspect, ‘Murka’s last Prez

  18. @Anonymous

    There isn’t a real thing called a North American Alliance, nor can a I find a real proposal for one. There’s a hodgepodge of specific things that largely work to the advantage of the US:

    There is NAFTA, which addresses only the economic aspects, wildly favours US interests, and in no way restricts US sovereignty. Unless you mean to suggest that the occasional dispute resolution panel that actually winds up favouring a private business from Canada or Mexico instead of just letting the US Administration or Congress through their weight around in favour of particular US interests, on the grounds that trade should follow clear rules [that the sovereign US agreed to] and [say] a free market as opposed to the usual way the US economy works [corrupt influence peddling], constitutes violation of US sovereignty. Whatever works. But apart from this putting the US on the corruption level of Russia or China, since when is a fair market loss to some particular private sector interest a violation of US sovereignty?

    Then there’s NORAD, which has been around since 1958 and allows the US enormous access to information about Canadian airspace and seaspace, whose purpose was originally to allow the US to have a larger surveillance area and battlespace in its anticipated nuclear war with Russia, at our expense, and which now largely serves US security interests in its traditional aerospace domain, has moved into maritime surveillance, and at one time even supported America’s obsession with drug flows by sea.

    More recently there have been a variety of border and airline security measures that satisfy occasionally childish American demands for perfect, unfettered safety in an unsafe world [please excuse me here- I have never recovered from reading NRO types like KJ Lopez a decade ago banging on about how it was the government’s duty to “keep us SAFE” at all times], and are driven by Americans’ paranoid and wrong belief that their neighbours, as opposed to the stupidity of Americans’ own security and immigration procedures, are the chief agents of American insecurity. On and on we hear clearly developmentally challenged politicians whining about putting troops and drones on the Canadian border. I can think of one failed terrorist in the past 25 years who tried to enter the US from Canada, and he was caught in a joint operation. All the successful ones entered the US directly, because the US was and probably still is the biggest hole in North America’s defences. There are probably more wannabe terrorists in each of Miami, Chicago, New York and LA right now than have been in Canada these 20 years.

    All of this stuff serves US interests and usually projects US law and executive action in the face of the sovereignty of Canada and Mexico, i.e., it extends US sovereignty where it has no business, rather than restricting it.

    I can’t speak for Mexico. Canada just wants access to the US market to sell stuff that, so it would seem, some Americans want to buy. For this privilege, we have had to basically become an enforcement arm of US sovereignty even for foreign visitors who want to come to Canada and have no interest in visiting the US.

    I remember the now seemingly fairy-tale ease with which Canadian citizens could enter the US at a land border when I was young- usually just brief questioning and the modest prospect of being pulled over for secondary screening. [Our entry process for Americans was similarly relaxed- Customs’ real fixation was whether or not returning Canadians had too much duty-free liquor or cheap retail goods; for Americans, it was just whether or not they had bothered to note they were entering someone else’s country and gotten the right papers for their hunting rifles and such]. Of course, even then, one would be asked ludicrous questions by US Customs like “are you importing any firearms into the United States?” Even as a kid, I thought the customs officers must be insane.

    Or to sum up. Many on the American right seem to think the old openness of North America and the new institutionally paranoid North America were somehow set up to exploit the US, when what they really did was [in the old days] give Americans the illusion of not living next to other peoples’ countries and [now] projects US sovereignty aggressively over those countries so as to corral us into shielding the US from the consequences of its policies.

  19. @Intelligent Dasein

    “I agree with you about Cruz, however not with regard to the theocracy angle. I don’t want Ted Cruz anywhere near a Trump administration. He is revealing himself more and more to be a conniving, dishonest sleazebag.”

    Cruz is popular with the bible thumpers who are the most receptive constituency to blatant pandering. Cruz is the worst kind of opportunist. A smart one. He should not hold ANY public office.

    • Replies: @GIuseppe
    , @Wizard of Oz
    , @iffen
  20. @eyesfrontmen

    “Ron Paul as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.”

    Brilliant! Ron Paul is hated by everyone left of center and would be a poison pill in a prominent position. But voters would have no interest in who was appointed Chairman of the FED. And this is precisely the right position for Ron Paul. What is needed at Treasury is someone who has NEVER worked on Wall Street and has a history of being critical of banks too big to fail.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  21. @anonymous

    Who is your candidate Anon? Do you have a dog in this fight?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  22. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Thank you for civilly posing two different questions.

    1. None.

    I have decided not to cast a vote. I heavily supported Ron Paul, particularly in 2012. There was no one remotely as appealing this time, although his son could have been and Jim Webb might have been. I refuse to endorse the disgusting, farcical democracy that is the USG.

    2. Dispelling delusion and encouraging others to abstain.

    The reason that I’m around here commenting on Ms. Mercer’s increasingly pathetic efforts to find something worthwhile in what her more cautious readers think of as the “Process of Trump” is to test my sense that Trump is an obvious caricature, perhaps a designed distraction. To compare what he says and how he does so to the politics of Ron Paul, and to read the evasive and hostile reactions I get lately to my comments, lead me to conclude that the system will never improve through its own processes.

    If you believe that I’m mistaken about this, I will consider your thoughts in good faith. That should be a given, but is in dwindling supply on this site when it comes to the 2016 Presidential election. Thank you.

  23. I like Trump because he is opposed to open borders, free trade and the privatization of everything (the neoliberal agenda) and because he is willing to negotiate with Putin causing him to be hated by the neocons. I pretty much hate all the people who hate Trump.

    Webb is an excellent choice at Justice. Trump should tap Jesse Ventura for VP. Treasury must be removed from the iron grip of Goldman Sachs. State? Can we bring James Baker out of mothballs?

    I see nothing wrong with discussing a hypothetical Trump administration. Trump is the only reason this election is even interesting. The Empire is in steep decline and soon the USA will be just another large country in the Americas. There is nothing Trump or anyone else can do to perpetuate American hegemony. And even if Trump were to win in a landslide he would fall victim to a tragic accident or a lone gunman. But right now the Trump candidacy is a learning experience for the people and a problem for the dirt bags who have sold us out and ruined the country. I am speaking of course of the red and blue political monopoly owned and operated by the .01%.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Reg Cæsar
  24. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I assume this is in reply to my #23. In any event, I respect your point of view.

  25. @Anonymous

    He’s also for a Theocracy and his interpretation of the Constitution is not that of an American who understands and believes in the separation of church and state.

    If someone supports the drug, abortion, divorce and marriage laws almost universally supported by the people who elected FDR four times, that makes him a “theocrat”? WTF?

    “Separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. You’re confusing it with the prohibition of an established church. A prohibition which for a long time didn’t even apply to the states.

  26. @WorkingClass

    Trump should tap Jesse Ventura for VP.

    Where the Constitution stipulates that the Vice President reside in different state than the President does, I don’t think Baja California Sur is what the authors had in mind.

  27. EdwardM says:

    Carly Fiorina would make a good choice for Defense (too hawkish, no doubt, for Ilana Mercer). Ben Carson for HHS. Chris Christie for U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, or maybe promote him to the Southern District of NY. Kasich for Postmaster General.

    Rick Perry for DHS. We could use someone who will be tough on immigration but slash the rest of that idiotic bureaucracy.

  28. GIuseppe says:

    Cruz as AG would be a bad mistake. He’s an opportunist and a back stabber. He would challenge a President Trump in the 2020 primary if he could get away with it.

  29. @anonymous

    Voting for Trump is a much more poweful statement than voting for anyone else. It is also a much, much more powerful statement than abstaining. If you abstain, you will not be noticed. The whole world is noticing Trump and he is widening people’s perpectives.

    As a Brit who lives in Britain, I sincerely hope you add to this effect.

