I think we should try to get Walter Cronkite as our next president. Too many reasons why to list here. But if we want to let the whole world know that we feel that invading another country was a mistake, what better way than to elect someone who was saying so from the start. What better way to counter the divisive partisanship that characterizes political campaigns today than to elect someone who enjoys the breadth and depth of trust and respect among the people as Mr. Cronkite has. What better choice could we make if we want someone who has witnessed so much of our recent and even not so recent history. As a journalist, Cronkite asked Anwar Sadat what it would take for him to be willing to meet with Menachem Begin. Sadat replied that he would be willing to meet any time. The Camp David Accords followed soon after. What difference might Cronkite make as president if bringing people together who have traditionally been enemies depends so much on being able and willing to ask the right questions? The possibility of electing Cronkite as president would help focus the mind of the citizens on the importance of the vice-presidential choice. We SHOULD be more interested in the question of who the vice-president will be. Cronkite put the question many years ago: Besides those who are running, who do you think might make a good president? We could get better results if we look beyond those who promote themselves to find candidates that the largest number of citizens say would be a good or great president. In an informal and somewhat random survey that I took about three years ago... 17% said that John Kerry would be a better president; 15% said Bush would be a better choice; 25% were undecided; and, 43% thought that Walter Cronkite would be the best choice, from the three names that I mentioned in the survey. (This was an \"on the street\" and \"in line at the grocery\" survey for the most part. But the results may have been skewed somewhat by the fact that I included responses from attendees at a rally where the featured spaaker was VP nominee Edwards.) I think that the current selection process is not a faithful reflection of the true will of the people. Why don\'t we hear this question more often? Who would you choose if you could ask anyone... someone who many others agree would be a good choice? www.thezephyr.com/cronkite/cronkite.htm Walter Cronkite newspaper columns www.geocities.com/gaiabrainearths/change.html Walter Cronkite: The Challenges of Change www.geocities.com/gaiabrainearths/cronkite.html more by Walter Cronkite

I think we should try to get Walter Cronkite as our next president. Too many reasons why to list here. But if we want to let the whole world know that we feel that invading another country was a mistake, what better way than to elect someone who was saying so from the start.

What better way to counter the divisive partisanship that characterizes political campaigns today than to elect someone who enjoys the breadth and depth of trust and respect among the people as Mr. Cronkite has.

What better choice could we make if we want someone who has witnessed so much of our recent and even not so recent history.

As a journalist, Cronkite asked Anwar Sadat what it would take for him to be willing to meet with Menachem Begin. Sadat replied that he would be willing to meet any time. The Camp David Accords followed soon after.

What difference might Cronkite make as president if bringing people together who have traditionally been enemies depends so much on being able and willing to ask the right questions?

The possibility of electing Cronkite as president would help focus the mind of the citizens on the importance of the vice-presidential choice. We SHOULD be more interested in the question of who the vice-president will be.

Cronkite put the question many years ago: Besides those who are running, who do you think might make a good president?

We could get better results if we look beyond those who promote themselves to find candidates that the largest number of citizens say would be a good or great president.

In an informal and somewhat random survey that I took about three years ago...

17% said that John Kerry would be a better president;

15% said Bush would be a better choice;

25% were undecided; and,

43% thought that Walter Cronkite would be the best choice, from the three names that I mentioned in the survey.

(This was an "on the street" and "in line at the grocery" survey for the most part. But the results may have been skewed somewhat by the fact that I included responses from attendees at a rally where the featured spaaker was VP nominee Edwards.)

I think that the current selection process is not a faithful reflection of the true will of the people.

Why don't we hear this question more often? Who would you choose if you could ask anyone... someone who many others agree would be a good choice?

www.thezephyr.com/cronkite/cronkite.htm
Walter Cronkite newspaper columns

www.geocities.com/gaiabrainearths/change.html
Walter Cronkite: The Challenges of Change

www.geocities.com/gaiabrainearths/cronkite.html
more by Walter Cronkite