Cronkite Calls for Midterm Democratic Convention

Now this is interesting. In a letter published in today's New York Times (diaried by SneakySnu at dKos), Walter Cronkite advocates a midterm convention for the Democratic Party to develop its platform and make a positive case to the nation.

The convention would not need to be expensive. The delegates could be those who attended the 2004 convention. Their meeting would be open to the public and of course the press.

In sharp contrast to the secrecy of the Bush administration, it would let the public, if only remotely, share in the construction of the Democratic platform.

Although local issues might cause some candidates in next year's Congressional election to veer from the platform on comparatively minor issues, the basic principles of the party would be clearly apparent.

The voting population would for the first time in many years have an unobstructed view of those principles that differentiate the Democratic Party from those of the Republican Party.

This really taps into something we've been discussing here quite a bit lately. The virtual collapse of the GOP is a tremendous windfall for the Democrats heading into the midterms. But without a solid platform and strong vision, the party will not be able to fully take advantage of the opportunity. I think those pieces are starting to fall into place, but this would really push us over the top.

As Cronkite says, a midterm convention would really clarify Democratic positions and draw a stark contrast with the GOP. It would also help to nationalize the election in the same way that the Contract With America did in 1994. While the convention wouldn't get the same wall-to-wall coverage as would a Presidential nominating convention, the cable news outlets would be all over it, as would the networks' nightly news programs. (And really, with the restricted network coverage of the conventions last year, that will probably become the norm anyway.)

It's also a smart move in the sense that such a convention would show the American people that the Democratic Party is working overtime to help solve the nation's problems. This is key at a time when it seems like the Republicans are almost solely interested in lining their own pockets. Most importantly though, a midterm convention would help slice through the endless, mindless media spin that the Democrats are devoid of ideas.

If nothing else, from my perspective, there's really no sense in arguing with Walter Cronkite. I really hope we see something like this in the offing quite soon.



Display:


Free media coverage (none / 0)

for democrats doesn't hurt either.

One key to making this work is to ensure that Presidential hopefuls understand that this is about the party and congressional candidates and not about them. I can see something like this getting turned into a tv commerical for Kerry and Clinton and Biden and Edwards. That won't do us any good as a party at all.

The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 04:45:13 PM EST

Re: Free media coverage (3.00 / 1)

Ha! Good luck getting ANY Senator to think that they aren't the center of the universe, let alone wannabe Presidents :)

I really like this idea, and I fear it at the same time. I trust the membership but not the leadership. What I'd love to see most, is probably what the DNC would most hate - and maybe rightly! - an actual public discussion, even argument, with a goal of consensus and not victory. Find the common ground. If someone thinks that such-and-such a plank is a "special interest" position, then they have to get up and say so and win the argument. Not get it kicked out in committee because they know the chairman's daughter-in-law or whatever.

And any anonymous backstabbers, the game that the DC crowd loves so much to play, will be hunted down by ferrets!

Weren't the delegate slots for 2004 pretty well controlled by the Kerry campaign?

by tatere on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 07:31:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Brilliant! (none / 0)

And we can have it in a metro area with multiple close races, like Buffalo or Charlotte or Philadelphia or Minneapolis.  This is a fantastic idea.  Please don't hold it in Boston or New York though.
by lorax on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:01:18 PM EST

Addressing the Issues (3.00 / 1)

As long as this puts out a UNIFIED message as to what the dems will do about the war, as well as health care, social security, et. al. this idea has merit. And a little trash talk about the other side wouldn't be out of order.
Memo to neocons: I respect your right to have an opinion, but I just don't want to hear it anymore.
by blogus on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:06:48 PM EST

Exactly - UNIFIED (none / 0)

As thirdestate has pointed out, this can backfire.

The Democratic Party should view such a convention as an opportunity to present a fully or close-to fully formed platform, rather than as a place to hash out a platform -- which could make us look divided and beholden to special interests, particularly if certain media outlets choose to present it that way.

Of course, this could be done somewhat under the prestense of hashing out so that it doesn't just look like a publicity move.

TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds
by LiberalFromPA on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 08:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MyDD needs to call on the Democratic (none / 0)

Party to support Cronkite's excellent suggestion to hold a mid-convention prior to 2006. Position the party with a clear platform and prevent campaigning at the mid-term convention. We need to tell our future presidential hopefuls what we want in broad brush terms.

