Bill Kristol looks to recruit conservative writer David French for third-party bid

Conservative columnist Bill Kristol is working to recruit David French, a writer for National Review, as a third-party presidential candidate, CBS News has confirmed.

“A group approached French, he’s considering it seriously and is in contact with lots of serious people,” a source with knowledge of the effort told CBS News.

French is an Iraq veteran and a constitutional lawyer, and lives in Columbia, Tenn., with his family. Just last week, he wrote a National Review plea for 2012 nominee Mitt Romney to consider a third-party bid, saying Romney is “the only man who combines the integrity, financial resources, name recognition, and broad public support to make a realistic independent run at the presidency.”


I was confusing David French with David Spade.

Got them mixed up.

Why doesn’t Bill just run for president himself. He could pick Billy Crystal as his running mate. Kristal/Crystal Bill 'n Billy



The two comments above sum up what I think about this idea – silly, and definitely not good for the country (not that I’m all that enthusiastic about a Trump or another Clinton presidency).

Pollster Frank Luntz said on Fox News that the bid was “meaningless” because he has not held elected office, he is not known etc.

Well he’s probably known to a segment of conservatives, and others but probably isn’t well known given that he has not held office and is not a well known celebrity or something.

What is so great about “Conservativism” anyway? Our founding patriots were not conservative. Abolitionists were not conservative. The civil rights movement was not conservative. Progress is not conservative. Even Jesus was not conservative.:shrug:

What a colossal waste of time.

I have to admit, granted I am no conservative, but when I heard about this earlier this morning, my first thought was, does the name ring a bell?


The Civil Rights Movement is largely a history of Republicans fighting for civil rights in the the legislature while Democrats largely opposed civil rights legislation from the nineteenth century to the twentieth century:

Where many of these Republcians not conservative? I don’t know what the ideology was for the abolitionists was, they may have been mixed ideologically, but in regards to Jesus, I don’t think he can be called a conservative, a moderate or liberal. These terms just don’t work.

No, those Republicans were on the whole not conservative. The Republican party has not always been the “conservative” party. The roles and missions of the parties have shifted around over the years. The only thing that remains consistent is that both parties want to remain entrenched in power.

I agree whole heartedly that current US political labels are simply inapplicable to Jesus.

I find it odd that they take this tact instead of courting Trump and selling him on their ‘superior ideas’. Trump is going to need conservative support if he becomes President.

I think it’s fundamentally about Trump ignoring the establishment consulting class who advise other candidates, and make huge kick-backs on the campaign spend. Trump is costing them maybe 20% of the money raised.

How do they know these Republicans were not conservative?

Classical liberalism, developed in 19th century Europe and the United States, centered on the unalienable rights of the individual. The fundamental liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion for all belief systems, and the separation of church and state (properly understood as “no established/state religion”), right to due process, and equality under the law are widely accepted as a common foundation across the spectrum of classical liberal thought. Classical liberals advocated for things like civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law, economic freedom, and the like. The United States of America was the first country to be founded on these ideas; that’s what our founding patriots were, and *that’s *what conservatives want to conserve.

Abolitionists were classical liberals. The leaders of the civil rights movement were classical liberals. Today’s liberals – without the qualifier – are anything but classical liberals.

Followers of Adam Smith were liberals, but today are called classical liberals, or conservatives, because they want to conserve the political and economic principles of classical Enlightenment thought. Those who are vehemently opposed to these conservative principles are sometimes today called progressives, who want to progress beyond—instead of conserving—classical liberalism.

I for one certainly wouldn’t call same-sex “marriage,” transgenderism, and the like, “progress” – but I would agree that today’s progressives are not conservative.

How do we know anyone is conservative or not? Because they took progressive positions on many issues.

It may be more accurate to say that the term doesn’t make sense in context. Republicans in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th had very different concerns than republicans today.

One could argue what is so great about being Progressive? Just because a group is labeled “Progressive” does not mean they seek progress (defined as a change for the good.) Likewise, one could argue that just because someone is labeled a “Conservative” does not mean they espouse to only seek conservation (of that which is good).

In this country, the groups are defined not by the verbs that their names are taken from, but by the general set of beliefs they espouse. Progressivism evokes bigger government, defense of same-sex marriage, “reproductive health”, and a general secularization of society. It can be parsed into financial progressivism and social progressivism, though most people see it as the latter. Conservatism evokes smaller government, the defense of traditional marriage, the right to life, and a cementing of God in society. Conservatism too is more starkly broken into financial conservatism and social conservatism (the former often looking at the latter with disdain. The divide is more clear than with progressivism.

To use a modern label to define Jesus (“He was a progressive because he moved away from the cultural norms of the Pharisees and Sadducees”) is relatively meaningless, because most folks would agree he was a social conservative as defined today. He was God, of course. How we would feel about fiscal progressivism or fiscal conservatism is something often debated.

For a Progressive candidate, we could nominate Flo.

She is the mostly widely recognized Progressive spokesperson.

True Conservatives know this stuff:

Social Conservative doesn’t mean “status quo” or “no change”

It means to conserve the traditions and culture of a society.

While Fiscial Conservative means to be thrifty, to conserve financial resources.

The kind of slavery we had in the Americas was a very “progressive” form of slavery, which was NOT similar to slavery of the Roman Empire, etc.

What conservative is going to vote for a guy named French? Who can forget Freedom Fries?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit