Donald Trump

6 Secretary of State Appointments Trump Could Make That Wouldn't Suck

These names would be better than most of the ones being floated.


Aude Guerrucci/ZUMA Press/Newscom

A number of names have been bandied around as potential Secretary of State nominees for Donald Trump: John Bolton, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, even Mitt Romney. None of these selections would be especially surprising but neither do they represent any kind of break from "the establishment" against which many Trump voters voted.

Finding a person who doesn't accept status-quo assumptions about foreign policy and America's supposedly indispensable place in the world—or even one who is just willing to take a fresh look at U.S. relations with the rest of the globe—isn't easy. Decades of bipartisan foreign policy have produced generally pro-intervention analysts, activists, and politicians.

Some Ron Paul supporters who see a spark of noninterventionism in Trump have launched a petition for Trump to nominate the former Republican congressman as secretary of state. A petition notes the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin was concerned about such a possibility while Paul called it an "unlikely scenario." At the age of 83, it's difficult to see Paul as a cabinet member under any circumstances. That said, Paul definitely agrees with Trump's election-night refrain about wanting the United States to have friendly relations with any country willing to have friendly relations with the U.S. And considering one underlying principle of a Paul State Department would be not inserting the U.S. into every imaginable conflict (diplomatic or otherwise) around the world, Secretary Paul not traveling overseas all the time would be a benefit.

Paul would make an intriguing, establishment-challenging and, most importantly, non-interventionist choice for secretary of state. He would be a great selection. There is also zero chance of that happening. Here are other selections Trump could make that would be pretty good:

World Economic Forum

Bob Corker

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has emerged as a potent Republican critic of the Trump transition. Last week he said he could find enough votes to block a Bolton nomination, and also criticized the idea that Giuliani might be nominated. "Giuliani is a great friend of the president-elect," Paul acknowledged. "Maybe there could be another position in the cabinet that wouldn't be putting him in a place where he is at odds with the president's vision on foreign policy."

The Republican majority in the Senate has been whittled down from 54 to 51 or 52 (a December 10 run-off will determine whether Louisiana sends a Democrat or Republican to the Senate to replace David Vitter), so Paul does not need to find all that many votes to block any Trump nomination, especially if it's one that finds little or no support among Democrats.

Paul suggested Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) as a potential secretary of state nomination for Trump, saying he would "sail through" with more than a dozen Democrats also supporting him. "I would say, while not being libertarian, [Corker] is more of a reasonable, realist kind of person," Paul told Reason last week. "I think he would be less likely to say tomorrow we need to drop bombs on Iran."

For Paul, any potential secretary of state nominee that "didn't learn the lesson of the war in Iraq" would not earn his support. Corker has compared the U.S. invasion of Iraq to beating a hornet's nest with a big stick. He was also one of three Republican senators in the Foreign Relations Committee to vote in favor of the U.S.-Russia strategic arms reduction treaty (START) and one of 13 Republicans who voted in favor of it on the Senate floor. Corker was also skeptical of the 2009 Afghan troop surge. "I have no idea what it is, other than sending additional troops," Corker told AFP. "I hope we dig a lot deeper."

Corker has said he was "in the mix" for a possible Trump administration role.


James Webb

Former Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) briefly ran for the Democratic nomination for president in the 2016 election cycle, dropping out less than four months after announcing his run. "Some people say I am a Republican who became a Democrat, or that I often sound like a Republican in a room full of Democrats or a Democrat in a room full of Republicans," Webb said at the time. "I fully accept that my views on many issues are not compatible with the power structure and the nominating base of the Democratic Party."

In retrospect, Webb, who appealed to the kind of swing voter in the Rust Belt that tipped the election to Donald Trump, may have been the strongest announced candidate Democrats had. On foreign policy, too, Webb provided an alternative that was less hawkish than Clinton, whose enthusiasm for war and intervention surely turned off some voters in the Midwest and beyond.

Webb, as Jim Henley noted in the November 2008 issue of Reason, was one of the "forthright anti-war candidates" Democrats finally decided to run in 2006 to take "real advantage of public dismay with the war." But Democrats, as Henley noted, were never fully comfortable with such positions, even when they exploited them. The success of 2006, Henley noted, "came in the face of the usual intraparty counsel to avoid losing 'credibility on national security'."