Cronkite's idea isn't just a nice idea it is a powerful idea that needs to sweep through liberal blogs. Liberal blogs should be calling upon their readers to contact The Democratic Party to move on Cronkite's brillent suggestion. Use the blogosphere's power.

by easystreet on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:15:37 PM EST

Re: MyDD needs to call on the Democratic (none / 0)

Why do we need to tell our presidential hopefuls what we want?  Why don't we wait for them to tell us what they want, then nominate one of them?
by paul minot on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 01:58:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hear hear! who else should I contact? (none / 0)

email sent to my rep, senators, state party chair, and Dean c/o the DNC.  phone calls and paper letters will follow to the rep and senators.  who else should I contact to voice my support for this idea?    DSCC and DCCC chairs?  
by benchcoat on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:20:45 PM EST

Houston! (3.00 / 0)

We have a senate race, governor race, attorney general, and others state wide.  But why else H-town?

Most important house race in the nation.  Tom DeLay vs. Nick Lampson.  The local dem club said they were trying to get Pelosi to come here over the next year except she said she is not allowed to campaign against other party leaders.

Except DeLay is no longer a part of the leadership.

Besides, putting it in Houston would be good.  It's a good 50/50 split city (Dem mayor) in a reddish state.  This is Bush's backyard, go there and say "we have a plan!"

by Trowaman on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:28:42 PM EST

Re: Houston! (none / 0)

Awesome idea and choice... plus I could attend it. The goal to making Texas blue is turning and saturating city votes (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso, Fort Worth, Austin, etc.) for dems and keeping competitive in all of these districts - while courting, wooing, and registering Hispanics from primarily South Texas and African-Americans from East Texas. Plus there are atleast 4 seats we should target in this next cycle for Texas.
by KainIIIC on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 10:55:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ohio (none / 0)

If you're going to have it anywhere, Columbus, Toledo or Cincinnatti are pretty good ideas, really.
by HoosierJosh on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:37:41 PM EST

Bad Idea (3.00 / 1)

This has been tried before, in 1974 and 1978. The Democrats had mid-term conventions for the same rationale Cronkite is offering - the party would be able to clarify its positions. All it did was highlight the divisions in the party, and it didn't get that much media attention anyway, so the idea was scrapped.

Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past, shall we?

by thirdestate on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 05:45:45 PM EST

Re: Bad Idea (none / 0)

I was going to say the exact same thing!  Those conventions also served to strongly reinforce the image that the party was hostage to special interest groups.  It figures, because at the time it basically was.

Anybody suggesting that we bring these back ought to do some research on why we got rid of them in the first place.

by rapid response on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 06:01:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad Idea (none / 0)

