You can tell where this is headed, can’t you?  Paul Morigi/Getty Images for Elle 
 
 In Tuesday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal, Jim VandeHei, the former CEO of Politico who left to start a still-mysterious new venture, has written one of the more clueless and despicable op-eds I have read from a current or former journalist. VandeHei then explains the problem with Sanders and Trump; one is a socialist, and the other is too vulgar, as if Trump’s language were the most offensive thing about him. The former comes in large doses, as VandeHei calls for “a true outsider” who will help “mandate that lawmakers … get outside of the D.C. bubble by holding months-long sessions in different sections of Normal America.” But amid this sort of dreary nonsense, VandeHei lets the mask drop here and there. The candidate should be from the military or immediately announce someone with modern-warfare expertise or experience as running mate. People are scared. Terrorism is today’s World War and Americans want a theory for dealing with it. President Obama has established an intriguing precedent of using drone technology and intelligence to assassinate terrorists before they strike. A third-party candidate could build on death-by-drones by outlying the type of modern weapons, troops and war powers needed to keep America safe. And make plain when he or she will use said power. Do it with very muscular language — there is no market for nuance in the terror debate. This is gross enough coming from someone in the media, but here is the next section, which is much worse, in full: 
 
 Exploit the fear factor.
– One of the co-founders of Politico makes the case that the success of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders shows that America is ready for a third-party movement. Those two have raised a "terrific middle finger" to the establishment, but neither presents a coherent governing strategy, writes Jim VandeHei in the Wall Street Journal. He wants a new party to combine the best of their movements, and even floats a name for it: the Innovation Party. VandeHei suggests someone like Mark Zuckerberg or Sheryl Sandberg could lead it, while Michael Bloomberg could provide financial backing and then perhaps run the Treasury. "Right now, millions of young people are turned on by a 74-old-year socialist scolding Wall Street" and "millions of others by a reality-TV star with a 1950s view of women," writes VandeHei. His ideal candidate is instead someone from outside the political system who can talk to Americans in "unvarnished" language. He or she should also be from the military or select a running mate who is, because "terrorism is today's World War." Click for his full column, which is meeting with some heated criticism. Some samples: "It takes a uniquely special mind to come up with an op-ed that is simultaneously so pointless and so perverse," writes Isaac Chotiner at Slate. He takes particular exception to VandeHei's suggestion that a candidate "exploit the fear" of Americans. "Anyone who believes we are a meritocracy should read Jim VandeHei, who somehow rose to the top of journalism world," tweets Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress. At the Washington Post, Daniel Drezner provides a critique "of an op-ed gone horribly, horribly wrong," from VandeHei's use of "Silicon Valley buzzwords" to his call for a military leader to save us all.