Webb's failure to launch in the presidential election was in part a symptom of the broader death of authentically anti-war candidates over the past several decades, even in the face of continued military failures in the 21st century. Webb has been a proponent of Congress reasserting its role in decisions about making war and was a critic of the U.S. war in Iraq and the 2011 intervention in Libya.


John Duncan

Rep. John Duncan (R-Tenn.) has served in Congress since 1988. While he voted in favor of the Gulf War resolution in 1991, he subsequently voted against the Iraq War in 2002, against bills to fund the war in Iraq, and in favor of setting a withdrawal date in 2007. He also voted against a bill to fund the Afghanistan war in 2010. Duncan was one of 10 members of Congress to try to sue President Obama over the intervention in Libya, for which the president received no Congressional authorization. Howard Phillips, the founder of what would become the Constitution party, called Duncan "one of the unsung heroes of Constitutional conservatism."

He was one of only six Republican members of Congress to vote against the 2002 authorization of the use of military force in Iraq. At the time, he said he thought the vote could end his political career, as everyone in his very conservative Republican district was telling him to vote in favor of the Iraq war.

He had learned his lesson from his support of the First Gulf War, saying he realized in the aftermath of the war that the threat had been "greatly exaggerated." Duncan also noted the role of partisan politics in manufacturing support for poor U.S. foreign policy. "Eighty percent of the House Republicans voted against the bombings in Bosnia, Kosovo, and all that," he told the American Conservative in 2005. "I'm absolutely convinced that if Gore or Clinton had been in the White House, 80 percent of the Republicans would have been against [the Iraq War too]." Such an understanding of the blinding nature of partisanship when it comes to U.S. foreign policy would be a huge asset in a Trump cabinet.

Cypress Semiconductors

T.J. Rodgers

Trump and his transition team would be remiss if they only considered politicians for roles in the cabinet. Even the State Department could benefit from being guided by someone with extensive experience in the private sector. T.J. Rodgers, the founder of Cypress Semiconductor (and a supporter of Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website), is one such candidate.

Throughout his career, Rodgers has been an unabashed defender of free-market capitalism. Given how much the freeing of markets have improved living standards and the quality of lives around the world and how only free markets can actually sustain sustainable development, the world and the United States would benefit from a secretary of state who was an unabashed advocate of real capitalism. Such advocates are not as common, or outspoken, in an American business world increasingly intermingling with government, but Rodgers has repeatedly warned against cronyism here and abroad. Appointing someone who understands this as secretary of state could go along way in restoring justified optimism among Americans and around the world.

DMA Hawaii Forward Center

Tulsi Gabbard

Yesterday Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) met with President-elect Trump, and is reportedly being considered for an appointment at State, Defense, or the United Nations. Gabbard, a combat veteran who volunteered for a 12-month tour of duty in Iraq while serving in the Hawaii Army National Guard, would make an excellent choice for secretary of state, one that would send a clear and unequivocal message about Trump's interest in breaking from the deadly bipartisan foreign policy status quo.

After her meeting with Trump, she said she "felt it important to take the opportunity to meet with the president-elect now before the drumbeats of war that neocons have been beating drag us into an escalation of the war to overthrow the Syrian government—a war which has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of refugees to flee their homes in search of safety for themselves and their families."

Gabbard has been an opponent of U.S. intervention in Syria since coming to Congress in 2013, arguing that "intervention in Syria goes against America's national security, international credibility, economic interest, and moral center."

While she served in Iraq, she has said she was against the war, and has also called for an end to the Afghanistan war "as soon as possible," saying the U.S. should never have been in those places to begin with. She is also among a growing faction of members of Congress known as "Saudi skeptics," voting against U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and co-sponsored the House version of Rand Paul's legislation to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia. In 2014, she backed Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash's amendment to defund the National Security Agency over its warrantless surveillance program.

Gabbard stepped down as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee in February so that she could endorse Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primaries, after complaining that the DNC had not scheduled enough primary debates.

US Army

Wesley Clark

The former Democratic candidate for president earned credibility among non-interventionists for his opposition to the war in Iraq, but it wasn't enough to help him win the Democratic nomination in 2004. Clark has been skeptical about turning to military force first in U.S. foreign policy but also accepts that the U.S. is and ought to remain in a position of global leadership.