Explain to me what exactly is a special interest in the Democratic Party? I'm getting soooo sick of Democrats parroting Republican BS! Sorry, but as a member I don't understand what constitutes a 'special interest'. I know what it means to the Republicans...it means UNIONS...YOU KNOW, those people that stuck together to DEMAND WORKERS RIGHTS AND HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES.As in many other issues the Republican propoganda machine has managed to disscredit unions as being corrupt...yes maybe there were SOME corrupt union leaders...but does that mean the very idea of a union is corrupt? Hell no, as a union of states do we try to dissassemble the United States because one governor is corrupt? Hell no, but this is the kind of crap the Corporate Republican Party has managed to use
to effectively diminsh the IDEA of a union to John Q Public. Their other crap was that a person doesn't need a union if they're doing an honest day's job! Well as you can see now, we need unions and government protections against our own employeers, who will not only make you train someone else for YOUR JOB, but they'll get their Board of Directors to give themselves HUMONGUS SALARIES, and big shares of company stock just so they can keep manipulating company directives to keep the keys to the treasure box.  
  Workers are not a special interest, WE ARE America, without us, without laborors all you have left is a few chiefs and they can't do all the work required to keep America going UNTIL THIS ADMINISTRATION...WHO WAS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BEFORE THE ELECTION BY KEN LAY AND HIS ILK OF CORPORATE AMERICA...NOW they don't care what any of US want..THEY HAVE OUR TAX FUNDED POLICE,FBI,CIA,SECRET SERVICE AND NATIONAL GUARD TO PROTECT THEM NO MATTER HOW CORRUPT THEY ARE!
They are going to bring in Mexicans,and anyone else they can ship in to take our jobs! And no one is saying SQUAT ABOUT IT!!!!!
  NO MATTER HOW MUCH FUN JON STEWART MAKES FUN OF IT...WE NEED A MARCH ON WASHINGTON...DEMANDING THAT OUR GOVERNMENT MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO BRING ANYONE HERE FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY TO TAKE AN AMERICAN JOB, AS LONG AS THERE IS ONE UNEMPLOYED CITIZEN...PERIOD!
  They say Americans won't work for small wages...YOU're damn right, we shouldn't work for small wages! Geezuz, how much does a house cost? How much does a car cost? How much do food, clothes and utilities cost? DO YOU SEE CEO'S, LOBBYISTS, AND ESPECIALLY OUR CONGRESS AND SENATORS LIVING PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK LIKE THE REST OF US? Do you see any of them worrying about doctor bills? HELL NO...KNOW WHY? BECAUSE AS THE LABOR FORCE AND THE TAX PAYERS WE GIVE THEM THEIR LIFESTYLE!!! Does it look like any of these yahoos we have right now, give a s--t about the 80% of us 'little people'? Hell no!
 But as 'the people' I feel we can and MUST turn this around as soon as possible!!! We need to get most of the BUMS that are in office now..OUT!
Meaning EVERY REPUBLICAN AND MOST OF THE DEMOCRATS..especially DLC'ers!!
 We need to guard (by hard-line LAWS) AGAINST DIMISHING OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN FAVOR OF CORPORATE INTERESTS. This torte reform stuff only gives Corporate America a freer hand to commit all kinds abuses on the citizenery just to make a few more bucks.
 We need a country where can a person work on one job and support a family,where a company will have to abide by CLEAN AIR ACTS...AND HEALTH AND SAFETY FOR THEIR WORKERS...NO LOBBYISTS...FAIR PRESCRIPTION PRICES, TAKING BACK OUR AIRWAVES...3 MONTH CAMPAIGNS FINANCED BY US...COMPLETE TRANSPARANCY OF GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS...AND,this is the hardest part; we must figure out how we will NEVER AGAIN FALL INTO A ONE PARTY SYSTEM!!!!!!!  
by grammy on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:19:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad Idea (none / 0)

     "Special Interest" - anyone who is not a white-collar, heterosexual, caucasian southern man or who advances an agenda that speaks to issues outside of the interests of a WCHCSM.

     And while I normally avoid reading posts that use copious amounts of flaming, the above post really needed to be said by someone. Thanks, Grammy!

by Lokileague on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 10:16:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmmm (none / 0)

It sounds like a good idea, but I can see how it backfires.  It depends on how united we are (not very, so...).
by Geotpf on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 08:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad Idea (none / 0)

Right. Let's all pretend that there are not any divisions in the Democratic Party and all join hands around the campfire singing Kumbayah and roasting marshmellows.
by Gary Boatwright on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hmmm. (none / 0)

maybe we would have a chance to get real voting reform some air time if we did this.

-C.

by neutron on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 06:14:25 PM EST

Won't be on TV (none / 0)

The downside of this proposal is that there won't be any suspense or big made-for-TV parties, so the networks won't run it.

It could be a good idea though if some meaningful business is conducted. I was in Boston and no meaningful business was done there.

by pdt on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 09:18:43 PM EST

As long as Its a UNIFIED MESSAGE! (none / 0)

As long as its a UNIFIED message of WHAT the Democratic Party can offer the nation.

But if its going to be a War of Words between Special Interest Groups, Anti War vs. Pro War, Pro-choice vs Pro-Life, Liberals vs Moderates, Progressives vs DLC, Southern Dems vs Northeast, etcetc

Then Forget about this. The potential backfire is much more.

But if we as a party can have a UNIFIED MESSAGE ( such as Rham Emmanuels talking points last week),
then this could be HUGE!!!!

by labanman on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 09:44:37 PM EST

I like it (none / 0)

Robert Reich had a similar idea in 2001.

I'll have commentary up sometime tomorrow night.

I'm meeting with state party leaders next weekend (hopefully with a recorder to ask their ideas of the direction of the party and a midterm convention.

The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 10:33:30 PM EST

Who cares about '74 or '78? (none / 0)

The problem right now is legit; our policies are not clear to the public and we're not viewed positively enough to take full advantage of GOP pratfalls. Something like this can be choreographed like a Republican farce convention, mostly jingoistic fluff but all positives and that's what we need. The name George Bush should be banned, any mention of him dealt with via expulsion. The country knows what they think about him and what we think about him.  
by jagakid on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 10:55:49 PM EST

Bullshit. (none / 0)

The prospect of a midterm convention concerns me, because I think the last thing the Democratic Party needs to do is roll out an entire platform now.  If we do that, every candidate everywhere will be pegged to it, whether it will win their regional election or not.  

I think Dean, Boxer, Pelosi, Reid, and other party leadership should get together and define a few consensus positions for the Party to get behind, like preserving Social Security, universal health coverage, security issues, fiscal responsibility, etc.  Less is more.  K.I.S.S.  The American public will only absorb so much anyway.  

We don't need an entire platform to ram down the throats of potential candidates from Alabama to Rhode Island.  And we don't need a convention spectacle of liberal dems pissing on the DLC, and vice versa.  (We already have the blogosphere for that!)  We need to limit the agenda to maximize its broad appeal, and generate campaign contributions.  The American public will be BEGGING for us to save them from the Repugs next year--don't inadvertantly give them a reason not to!  Fill up the coffers, and encourage Dems in different regions to personalize their own agenda.  Let a thousand Hacketts bloom!!!!

Cronkite's a wonderful old geezer that has forgotten his own history.  Everything's going our way now--let's not get insecure, then overreach and fuck things up.  Remember, it's not the polls in 2005 we want to win--it's the polls in 2006!    

by paul minot on Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 11:17:30 PM EST

Re: Bullshit. (none / 0)

I am sorry... but to refer to Walter Cronkite as a "geezer" really pisses me off!   Yes he is WONDERFUL and Damn smart, geezer he is NOT!
Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:23:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullshit. (none / 0)

OK, I retract the geezer part.
by paul minot on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:57:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullshit. (none / 0)


>The prospect of a midterm convention concerns me, because I think the last thing the Democratic Party needs to do is roll out an entire platform now.  If we do that, every candidate everywhere will be pegged to it, whether it will win their regional election or not.<



That is the way I see it.  We have a lot of targeted races to run in '06. To some extent the the Democratic candidates will want to hang the Bush administration around the neck of the Republican in the race, but that will need to be done in a way that is tailored to the particular district.   It makes no sense at all to have a big open fight over a national platform.


Notice the the Contract with America was not produced in a convention.  If the Republican had done that to write a  midterm platform, the activists would have pushed a lot of stuff like abortion into it and brought down a lot of the challengers in districts where that would not fly. 

by Fred in Vermont on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:16:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullshit. (none / 0)

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of thing that concerns me.

It seems to me that a lot of Democrats would want a convention because they are hopeful the party will coalesce behind their own vision.  My hope is that the party will coalesce around a WINNING vision.  The only way that vision will be confirmed is if we actually WIN some races around the country.  

Paul Hackett is exactly the type of Democrats we need now.  Individual candidates with strong dedication to core party principles, but the guts to express their own vision without being hamstrung by party expectations.  It's highly doubtful that his embrace of guns would be encouraged in a party convention, but that sincere individualist stance made him very palatable to a very red district, and he almost stole it for us.  Schweitzer in Montana is another example.

We don't need branded Democrats to win Congressional and local elections--we need strong dedicated candidates.  If we roll out a platform now, every candidate will have to answer to it.  We will LOSE races because of it, I guarantee you.  Instead, let's have the existing leadership --who have already won elections--develop another "contract"--but keep it simple, dedicated to a few core issues.  And like sausage, let's keep the manufacturing process out of the public eye.

by paul minot on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:11:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullshit in spades (3.00 / 1)

We don't need an entire platform to ram down the throats of potential candidates from Alabama to Rhode Island.

So let's just stay the course with a muddle of the road message for voters who are already convinced the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything. Good idea.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:39:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullshit in spades (none / 0)

Not necessarily middle of the road.  I think a FORCEFUL consensus policy on Iraq, a strong statement of intent to ONCE AND FOR ALL address universal health care with ALL options on the table (including single payer, which is certainly my preference), a specific plan to increase taxes on the wealthy and roll back the wrongs of the Bush Administration, a strongly worded position on energy issues (addressing both prices and our dependence on foreign oil), a statement of principle on global warming and the environment--these are all issues we could get behind nationwide, without specifically addressing gay rights, abortion, guns, etc., for which we might want to leave some wiggle room for regional candidates.

