In an op-ed posted Friday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol broadly hinted that none of the big-name candidates (e.g. Mitt Romney, Sen. Ben Sasse, several widely respected generals) discussed in the press would run as a third-candidate alternative to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. He said:

[David French] is a best-selling author, an attorney, and a combat veteran of Iraq. A graduate of David Lipscomb College in Nashville and then of Harvard Law School, his legal practice made him one of the nation’s leading defenders of free speech on campus. He is the author or coauthor of several books, including, most recently, Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can’t Ignore. In 2007, having volunteered for military service, French deployed to Iraq, serving in Diyala Province as Squadron Judge Advocate for the 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, where he was awarded the Bronze Star. He lives with his wife and children in Columbia, Tennessee, and is a writer for National Review.

Word spread quickly Tuesday afternoon that French was not an example of a potential citizen-candidate, but the candidate Kristol and others had found.

Let me begin with the obvious: French deserves our thanks and gratitude for his distinguished service. He is plainly a patriot, and a courageous one at that. His writing is elegant, and he is beyond question a thoughtful, serious fellow. As Romney tweeted, “I know David French to be an honorable, intelligent and patriotic person. I look forward to following what he has to say.”

Donald Trump lashes out at the Weekly Standard editor after he tweets in reference to 2016 "There will be an independent candidate." (Reuters)

Nevertheless, if French is the alternative to the major-party nominees, the task to establish credibility as a presidential candidate will be daunting and widely seen as impossible. As a candidate for House or Senate, he might through hard work and retail politics sway voters, impressing them with his intellect and service record. Having missed the entire primary season, however, and lacking any name recognition or any experience in elected office, his task, at best, becomes extremely difficult. Robert Costa of The Post aptly explains, “If launched, a French campaign would almost surely be a quixotic endeavor that could draw pockets of Republican voters away from Donald Trump. And it would face steep logistical and financial hurdles, with many states’ ballot deadlines rapidly approaching.” As admirable as French may be the takeaway may be that “movement conservatives” are without political heft.

French and his supporters will face a barrage of process questions, including:

Does his run make it easier or harder for Republicans to resist the Trump bandwagon?
Is he prepared to run a national campaign with no experience in any elected office?
How does he go from no name recognition to 15 percent support to get into the presidential debates?
Does someone best known for writing for an “establishment” conservative magazine simply emphasize the divide between such conservatives and real voters or can his service record and legal work in defense of free speech define his candidacy?

There are several important considerations to keep in mind.

First, the Libertarian ticket with two former governors, Gary Johnson and William Weld, may prove more formidable than pundits expect. If Trump loses 10 percent or more of voters who would otherwise cast GOP ballots for president, he’s toast.

Second, if the purpose here is just to prevent Trump from winning, then few will take issue with the effort of any citizen, especially a serious-thinking, battle-tested veteran, to keep votes away from the noxious billionaire. That, however, makes backers more susceptible to the charge that this is just a pro-Clinton effort in disguise. (Nothing wrong with that, for those who find Trump a threat to the republic, but the backers may not want that label.)

Third, French will need to generate a policy-driven conversation, in hopes of resetting the tone in the race. Ideally, by his example, he would encourage a more elevated conversation. Whether by big-vision speeches or serious TV interviews, he will need to break through the din of nonsense, scandal and distraction kicked up by Hillary Clinton and Trump. That will be a daunting task.

And finally, the ironic result of this is that Romney, who refused to run but was widely seen as one of the few, if any, people who could make a successful run, may get blamed, however unfairly, for consigning us to a Trump or Clinton presidency. We will not know whether the outcome could have been different, but people will wonder for years.