  30. Best appointment: US Supreme Court Chief Justice Jeff Sessions.

    • Replies: @iffen
  31. Sitting out the election seems reasonable to me. I often vote in primaries and sit out the general. I am seldom happy about election results. I am delighted however with what happened in New Hampshire. Decidedly not the outcome our rulers wanted.

  32. utu says:

    “he must begin to think big and talk big” – I am not sure that getting Cruz or Paul & Paul at this stage is an answer. Trump must start talking about policies and be more specific because people sooner than later will get tired of his assurances not to worry because he knows how to (everything).

  33. iffen says:
    @Buzz Baldrin

    He’s already a failed nominee for the federal bench. This is a democracy and we have rules against double jeopardy.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  34. Hubbub says:

    “…because he has brought the immigration issue front and center…”

    Agreed. Many of us think this is the prime issue this campaign, and Trump is saying what we want to hear. In one form or another, all other issues are related to unfettered immigration and resettlement of disparate peoples to the nation.

  35. The problem with picking Trump’s successor will be dealing with the donor class. Someone has to bankroll the campaign. We don’t want the usual suspects bankrolling anything. So unless someone has a better idea, Cruz is still the best bet for VP, and eventually as Trump’s successor. Keeping the Adelsons and Singers out of the process is the biggest hurdle.

  36. @WorkingClass

    As they are all opportunists shouldn’t you consider the cleverest one seriously?

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @WorkingClass
  37. nickels says:

    Libertarians have their strengths, but ‘foreign’ anything is not one of them.
    Libertarianism is the flip side of the Marxist coin, instead of forming a global utopia on the back of collectivism, let’s form a utopia based on the free will of the individual.
    Free trade, racial utopianism, no thank you.

    Educate me please if I am wrong, dear Libertarians.

    It is clear what needs to happen. Ted Nugent is the only viable candidate for VP. Do it, do it now!!!

    And please, no Ron Paul is against free trade! He is also anti-protectionist, which means he has no realistic stance….

  38. iffen says:

    Cruz is popular with the bible thumpers who are the most receptive constituency to blatant pandering.

    I have already tried to get you to stop piling on the Bible thumpers; this is your last chance.

    They are no more receptive to political pandering than any other group. Stop trying to single them out for a certain behavior that is common across diverse groups.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  39. MarkinLA says:

    The Republican have the Senate and can force a confirmation vote if they really wanted to. Actually, with him out of the Senate, he can no longer use the Senate stage to show Americans what kind of back-stabbing talking-out-of-both-sides trash the Congress puts together to screw them like he did with the Gang of eight and TPP bills.

    He may be confirmed 99-0 since he won’t be able to confirm himself.

  40. iffen says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    As they are all opportunists shouldn’t you consider the cleverest one seriously?

    I was trying to figure out what is wrong with this argument.

    If we have an evil leader, do we need the most evil one that is possible?

    Opportunist is not the same as clever.

    People would be better off with a less clever opportunist because then they could possibly limit the damage.

    The most clever and most opportunist candidate would be devastating and could not be impeded.

    What do you think?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  41. CMC says:

    More hilariously awful campaign advice for Trump by Mercer. Very curious to see her update it now that he’s romped to victory in New Hampshire.

    It’s like she’s trying to run to the front of the parade to lead it off a cliff.

    New heuristic: Ilana Mercer’s Trump campaign advice as bizarro world beta opposite Donald. Whatever she says, pray he does the opposite.

    Application: Advice to Trump: First win election, in part by totally crushing Rafael Cruz, then measure Raf’s submission and decide whether to just keep him away from any federal government role or deport him.

  42. Truth says:

    Look up and down this thread. A bunch of intelligent people who have become such fantasists about this that they are seriously discussing strategies of how and with whom their Hero will Make America Great Again. As suggested in my previous comment, maybe the ridiculousness to be revealed by this will wake up some of the sad little band here.

    No, it won’t nothing short of 5-6 open handed slaps would accomplish that.

