David French Has An Answer For Bill Kristol — And It Might Not Be What You Were Thinking

Libertarian oriented conservative lawyer and writer David French has an answer for Bill Kristol on whether or not he is interested in running for President on an independently financed third-party ticket, and the answer is no.

French is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a staff writer at the National Review, a conservative news magazine founded in 1955 by William F. Buckley. In an editorial he wrote explaining his thought process, he pulled no punches when discussing the campaigns of two of the three remaining contenders for presidency.

Finding fault with Hillary Clinton's foreign policy, private foundation, and views on reproductive rights before mentioning the active F.B.I. investigation regarding her use of a private email server while serving in the State Department, French makes it clear that he isn't a fan of the former secretary of state, senator, and FLOTUS.

But there's also no love lost between French and the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, either. "Donald Trump also lies habitually (sometimes minute by minute), and changes position based on his moods," French writes. "In one breath he claims to support working men and women, and then with the next breath he threatens to destroy our economy through trade wars or by playing games with the full faith and credit of the United States." He also calls out the former reality television show star's followers for allegedly engaging in an online harassment campaign against his wife, Nancy, and his youngest daughter.

While it is clear that French isn't ready for Hillary, or itching to MAGA — an abbreviation that sounds as juvenile as the phrase it is short for — he also apparently doesn't feel like he is the right person to lead an independent movement. "But somebody is not always better than nobody. I'm on record saying that Mitt Romney could win. I believe others could run and win, and would make excellent presidents. Indeed, the path is there." However, a later part of his piece perhaps hinted at a slightly more sinister motivation.

French writes: "I believe with all my heart that there is an American movement ready to both resist the corruption, decadence, and dishonesty of the American elite and restore the promise of the American Dream. But that movement may not emerge for some time, and it might emerge only after further heartache and pain." Generally speaking, I understand the concept of creative destruction, but the idea that the American people need to experience any more "heartache and pain" before having the chance at a functional government just isn't a sentiment that I, personally, can endorse.

Our system of government was designed to be of, by, and for the people. Almost wistfully yearning for the American people to undergo additional "heartache and pain" before getting a more functional government shouldn't figure into the equation in the slightest.