"You cannot win the war on terror by military force," Clark told Democracy Now's Amy Goodman in 2007. "It is first and foremost a battle of ideas. It is secondly a law enforcement effort and a cooperative effort among nations. And only as a last resort do you use military force."

"The truth about the Middle East is, had there been no oil there, it would be like Africa. Nobody is threatening to intervene in Africa," Clark noted to Goodman. "The problem is the opposite. We keep asking for people to intervene and stop it. There's no question that the presence of petroleum throughout the region has sparked great power involvement."

In his 2014 book Don't Wait for the Next War: A Strategy for American Growth and Global Leadership, Clark lays out what Walter Russell Mead called in the Wall Street Journal a Hamiltonian vision for U.S. foreign policy, where "a strong federal government closely linked to powerful firms in the private sector will promote economic development at home and ensure national security abroad." In this approach, the U.S. would keep its ability to project power globally but try to avoid conflict when possible.

The problem there is that the ability to project the power sometimes becomes enough to drive policymakers into conflicts. The intervention in Libya, which Clark criticized, could be seen through this framework. Many of the immediate costs of intervening were already baked in to the daily cost of maintaining the U.S. military and its ability to project power.

In a 2011 op-ed in the Washington Post, Clark warned that the American intervention that was then starting in Libya did not meet standards that ought to be met for U.S. interventions. Those include a clear national interest at stake, where the result would be deemed worth the cost of intervention; knowing the purpose of the intervention and how military action would achieve it; determining the political end game before the intervention begins; building public support, obtaining diplomatic and legal authority, and bringing allies into the process; avoiding U.S. and civilian casualties; and getting it over with quickly. Clark is an advocate of continued U.S. intervention in Syria, although it would not appear to meet all of the standards he laid out. Last year, he wrote that the idea of the U.S. and its allies creating "safe zones" for refugees "offers the best, lowest cost and the surest means of regaining some stability in the region."

Clark is no non-interventionist, but he is certainly a skeptic of intervention and an advocate for caution, which would make him a useful, if unavoidably flawed, member of a Trump cabinet.

NEXT: University Bullied Students to Change 'America' Theme Party Because Trump Won

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

      1. Because they’re endorsed by a contributer to reason magazine, obviously.

        1. Ah, apologies for not making that connection immediately.

      2. Because he doesn’t like anything, Zune.

        1. No, we established that he actually likes at least one thing, Columbo.

          1. He likes his lawn; which you should get the fuck off of.

            1. I don’t have a lawn. You’re standing on the neighbor’s property – and they’re less forgiving than I am.

  1. Better alt-text for the Romney picture: “Now go get your fuckin’ shine box!”

    1. You muddah fuckuh you! You bought your button! He fuckin bought his button!

      Also, how am I funny?

  2. Sadly, that was the best picture of John Duncan available.

    1. The guy looks like a maniac!

      1. Look at his facial expression in that picture! There is no way he doesn’t have something up him.

        1. You think he’s sitting on his own thumb?

          1. Or a collection of exotic thumbs flown in from all corners of the globe.

            1. Or a very enthusiastic fist. Or one of the smaller members of the mustelidae.

              1. A fist of etiquette?

    2. Also sadly, that was not even close to the best picture of Tulsi available.

      1. John Duncan, not Tulsi, first comment ever and it replies to the wrong post.

  3. Pat Robertson as Secretary of Education.

    1. Will be kill the Common Core? What’s his stance on school choice? Will there be fewer DoE employees when he leaves office? Why can’t I remember who that person is?

      1. “Will there be fewer DoE employees when he leaves office?”

        Depends on his murderous rages and eating habits.

        1. Dude claims he can leg-press a fucking ton. Also, his head is the size of three normal human heads.

          1. Are we talking Pat Robertson or Warty?

            1. Actually, no one’s ever seen them in the same room together… hmm.

    2. The 700 club guy?

  4. It would be interesting watching the mental gymnastic needed for leftists to complain about Tulsi Gabbard as SoS.

    1. So far they are just going with traitor and sellout

      1. the card they always use – ends in ist or phobe

        seems they’ve landed on Islamophobe

    2. she doesn’t think government should be involved in marriage, therefore she is a bigot?