  43. @Wizard of Oz

    I do not agree that they are all opportunists. And generally speaking, I prefer dumb opportunists as they do not rise to wealth and power.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  44. @iffen

    I will not concede your point but since this is my last chance I will shut up about it.

  45. @Anonymous

    Anyone who doesn’t know our country was founded on Christian principles, and that the separation of church and state was designed to keep the state out of the church has no grasp of our history.

    From Cornell University Law School:

    ” The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government. ”

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

    Simple, really.
    Nothing about, “unless your religious rights are perceived to interfere with the latest PC trend”.

  46. woodNfish says:

    Trump has laid out policies on his website and ideas in his book Crippled America, so Mr. Sowell is wrong and has no point, but ignores the facts like RINOs and the LSM does. Shame on him! Trump isn’t bluffing about things being unpredictable or negotiating. He states in his book that he cannot make precise statements about certain things because he does not know where they stand. He is not getting daily presidential briefings. Do you find that to somehow be untrue?

    Trump also gave a hint that government bureaucracy is going to be cut under his presidency when he stated that what everyone failed to mention about the VA is that it is rampant with corruption, fraud and waste. As a private businessman Trump knows how to operate legally, stay within a budget and cut waste, and the real cost and waste of government over regulation.

    Why would you support the status quo, which is what you will get with Rubio or Cruz, and not support Trump?

  47. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    To this end, Trump must quit the “we don’t win anymore” formulaic rhapsody, and start fleshing out substantive positions.

    Trump has already spelled out a clear and revolutionary agenda. He’s stated his intention to abandon the New World Order assault on the nation state, the US Constitution, and the Christian faith.

    That’s why the establishment are mad to destroy his candidacy.

    Spelling out the details would only confuse people. Trump is after the votes of the ordinary folks scorned equally by Bush, Clinton and Obama. You either trust him or you don’t. For the election campaign, the details don’t matter.

    But Ron Paul at the Fed might be a good idea, except for his nutty ideas about gold.

    He should study the Numero, a currency unit based upon the cardinal numbers, that cannot be stolen, laundered used for corrupt purposes, or promiscuously printed.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  48. @anonymous

    1) There WILL be a president.
    2) Choose the lesser of the “evils”. The one who MOST represents your views and goals.

  49. @WorkingClass

    Shouldn’t you concede that they are all opportunists (and pretty well have to have a big streak of opportunism to succeed – except perhaps Michael Bloomberg?) but that is not all most of them are (which is a concession by me). But the other thing they mostly are (except Trump detectably since it is hard to see past his opportunism) is surely worrying. How about the born again 43? OMG!.

    • Replies: @Art
  50. Art says:

    Sorry but the senate will never confirm Cruz – they ALL hate him.

    And AIPAC will never let Rand Paul be secretary of state. they hate him – he is fair minded and holds Christian Western values.

  51. Art says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Shouldn’t you concede that they are all opportunists (yada yada – except perhaps Michael Bloomberg?

    Hey Wiz – surprise suprise – you like and praise the Jew!

    You are transparent — Art

  52. Wally says: • Website

    Forget about it. Jews have, and have had, a lock on the Fed gig.

    Check the record and see.

    They are the reason that there will be no Fed audit. Jews at the Fed are up to their necks in giving US cash to you know who and others who do their bidding.

  53. Wally says: • Website

    Forget about it. Jews have a lock on that gig.

    Check the record and see.

    They are the reason that there will be no Fed audit. Jews at the Fed are up to their necks in giving US taxpayers cash to you know who and others who do their bidding.

  54. OutWest says:

    Trump needs to start fleshing out issues before worrying about appointments. Though political questions (about which reasonable people can differ), I would suggest questioning drug costs in the U.S. vis-à-vis similar countries, the reason we haven’t brought our troops home after the cold war and maybe identifying just what the U.S. is going to do to contribute value and build up our national wealth and domestic employment. We can’t go back to the 1950/60s –and shouldn’t want to- but we need to use U.S. capital, both monetary and human- for our purposes.

    Shifting from military chauvinism to economic chauvinism is perhaps the keynote.

  55. Hibernian says:

    SecNav is sub-cabinet; it has a cabinet level title as a bow to tradition; up to about 1947 or so the Army and Navy were totally separate and their cabinet level civilian departments were War and Navy. At that point in time the DOD became the cabinet level department for the Armed Forces and the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force were sub-cabinet. Prior to becoming SecNav, Webb was the sub-cabitet Deputy, Assistant, or Under- (I forget which) Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, in which his tenure was longer than his tenure as SecNav.

  56. Svigor says:

    Fantasy football, I love it.

    Trump as president, Webb as vice-president, Rand as secretary of state, Ron as secretary of the treasury, and Cruz as attorney general does sound pretty great. I don’t want to know how many Jewish oligarchs would keel over upon learning of that swearing-in.

    Is general Ripper available for secdef?

    I’d go with Trump/Sessions ticket, though this wouldn’t be as effective a campaign strategy as Trump/Cruz or Trump/Paul, would I would find acceptable as well.

    Rubio can be the capitol hill shine boy. Bush can be the toilet attendant. Though they both might prefer to switch roles.

    The urgency of the strategy offered in this column dawned when a ghastly idea was floated on Twitter to approving “Retweets”: “Trump should choose Colin Powell as VP.”

    Oh, I dunno. This would give the cuckservatives something to cheer about. On the other hand, it would dramatically increase the chances of a motorcade/hotel kitchen ending for president Trump. Fortunately, Powell is far too cuckservative/RINO/replublicrat to accept. I can see him privately accepting, if Trump was sucker enough to announce first, though; then Powell could publicly reject the offer, to thunderous applause (wait, do libs even do applause anymore? And is it ever thunderous?).

    Citing paleoconservative thinker Pat Buchanan

    Thanks for reminding me. Pat can be press secretary. And we can dig up Tom Tancredo (God bless him) and make him head of homeland security.

    Upcoming: And the Trump United States Department of Defense portfolio goes to …


    • Replies: @Truth
    , @Rob McX
  57. Svigor says:

    Oh, and given a Trump presidency, we could be looking at Paul Icahn at treasury.

  58. Svigor says:

    I’m the same anonymous commenter (or “troll” to those in the Trumpet section with their “real handles”)

    Being an anonymous coward seems to be sticking in your craw. You talk about it every time you comment. Or, maybe you don’t. Maybe the rest of your posts are complete contradictions, a series of outright lies. It’s not like anyone would ever know.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  59. @anonymous

    @ anon. I took a break today from reading Sir Henry Maine to find here at Unz the fellow who compelled me to read him and many others of his ilk. I can’t thank you enough

  60. @anonymous

    “Wonder what title Ms. Mercer will hold in the Trump Administration?”

    Monica Lewinski’s?

  61. @anonymous

    A vote for Trump is, at the very least, a repudiation of the career political filth.

    At the best, it stops the only trend who’s results are irreversible: immigration.
    All other policy errors are fixable, population changes are not.

  62. Svigor says:

    A vote for Trump is, at the very least, a repudiation of the career political filth.

    At the best, it stops the only trend who’s results are irreversible: immigration.

    This. 2016 election choice is refreshingly simple.

  63. @iffen

    Yes I was provoked into being too glib. But opportubism isn’t all bad any more than it connotes cleverness. So I guess I am really just expressing a preference for serious high intelligence other things being equal – or more likely incommensurable so hard to weigh up and summarise.

    I also confess a weakness for not believing that someone as smart as Cruz would really believe all the things he has to say to his core voters. But I retain much of that comforting belief because I think I remember correctly reading that he has been smart enough to shuffle quite a lot of difficult issues luke abortion over to the states.

    Does anyone on UR really believe that George H.W.Bush gave a hoot about abortion as he had to pretend he did in 1988? I don’t see Ted Cruz with his rosary and pictures of foetuses outside the abortion clinic 500 metres from where I write this…..

