Earlier this evening, news leaked that David French is Bill Kristol’s mystery candidate. David French is a veteran of the Iraq war, a recipient of the Bronze Star, and a constitutional lawyer. He’s the author of seven books, an adoptive father, and a stalwart conservative. He is not a career politician. He also happens to be one of my favorite writers—which is why I link to his National Review articles continuously. As I said several months ago, he’s always right.
David French is always right. https://t.co/fCRd5tqN5K
— Denny Burk (@DennyBurk) February 7, 2016
I think he’s a fantastic candidate. A long-shot? Yes. A spoiler? Hopefully. But I don’t want to weigh-in right now on all of that. More on that later.
What I want to do now is briefly address one particular attack that emerged on Twitter almost right after the news came out. It started with a tweet from a Politico reporter.
So when David French was in Iraq, he wouldn't let his wife e-mail men or use Facebook. https://t.co/F1tEOwE4sc pic.twitter.com/ZOOV52QXUN
— Kevin Robillard (@PoliticoKevin) May 31, 2016
The tweet is now making the rounds, and people are using it as an attack against French. It’s a ridiculous attack for several reasons.
(1) It’s inaccurate. The story to which it refers does not say anything about French “letting” or not letting his wife do anything. The story says that David French and his wife sat down together and strategized together about how to protect their marriage during his long deployment to Iraq. They had seen how long deployments wreaked havoc on other marriages, and they didn’t want their marriage to succumb to those same pressures. They were wise and right to do this, and they did it together.
(2) Spouses who make concrete plans for fidelity to their marriage covenant ought to be admired and emulated, not attacked and caricatured. The French’s did a wonderful thing, and more couples ought to do the same. Why? Because good marriages happen on purpose, and bad marriages happen by default. That the French’s decided to plan for fidelity is a good thing—good for their marriage, good for their children, good for their Christian witness.
(3) I’ll take the French’s plan for fidelity over the Republican nominee’s serial adultery any day. Not only did the Republican nominee commit countless acts of adultery, he bragged about the married women he’d slept with. Are we really going to lampoon the French’s heroic fidelity while lauding the braggadocio of a serial adulterer? If someone is going to be disqualified because of marital issues, that someone is not going to be David French.
Im sorry but I cant understand why people get all upset about what the French’s do with their relationship to keep it strong according to their own personal values? I really cant stand much of what Mr. French writes and I am rather liberal in most social areas but what people do is their own personal business. I think he would make a good third party candidate, maybe we can actually start talking about issues. Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton have some great ideas along with Senator Sanders but the name calling and bravado need to end. Its to bad he did not come forward sooner. I know when I was hurting the French’s helped me out by what they write on their blog.
Like him or hate him, I think the real issue is this: Is it not a bit late to get on the ballot in all the states. If this is a write in campaign, forget it.
Debbye Butler Hicks
I don’t really have a problem with what French and his wife agreed upon, because it’s their marriage and their business, but when I look at my own marriage, my husband and I would never have to have a conversation like that. We had this type of conversation before we got married, and as my husband was deployed during the Gulf War, (and yes, I realize that we did not have the internet as we do today; I also realize that the military is rampant with philanderer’s), but it never occurred to either of us to clamp down so hard on our marriage, my husband works as an RN with females everyday and I’m sure it’s not intended, but to me it’s gives credence to a jealousy of some sort. My husband and I committed to each other over 33 years ago with Christ being the center of our marriage, and never once have we looked into committing visually, emotionally, spiritually, or physically adultery. I hear in this article what French told Nancy what he expected from her, is there a “what she expected from him, clause?”
Something to consider: I heard several pastors having a discussion on the radio once about their infidelity. They all agreed that the one thing that led to their sin, was their overconfidence that it would never….could never happen to them.
I hope lots and lots of people read this. Lots. That’s why I’d like for it to be correct. Both instances of French’s in (2) should be Frenches. And both instances of French’s in (3) should be Frenches’. Right? Not trying to be a jerk here– I like for our team to look good. The time to use “French’s” is when you mention something of his OR hers, not both (Mr. French’s integrity is impeccable).
We have been praying for a man like him to step up. Now (hopefully) he has and everyone starts their gripping and story telling. I want someone I can be proud to say I voted for. Please can we listen to Major French and hear his plan to save this country.