    3. That horrible woman who wants to leave the poor syrians to be oppressed and murdered and let the terrorists return to Afghanistan?

      (and that was with two seconds of effort. There is no gymnastics required when the mind is mush and only concerned about principals)

    4. Nope. Their go-to already is the Islamophobe card.

      1. Anyone who plays that card loses all credibility. Much like those who scream racist and misgynist, they’ve worn out whatever potency it once held.

      2. Exactly this, Bill.

        As I put below, my roommate wants to leave the country because of all the “Islamophobes” Trump is considering, including Gabbard. (He is Pakistani but not Muslim, go figure)

        1. See the hazing of the potential DHS secretary:

          Kobach used the phrase ‘[e]xtreme vetting questions for high-risk aliens.’

          Part of that vetting would include asking them questions about their ‘support for Sharia law, jihad, equality of men and women, [and] the United States Constitution

          So this extreme vetting that Dalmia and others tell me about amounts to asking:
          1) Are you willing to submit to US law rather than Sharia?
          2) Will you respect that in the US men and women are equal in the eyes of the law and must be treated accordingly?
          3) Do you accept the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land while you reside in the US?

          Man. I can see how asking questions along these paths violate their rights and we should do away with all sovereignty to prevent that from happening.

          1. Who put this Constitution guy in charge, anyway?

            1. A bunch of rich white guys.

            2. Probably the Koch Brothers.

          2. So, basically, the legal requirements expected of any citizen of the US?

  5. Corker and Webb would both be excellent choices. Rodgers, I’d need more information.

    Gabbard would be a particularly interesting choice in that she both opposes military adventurism and has called out radical Islam as the major threat on the country’s horizon. She might have the possibility of building an interesting coalition.

    Clark? No. Fuck no. No way in hell. I’ve never heard anyone who’s worked anywhere near him say anything good about the guy.

    1. Clark it is, then!

      1. Lord Vader. He would mind-choke motherfuckers when he was a division commander.

        Kosovo was a shit-show that he was one of the major architects of. NATO Commander at the time.

        As I’ve said here before, NATO was a single shot pistol, that the Clinton administration wasted in order to take people’s minds off of Oval Office fellatio.

        Fuck Clark with a rusty fork.

    2. Isn’t Clark the fellow who, during the Clinton’s Balkan distraction, nearly blundered the US into a shooting war with the Russians because he wanted to get the credit for taking an airport that the Russians reached a few days before he got there?

      1. Yes. Wesley Clark is an incompetent brownnosing piece of shit. Stay the hell away from that guy.

        1. his mention utterly invalidates the rest of the article.

      2. Yes. Fortunately the Brit he ordered to start WWIII wouldn’t do it.

        I will leave out my personal distaste for Clark, having been in Bosnia at the same time as he and his posse rode in for some ceremony – but he was the first general I heard field grade officers openly disdaining. They were correct to do so. He was all about anything he started, and sharpshooting anything anyone else did.

      3. That only the refusal to follow orders by a subordinate prevented. Yeah, I think he is that guy.

      4. And the Brit who was the cavalry officer at the tip of the spear, James Blunt, later had a gigantic #1 music hit, and the largest selling album of the 2000s in Great Britain.

        From the BBC article:

        In an interview with BBC Radio 5 live, broadcast on Sunday, he said: “I was given the direct command to overpower the 200 or so Russians who were there. “I was the lead officer with my troop of men behind us… The soldiers directly behind me were from the Parachute Regiment, so they’re obviously game for the fight. The direct command [that] came in from Gen Wesley Clark was to overpower them. Various words were used that seemed unusual to us. Words such as ‘destroy’ came down the radio.”

        Proof that God writes crazier fiction than any mere human could dream of.

        1. Now i have that awful song stuck in my head, you ass.

  6. So my proggie rooommate now wants to leave the country and is renewing his passport, because Trump is stacking is cabinet with “Islamophobes”, including Democrat Gabberd.


    1. Help him buy the plane ticket?

    2. Discuss

      You’re not the boss of me.

      1. lol. I beg forgiveness, commetariat

    3. If he believes that, he’s also likely to believe you when you tell him that he doesn’t get his security deposit back for some reason.

    4. Hope it works out for you to upgrade to a less crazy housemate.

      1. there are a lot of progs in the bay area. Grass is not always greener

        1. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

    5. Act like you’re taking him literally and start discussing timelines for him to move out so you can plan for a new roommate.

      See how quickly he backtracks.


    The Guardian has an article on getting out of the liberal bubble and maybe reading some “conservative sites”. The first site on their list for some reason is Reason.

    You could start at libertarian flagship Reason.

    Yes, it’s partly funded by the left’s least favorite family, the Kochs. Yes, it habitually shills for nasty industries like big oil and big tobacco. Yes, libertarian connections with the far right, their support for a brutal economic doctrine, and preparedness to get into bed with the worst reactionaries mean that we will never see eye to eye.

    But already some writers at Reason are doing good work exposing the authoritarian instincts of Trump and his lieutenants like Jeff Sessions, and playing host to some much-needed self-criticism on the American right.

    In general, Reason may also offer lessons on the strategic, long-term defence of constitutional principles.

    In recent years, parts of the left have been ambivalent about the first amendment. Now, given Trump’s authoritarian instincts in the face of even the mildest criticisms, sticking up for free speech might be seen as a tactical necessity.

    At worst, we could steal some of their lines.

    So if we start to see people in the comments that make Tony and Shriek look sane, this is why.

    1. I like how thinking it’s a good idea to NOT rob everybody at gunpoint is a “brutal economic doctrine.”

      Wait, actually, i don’t like that. It’s so stupid and malicious that it makes me furious.

      Thanks for the warning. Should be fun.

    2. While we may pick up a few more trolls, it seems likely that we may experience a large influx of teachable n00bs. Think of this as the best recruitment opportunity ever. Engage them.

      1. As long as Sugerfree doesn’t send them wailing back to their safespaces.

        1. Sug’s fiction is a deliberate part of the winnowing down of recruits.

          1. It’s not that hard to skip the comment when you see his name and a lot of text.

            1. It’s not that hard?

              But does it last for more than 4 hours?

            2. But then they become curious about what all the fuss is about, and get tired of not understanding the references. “Just this once,” they will say. “How bad can it be?” Then they awaken naked and trempbling in pools of their own bodily fluids and realize it’s too late.

          2. The mill of SugarFicc grinds both quickly and exceedingly fine. No, i don’t know if that’s a euphemism.

            1. My 12:56 PM comment above was supposed to go here. Pesky squirrels.

      2. It’s true. There are always a few who are willing to try to get past whatever indoctrination they’ve undergone, and most of the rest will get bored and wander off eventually.

      3. Engage them.

        We have come in peace! Shoot to kill.

    3. The comments section should burst their liberal bubble.

      1. No, they’d get accused of being Tulpa and wander off in confusion.

        1. Well to be fair, everyone IS Tulpa, so….

          1. You would say that, Tulpa.

    4. Couldn’t agree more. Reason is a bunch of mean old libertarian blackguards who make even the nasty old Republicans look like free-spending cuddle-bunnies.

      Everyone from The Guardian should stay away at risk of a horrifying trigger event that will require retreat in their safe space for a month.

      Also, I really don’t want the idiots stinking up the comments.

      1. Yes, if I wanted 0 IQ blather, I would read the comments at Vox.

        1. Cut spending. What are you, some kind of pussy? Everyone knows that spending has to be slashed!

    5. “and preparedness to get into bed with the worst reactionaries”

      To be fair, we’ll get in bed with anyone who will put out.

      1. Is that why there are members of the commentariat with a rather unique set of venerial diseases?

        1. That macaque wanted it.

    6. I’m actually kind of insulted that they didn’t insult us more.

  8. Wesley Clark is a tool.

    The hula girl sounds interesting.

    Why do senators give up their seats for this stuff? With a narrow majority, are the republicans really going to nominate a senator?

    1. For the republicans, it’s not such a risk, really. Nominating a Senator from a state with a same-party governer gives the replacement a leg-up on future electoral success and will ensure that the seat remains in the party. So it’s not as big of a risk long-run and might actually help foster new careers from the perspective of the party.