    • Replies: @iffen
  64. Truth says:

    “I don’t want to know how many Jewish oligarchs would keel over upon learning of that swearing-in.”

    None, they’ve bankrolled all of their campaigns.

  65. iffen says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Dangerous ground here. He has to say A so he can do X.

    If evil is in control are we better off with smart evil or dumb evil?

    OT I see you are targeted by some that claim you have Jewish sympathies. What do you make of this? Are most paranoids anti-Semitic or does it go the other way?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  66. Rob McX says:

    And Lindsey Graham could be Trump’s hairdresser. Those locks of his need a feminine touch.

  67. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Perhaps we should let others weigh in on who seems to have something stuck in his craw.

    Why does it aggravate you that others here are willing to discuss ideas with anonymous commenters? If you still think I should be ignored, then … please ignore me.

    You could then spend that time on overcoming the technical barriers that you have said prevent your replying directly to others. (Something about your poor connection, wasn’t it?)

    Or, you could try to convince Mr. Unz to require “real handles.” This may be an important thing in your life, but that doesn’t make it your website.

  68. @iffen

    I’m not sure what content I can give to “evil … in control” so am inclined to say that the clever man is more likely to find ways of avoiding evil influences or preventing them determining his actions – not entirely unlike the way one would expect a clever man to be good at avoiding the impact of an oppressive tax regime!

    As to the paranoid anti-Semitism etc. I wouldn’t reject the term “Jewish sympathies” because my prejudices in favour of high intelligence energetically used makes me value Jews as parts of any modern community and as likely to provide a relatively high proportion of people who are good and amusing company. My particular Israel loving rabbi friend says sadly that he sees no solution to the obvious problems and my atheist English gentleman retired professor friend holds the typical English upper professional class reservations about Israeli behaviour (not extending to BDS activity) so I have no trouble holding agnostic views which allow me to enjoy the interesting visit I made to Israel last year and admire much about Israeli toughness and achievement. Of course all that is far too complicated and maybe nuanced for the reflexive anti-Semites to get their heads around. Maybe I shall shift some inches in the direction of those who blame “colonialism” for the material and psychological woes of everyone from Native Americans and Aborigines to Palestinians and no doubt Africans generally as I am employing an Eritrean Muslim (Australian) whose chief interest in life seems to be in his return to university to study (Middle Eastern) history. He may be under the influence of a notorious senior academic careerist creep, with a once honoured named chair, who used to be a Communist and is still very much Marxoid in his writings. So tbc.

    • Replies: @Art
  69. @CanSpeccy

    “But Ron Paul at the Fed might be a good idea, except for his nutty ideas about gold.”

    RP would remove the FED and restore money creation to the congress because the constitution requires it. He does not insist on hard money. Fiat money is not the problem. Debt money is the problem. He does however insist that fiat must compete with hard money. Don’t tax gold and silver. Repeal legal tender laws. I assume he would allow digital currencies to compete as well. Far from nutty this is the best possible solution.

    “Trump has already spelled out a clear and revolutionary agenda. He’s stated his intention to abandon the New World Order assault on the nation state, the US Constitution, and the Christian faith.”

    Well said. This is the positive reason that I support Trump. I have a negative reason also. I hate the people who hate Trump.

    • Replies: @iffen
  70. Truth says:

    Illi, we need an Alpha in the W.H.!

  71. iffen says:

    I hate the people who hate Trump.

    I’m with when you are right, WC.

  72. Art says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    As to the paranoid anti-Semitism etc.

    Hmm – this Wiz guy, I do not know —– is labeling people really clever and witty as he claims – or is it just boorish pseudo-intellect incompetence?

  73. Svigor says:

    None, they’ve bankrolled all of their campaigns.

    They do tend to back all horses in the race. And yet, they clearly favor some horses over others.

    And Lindsey Graham could be Trump’s hairdresser. Those locks of his need a feminine touch.

    I forgot Lindsie. He definitely wants the toilet attendant gig.

  74. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Jim Grant for Chmn of the FED

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?