If we ONLY consider those who tell us that they are the best choice for President, we will tend to get egotistical people as leaders.

The 'winner' on Tuesday will not be a winner in the sense that we might like. We might like to have as a winner of this race a person who most all people trust and respect and admire; one who most people can agree will likely be a good or even a great President. We ought to have as President a person who can, more than anyone else, help us to recognize what we all have in common as Americans, a person who will call on us to look beyond our own private interests to the larger national and even global interest. We ought to have a President who will call on us to work for the greater good; to give of ourselves, for our fellows, and for future generations.

I hope that the Electors will realize that a popular vote that has most people staying away from the polls, and, of those who do vote, most voting for someone other than the 'winner', and of those who voted for the so-called winner, most of those saying that they were voting for 'the lessor evil', does not constitute a mandate from the people.

Walter Cronkite never ran for President because he does not want to see a situation where people who have become famous as television journalists use that as a platform to get into office. If that happened, anything any reporter said would be suspect. People would wonder, "Are they reporting news, or are they just trying to say what will help them build a platform to run for office?" Cronkite does not want to see anything happen that could strike at our belief in the integrity of journalists. It is important that citizens in a free society know and believe that reporters are trying to report objectively and not trying to promote their own future political career.

So, Cronkite believes that he should not promote himself. OK. He has a good point. But there might be another way to go about this process of choosing Presidents. Cronkite believes also that we might get better results if, instead of only considering those who are running, we also look beyond those who promote themselves to others who might be qualified. Many years ago, he put out a survey: "Besides those who appear to be running, who do you think might make a good President?" He showed a long list of names. Some people some other people think might make a good choice. Not surprisingly, his name was on the list. I think he has the right idea. We probably would get better results if we actively look for who we want to vote for.

What should the Electors do? Should they keep the tradition of voting their party interest, even with such low levels of participation--and in the face of such high levels of dissatisfaction--among voters and non-voters alike? If there could ever be a time when Electors should break from tradition and vote their conscience, to discuss among themselves and find someone who they, and we, could most all agree on, is it not now time? Will the Electors to the President rise to the challenge that this crisis of confidence has presented? Can they set aside party interest in favor of national interest? Should they?


Walter Cronkite for President


Why Cronkite never ran - and a hint that he might welcome a draft


John Champagne