    2. advantage of having so many governorships

    1. how will the progs marginalize a woman indian “Person of “Color”” (god there’s not enough quotes for that bullshit sentence).

      Sellout? Internalized Misogyny? Racist? Islamophobe? Homophobe?

      1. “Gender-traitor.” That’s their go-to for women they don’t like.

    2. She would be an interesting pick. I hope she runs for president some day. She would also get a bounce, as it were, from all you straight guys; in contrast to another politician.

      1. I’d vote for her just to help make the first female president a Republican, to fuck with the progs.

        1. A non-progressive female president would never be acknowledged by the left.

    3. I’m really rooting for her or Bobby Jindal as Secretary of the Interior so that we can finally say the Bureau of Indian Affairs has an Indian boss.

      1. You are a terrible human being, Brett.

        1. LOL. I laughed hard at both of your comments.

          1. My wife fears that one day I’m going to forget where I am and start talking like that in public.

            1. My ex-wife had the same fears…and she was right!!!

            2. My wife gets on me cause I already do.

              I don’t get out much these days.

  9. I’m sure Trump will give you his ear.

  10. Is that the best picture of John Duncan you could find because, GAH.

  11. No, and some of these suggestions are ridiculous. The best person for a job isn’t the best because they have the right ‘ideology’. Its whether they have the experience and background to command respect within a large, complex department, and the personality & temperament to be successful negotiating with adversaries. The rest is gravy – nice to have, but not as essential.

    the fact you’d even seriously mention Ron Paul ends up making the rest of the piece questionable. I like the man, but he can hardly get through a tv interview without losing the plot & babbling himself into incoherence.

    1. I mean, the last two SecStates: Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. A failed presidential candidate with no great history of executive leadership would be right at home.

      1. Secretary of State used to be the stepping stone to the presidency. Now it’s a consolation prize.

      2. I mean, the last two SecStates: Hillary Clinton and John Kerry

        I know, i know. they undermine my point entirely.

        but i think they should serve as evidence that “2nd rate politicians” shouldnt be thrown into the job. Both of them were terrible in their role, and leave behind a disorganized, politicized, fractious state department. At the moment, relations with our allies are almost as badly managed as relations with our adversaries. Which is why i think it would appropriate for the new Sec State to be someone ‘non political/non ideological’ whose task is mainly to whip the department into shape, and clarify to other nations that we’re starting with a blank slate.

        1. So we shouldn’t treat the Secretary of State like the ambassadorships they oversee? Hmm..

          Only kidding. My father, a Baby Boomer, still holds up the old Foreign Service exams as something that proved that you were smart and well-educated. If only we had a professional core of State Department workers, preferably most of whom went to state schools on merit scholarships.

          1. we shouldn’t treat the Secretary of State like the ambassadorships they oversee?

            You make a good point. The percentage of politically-well-connected goofballs among ambassadors has never been something to brag about.

            But i think there’s a case to be made that there’s maybe few dozen countries on earth which the US takes very seriously, and that its ok that we have campaign bundlers as ambassador to Barbados or Luxembourg, as long as the people who are dealing with nuclear-armed allies/strategic non-aligned nations, etc. are relatively competent and are willing team-players.

            1. In an age of instantaneous communication ambassadors are of considerably less importance overall.

        2. Agreed. Which is why Corker should be considered a poor choice. He’s far too cozy with the DC crowd and would not be willing to ruffle feathers. Haslam is also not the sort you want choosing his replacement.

    2. I completely disagree that “experience and background to command respect” is more important than ideology. Stalin, Hitler and Mao all had respect and the ability to command it. And pray tell, how many career government employees are going to support less government and less intervention in foreign countries (admittedly some, but not most).

      If the underlings don’t behave, the head can do something about it, to get that respect, say if they want to get promoted (and even if they can’t be fired via civil service laws).

      Finally, if you find what Ron Paul says incoherent, maybe you should pay more attention. The reason he’s mentioned is because of the petition that exists to make him Sec. of State. And if you’re going to insult someone like Paul, you should at least provide an example to support it. As far as I can tell, you’re like a Democrat who wants to believe what he wants, because I’ve never seen Paul incoherent. If he was, they’d have him on TV more because the MSM and establishment hate him even more than Trump.

