James Taranto:

Since the 1980s Hugh Romney has been waging a campaign for president, though not on his own behalf. Romney, an entertainer better known by the stage name “Wavy Gravy,” is the man behind Nobody for President, described in a 1988 Reuters dispatch quoted by this column four years ago this week:

The signs sprouting in the crowd were a little different from the usual campaign fare: “Nobody is Perfect,” “Nobody Cares About the Homeless,” and “Nobody Bakes Better Apple Pie than Mom.”

Bumper stickers were selling out fast. “U.S. Out of North America: Nobody for President in 1988” appeared to be the most popular.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reports that Mitt Romney, no relation, is waging an “increasingly lonely challenge to Donald Trump,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. No, this Romney isn’t running for president either, though he’s done so twice before:

Mr. Romney, 69, wasn’t worried when Mr. Trump joined the race in June, believing the 16 other Republicans made up a “very capable, well-experienced, very deep field.” Along with other politicians, he expected the businessman to implode after his pronouncement attacking illegal immigrants. . . .

Conservative stalwarts [have] revived a push for a third-party candidate, with a keen interest in Mr. Romney. “I made it clear I’m not running,” he said.

So the “challenge” consists merely of speaking against Trump, and it’s not clear he’ll even keep that up:

At his oceanfront home, Mr. Romney said he didn’t expect to criticize Mr. Trump further but wouldn’t rule it out.“I know that some people are offended that someone who lost and is the former nominee continues to speak, but that’s how I can sleep at night,” he said. “And there are some people, though it’s a small number, who still value my opinion.”

“I know that some people are offended that someone who lost and is the former nominee continues to speak, but that’s how I can sleep at night,” he said. “And there are some people, though it’s a small number, who still value my opinion.”Mr. Romney said he won’t vote for Mr. Trump or [Hillary] Clinton. “Hopefully, I will find a name I can support,” he said. “If not, I will write in a name.”

Mr. Romney said he won’t vote for Mr. Trump or [Hillary] Clinton. “Hopefully, I will find a name I can support,” he said. “If not, I will write in a name.”For this Romney, then, it’s Anybody for President. (Well, anybody except the candidates, or himself.) Bill Kristol,

For this Romney, then, it’s Anybody for President. (Well, anybody except the candidates, or himself.) Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, is on the same page, except that he thinks “it would be great if Romney chose to run.” It would also be great, Kristol adds, if Joe Lieberman, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Condoleezza Rice, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Nikki Haley or Susana Martinez ran. And it would be pretty good if Mike Pompeo, Adam Kinzinger, Judd Gregg or Mel Martinez would run. They’re all on Wikipedia.

Failing that, Kristol observes, “someone who hasn’t yet held elective office” could run. He suggests David French, a writer for National Review who earlier this week published an article titled “Mitt Romney, Run for President”:

I happen to know David French. To say that he would be a better and a more responsible president than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is to state a truth that would become self-evident as more Americans got to know him. There are others like him. There are thousands of Americans who—despite a relative lack of fame or fortune—would be manifestly superior to our current choices. And there are many, many others who stand ready to help whoever emerges to have the basic resources, assistance, and infrastructure to mount a credible effort.

We suppose we should disclose that we too know French, find him likable, and give him a favorable job-approval rating, though we find his anti-Trump stuff overwrought. It occurs to us it would be funny if he ran for president of France, since victory would yield a word palindrome: French President French. But we have no clue if he’s even eligible over there.

As for the American presidency, French’s response to Kristol’s floating his nom is noncommittal. This morning he tweeted: “An independent campaign against Trump/Clinton is a national necessity.” We’re taking that as a non.

Kristol’s list raises other questions. Jerry Skurnik, an occasional contributor to this column, wonders where is Kristol’s former boss, the seasoned elder statesman Dan Quayle. For that matter, where’s Kristol himself? If writing an article urging Mitt Romney to run qualifies French to run, then why doesn’t writing an article urging French to run qualify Kristol to run? Recognizing that this line of thought poses a danger of infinite regress, we peremptorily declare that, in the words of Gen. Sherman, “even if unanimously elected [we] should decline to serve.”

On the other side, what’s Joe Lieberman doing on there? He’s a Democrat, was Al Gore’s running mate, and cast the deciding vote leading to the enactment of ObamaCare—not exactly a conservative stalwart, unless support for the Iraq war is sufficient to earn that distinction.

And what about Marco Rubio? Did Kristol miss the news that Jennifer Rubin (or as we’ve come to think of her, Ayn Rand Jr.) has expelled Florida’s junior senator from the conservative movement? “Rubio has ceded a potential role in the rebuilding of the GOP post-Trump,” Rubin decrees. “A man of such flimsy character and fleeting convictions cannot be part of the rehab process that will go on once the election is over.”

The Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein details the offense that led to Rubio’s excommunication:

On Thursday, Rubio took another step toward fully embracing Trump for the presidency by telling CNN’s Jake Tapper that he not only planned to attend the Republican convention, but that he would be “honored” to speak on Trump’s behalf.

That’s unacceptable, as per Klein, because Rubio previously said harsh things about Trump:

Rubio’s assaults on Trump during the primary season were about more than “policy differences.” In addition to repeatedly calling Trump a “con artist,” Rubio: predicted that a Trump presidency would bring “chaos”; said Trump was “wholly unprepared to be president”; and warned about handing over control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to an “erratic individual” and a “lunatic.”

Klein thinks this inconsistency reveals “Rubio’s true character—and it is not pretty.” He imagines that primary rivals’ uniting after a heated campaign is something other than politics as usual.

But if Rubio is disqualified for supporting and denouncing Trump at different times, why isn’t Romney, who praised Trump to the skies when collecting his endorsement in 2012? Never mind, we suppose that question is Mitt, or rather moot. …

For his part, Kristol isn’t quite ready to climb aboard the Clinton jalopy. “The fact” of Mrs. Clinton’s “unfitness for the Oval Office” is, to him, as “self-evident” as that of Trump’s. But what happens if he is unable to persuade Anybody to run? Will he join Hugh Romney’s Nobody for President effort?

That might be tough, too. It would require Kristol to admit Nobody is better than Donald Trump.