Time's short, Evan; better get after it

A couple of takes on the Evan McMullen announcement. He seems to have the bona fides, according to LITD standards, but he does give new meaning to the term "long shot."

Neo-neocon:

Is Evan McMullin a 3rd-party candidate or a 53rd-party candidate? 

I’ve often said I think a 3rd-party candidate or an independent candidate has a chance this year because of widespread dissatisfaction with the other two. But I’ve never thought it could be someone utterly obscure:

McMullin served as a Mormon missionary in Brazil and volunteer refugee resettlement officer in Amman, Jordan, on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. On Sept. 11, 2001, he was in training at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia. He completed his training and volunteered for overseas service in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, spearheading counterterrorism and intelligence operations in some of the most dangerous nations, according to the group.
Once he left the CIA in 2011, McMullin went to work for Goldman Sachs in the San Francisco Bay Area and in 2013 became a senior adviser on national security issues for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and later the chief policy director of the House Republican Conference.

McMullin is also politically conservative. I’m a conservative, too, but for any alternative candidate to not merely act as a spoiler for Trump, that candidate must be able to draw voters from both parties and the middle. That person doesn’t have to be a household word, but he or she must have some name recognition and political reputation, and ideally should be at least a bit moderate or at least not frightening to those in the middle.

I’m not looking for perfection; I’m looking for possibility. Nor is this the year for conservative purism; that ship has sailed. This is a year for finding a viable alternative to the abominable twosome we face. If we can’t do that, we must choose between those two.

Leon Wolf at RedState:

I wish the people who are behind this effort all the best of luck, and it certainly seems by his resume that McMullin is a serious person - more serious than Donald Trump, by a mile. However, this late in the game, the ballot access issues alone are nearly insurmountable. Maybe if this had been in the works since March, it could have caused some actual damage but it's hard to see this getting off the ground to any significant degree, even with a significant influx of cash, which Rick Wilson alleges they have.

The only way such a move is feasible at this late stage of the game would be with a candidate who was both a) fantastically wealthy and b) at least a minor celebrity, and McMullin is neither. Probably the best-case scenario here is for McMullin to play spoiler in Utah, which hates Trump and might well latch on to McMullin as a guy with BYU ties.

Here's an excerpt from his Letter to America:

Like millions of Americans, I had hoped this year would bring us better nominees who, despite party differences, could offer compelling visions of a better future. Instead, we have been left with two candidates who are fundamentally unfit for the profound responsibilities they seek.

Hillary Clinton is a corrupt career politician who has recklessly handled classified information in an attempt to avoid accountability and put American lives at risk including those of my former colleagues. She fails the basic tests of judgment and ethics any candidate for President must meet. Moreover, she only offers stale economic ideas like the same old top-down government control that has brought us eight years of historically low growth.

Donald Trump appeals to the worst fears of Americans at a time we need unity, not division. Republicans are deeply divided by a man who is perilously close to gaining the most powerful position in the world, and many rightly see him as a real threat to our Republic. Given his obvious personal instability, putting him in command of our military and nuclear arsenal would be deeply irresponsible. His infatuation with strongmen and demagogues like Vladimir Putin is anathema to America values. We cannot and must not elect him.

Millions of Americans are not being represented by either of these candidates; those of us who care about the strength of the military and intelligence services find little to embrace in either Trump or Clinton.

Americans who believe in limited, Constitutional government that is smaller, smarter, and more accountable view both Clinton and Trump as symbols of corruption and excess that provide no hope of basic competence in the federal government.

Barring the unearthing of some shameful or weird deal-breaker, he looks like a great candidate.

We shall watch this phenomenon closely.