National Review Writer David French 'Planning for' Independent Presidential Bid?

"The 'impressive' 'independent candidate' that #NeverTrump leader and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol touted as having a "real chance" to win the presidency has been identified as National Review writer and Iraq War veteran David French, who is now believed to be planning for a presidential run."

2863 reads

There are 10 Comments

Jim's picture

  • I know who he is but he has virtually ZERO name recognizion
  • Imagine bumper stickers and yard signs = "Vote FRENCH"
  • Already missed the Texas deadline
  • Gonna need half a billion to run

A non-starter

josh p's picture

Would have rather seen Sasse make a go although I know very little about French. To my way of thinking, almost anyone would be better than Trump or Hillary but it would be nice if the person had a decent chance. 

Bert Perry's picture

you've got to do your homework for a Presidential run.  For whatever virtues or faults French or Sasse have, they haven't done it.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

jimcarwest's picture

josh p wrote:

Would have rather seen Sasse make a go although I know very little about French. To my way of thinking, almost anyone would be better than Trump or Hillary but it would be nice if the person had a decent chance. 

 

Everyone who is opposed to Donald Trump owes it to himself to google David French and go to his Face Book page and "Like it."  Unfortunately, he is not well known, but he would be a candidate that brings together all the positive things we would desire that the GOP presumptive nominee doesn't have.  It might be easier to acquaint America rapidly with French than to try to remake Trump into the person we could support.  

jimcarwest's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

you've got to do your homework for a Presidential run.  For whatever virtues or faults French or Sasse have, they haven't done it.

Normally you would be right, Bert, but in the case of Trump, he quite obviously has not done his homework.  Besides, he tells people what they want to hear, and then days later he reverses himself or downplays what he has said.  Example:  A couple of weeks ago Trump told Chris Wallace on "Fox Sunday" that he definitely would like to see Japan and South Korea have their own nuclear weapons.  This caused quite a stir, even in the "conservative" media.  Two days ago, he reversed himself completely, saying that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons.  So, which is it, Mr. Trump?  He has done this on so many issues.  He is a work in progress, and no one has any idea where he will end up ideologically in the end.  Add to this his low morals, three marriages and two divorces, bankruptcies, gambling casinos, strip joints in his hotels, "all over the place" on abortion and Planned Parenthood, donations to liberal politicians (which he explained as "the cost of doing business"  (would that be bribery?), "on the record" comments about women that are degrading, including inviting the Clintons as guests at one of his weddings during the period that he now references as the time when Hillary was destroying the lovers of her husband, etc., etc.  While insulting all his opponents with mocking nick-names, he turns around and praises them once they quit and endorse him.  While attaching the moniker "Lyin' Ted" to Cruz, he publishes false reports from the "National Inquirer" that constitute slander against both Cruz, his wife, and his minister father.  Then he has the gall, after Cruz withdraws, to praise him for being such a worthy opponent.  He brags about his strong religious experience in a church that has only been known for liberalism, and boasts of his support by "evangelicals."  It has been shown that these so-called evangelicals in the South are those that do not attend church more often than every six to eight weeks.  Both the leader of the GOP, Reince Priebus, and the Majority Leader in the House, have only reluctantly endorsed him just to demonstrate a unity that hardly exists.  As a #NeverTrump member, I can find nothing redeemable in Donald Trump.  And don't get me started on Hillary Clinton.  

Bert Perry's picture

Craig, understood, but the homework I'm referring to is getting your name out so your name can appear on the ballot--say in Texas, as Jim points out.  I'm afraid at this point that it is indeed true that voting for French is a vote for Hilliary.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

jimcarwest's picture

I am assured that deadlines for getting names on the ballots is not fixed in stone.  Legal challenges have occurred before that have overcome this hurtle.  But, let it be understood that a candidate does not have to be on all 50 States to spoil both Party's chances.  Technically speaking, being on few ballots, but being on key contested ballots, is all that is necessary, I believe.  The goal would be to deny both major candidates the required 270 electoral votes, which would then throw the election into the House to be decided by a majority vote.  There conservative Republicans would have a strong voice.  It's a long shot, to be sure, but it's happened twice before in our history.  

jimcarwest's picture

Noted Democrat pollster, Doug Schoen, who appears regularly  on Fox has said in the last few days that he doesn't believe Hillary's name will be on the ballot, owing to her probably indictment by the Department of Justice.  We'll see.  This year''s election is a toss up at this point.  Both major candidates have more unfavorables than favorables.  

Bert Perry's picture

....but my take is that if Hilliary is indicted, she will suddenly develop an AMAZING memory of her interactions with Mr. Obama that will result in at least one more indictment, if you catch my drift.  So I'm guessing POTUS puts the kibosh on it for the same reasons he (IMO) put the kibosh on any serious investigation of the IRS.  Here are my earlier comments on the IRS investigation.

If I became President, I'd pull a page out of Reagan's playbook and bring back a federal facility out of mothballs.  Except instead of the USS New Jersey, the USS Iowa, and the USS Missouri, it would be Alcatraz.  Or maybe Gitmo.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

josh p's picture

I don't have a Facebook but I will check him out. If only Buckley were still here to lend support, if indeed he would.