  12. The obvious choice: Swiss Servator.

    1. [stands and applauds]

    2. If he goes around giving everyone the swiss stare, we’ll lose for sure.

    3. I think not. That guy is a terrible negotiator – he gave away a kidney for free. Swiss would end up giving Putin Alaska just because Putin asked.

      1. Hells no, Crusty – I would want the $7,000,000 back we gave ’em!

        That is a good deal, right?

    4. “Our relations with Bern have never been better…however, the Raclette bills are enormous, and who keeps ordering so much Kirschwasser??”

    1. That’s probably why he put him last.

    2. Here are 5 Secretary… Oh shit, six?

  13. Why not just eliminate the State Department altogether? Problem sovled.

  14. First off – Wesley Clark – Fuck no. The guy is a preening asshole.

    Jim Webb is a good idea somewhere in the Administration. Whoever gets State has to be ready to clean house. More so with Treasury and EPA – You’re Fired!

  15. I was going to say “Ron Paul!” as a joke, but of course some of his fans are putting his name out there earnestly.

  16. Rep. John Duncan (R-Tenn.) has served in Congress since 1988.

    No, because he’s been in Congress since I was 13. Jesus H. Quesadilla, man – do something else with your life already.

  17. Jim Webb is the only big name Democrat in recent memory that I would even consider voting for.

    I agree with everyone about Wesley Clarke. I mean WTF?? That pretty much disqualifies everything else Ed wrote in the article.

    That is like saying here is a list of best US Presidents:
    George Washington
    Abraham Lincoln
    Ronald Reagan
    Barack Obama

    If Obama is on your list of “best” presidents, anything else you may have said is worth nothing.

  18. Tulsi Gabbard gets my vote. For no reason other than “wood.”

    1. I thought the same thing. And it seems like as good a reason as any other.

    2. She can be the secretary of my state any day.

  19. There are a lot of great appointments Trump could make, but why get your hopes up? He could, but he probably won’t, because he’s Trump. Expect his picks will suck now to avoid disappointment later.

    1. I expect a complete mixed bag. But it almost doesn’t matter – the entrenched civil service will outlast almost anone or anything.

  20. Isn’t Corker the one who arranged for Obama to make the Iran deal without a vote in Congress? Considering Rand was against the Iranian deal, it’s interesting to see he’d support Corker.

    Frankly, I think Putin did hack Hillary’s email server, and got all the emails off it it (it was setup in 2008). And I think he blackmailed her. Thus the Obama retreat in Syria, the meaningless sanctions (more crony capitalist favors I think) for Putin’s invasion of Crimea (much easier to do with blackmail material on Clinton/Obama), and the Iranian deal. And this is also why Hillary had to step down as Obama had to put a stop to it. Heck Putin probably had some emails from Obama to Clinton as well. Google “Putin Hillary photos” and you’ll see Putin whispering in her ear (without an interpreter), than Hillary freaks out while Putin laughs. It seems so obvious, and was completely ignored by the MSM.

    1. Pretty sure he was just telling her that raunchy joke about the transvestite hooker and the two aardvarks.

    2. I was going to ask the same thing re: Sen. Corker. It seems he led the effort that effectively gave Obama a pretext to avoid Senate ratification of the “deal” as a treaty. Of course, maybe it was a masterstroke of statecraft from the Senate to ensure the deal is legally non-binding on the next president.

  21. Listicles. Need them, you do not.

  22. I’ve met T. J., and I think he’d got a great job cleaning up after Hillary, I would be very surprised if he was willing to give up running Cypress for a government job. He’s pretty hard-line libertarian himself.


  23. While I agree with some commenters that Webb might be OK on policies, I still remember that time when W was president and asked Webb “how’s your boy,” in reference to Webb’s son being in the military in Iraq. Webb refused to even acknowledge the statement, which I presume was genuine. That seemed pretty classless to me.

  24. Uh, maybe someone should tell Clark we’ve invaded parts of Africa

  25. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!

  26. as Jeff said I’m surprised that anyone can make $9248 in four weeks on the computer . you
    could try here>>>>>>>>>>>

  27. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me..???????

  28. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me..???????

  29. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,


  30. I Quit my office-job and now I am getting paid 99 USD hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely!

    Check it out what i do:===>

  31. Dana Rohrabacher

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.