Mind you, I am in the progressive camp on all the excluded issues--especially gay rights--but I want to grow the party as much as possible, and not act like we have power before we actually grab it.

by paul minot on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:06:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullshit. (none / 0)

Oh yea! That has worked so well in the past. I'm sure you know way more that that "wonderful old geezer" . Maybe you should look up some history yourself. A midterm convention, if done right, would carry some weight and get the public attention that is needed. Given the 2004 lack of coverage, and the current political climate, there's a real chance that the MSM would want a re-do and actually cover it in depth. That may also send the GOP scrambling to follow up and the chances they would screw the pooch in the process are very good. Of course, the Dems could screw the pooch too, but that's a chance I'm willing to take!
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
by A Patriot on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 04:24:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow... (none / 0)

When THIS man speaks WE Should All Listen!
Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:21:46 AM EST

We are not lock steppers. (none / 0)

That is one of our strengths and weaknesses.  
Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 12:25:28 AM EST

wrong approach; right concept (none / 0)

First, as others have noted, the convention is not a good short-term tactic.  The issue in 2006 should be and will be the Republican screw-ups and corruption.  PLEASE don't change that subject.

Long-term it is important to build party positions and party identity, as I've posted before.  This cannot be done, and will not be done, with a half-baked media show.  Especially one featuring the odd assortment of hacks who are appointed to these conventions.

The national party has to mean the Congressional delegation.  They are the ones who vote.  They should be defining a legislative agenda.  Any "party" position that is not relevant to Congressional votes is not relevant.

So far, Congressional Dems have not tried to organize any positions.  They have no staff assigned to this.  At most, they look for some quick publicity gimmicks every once in a while.  Pathetic.  But the bottom line is that they don't care about a party; it is not relevant to them.  They see themselves as free agents, and their job as reelection -- not governance.

As a further aside, any party building tied to election campaigns is a bad idea.  The public does not trust things said during campaigns.  Better to earn credibility and identity away from the campaigns -- in connection with specific, common sense legislative proposals, and some sort of organized discussions of legislation (blogs, tv, essay contests, whatever).

In short, we need to change the culture on Capitol Hill.  We need to convince Democrats in office to organize themselves, talk among each other, talk to the general public, and develop thoughtful positions in an open way.

Right now, the Dems don't want to be a party.  That is the furst hurdle.

by jwp26 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:49:42 AM EST

Who cares what the voters want? (3.00 / 1)

The national party has to mean the Congressional delegation.  They are the ones who vote.  They should be defining a legislative agenda.  Any "party" position that is not relevant to Congressional votes is not relevant.

The most important thing in any election is ignoring the voters. The Democratic Party should be a top down heirarchy just like the Republican Party. Let's just skip the election completely. Damn voters are just a petty annoyance anyway.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:42:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wow! (3.00 / 0)

My first impression of this is that it is a really good idea. I hadn't realized that this had been tried before.

I thought about the reservations a bit, though. And realized. Wait. We held the house and the Senate in '76 and '78 and we won the presidency in '76.

Obviously the Republicans were having some problems in '76. But that sounds familiar, doesn't it? Furthermore we weren't in the minority at any point in the 70s. Doesn't that change the dynamic a little bit?

My biggest worry would be that it would be too staged. The convention last year (and the last few, of either party) was horrible.

In some ways I think we should avoid unity. I still like to think that people appreciate democracy and the arguments that inspire it. I would love to see a real political convention. The disgustingly Hollywood version of a convention we see with the tacky video productions and the down to the minute choreography turns me off. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I would love to see the drama of a group of people getting together and figuring out what we agree on and then working out a way of explaining it. This is what we try to do in the blogosphere. It's engaging and affirming of the whole ideal of democracy.

Let's have a real party convention. Get rid of the event planners and the producers and televise the whole damn thing. Give the press access to the floor and get rid of the stupid canned videos and infomercial crap.

Let's actually hammer out a platform and take it to the streets. When was the last time that actually happened? Foregone conclusions are boring.

phat

by phatass on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:31:50 AM EST

Mid-Term Convention (3.00 / 1)

If the dems want to be inclusive and capture an issue that everyone who belongs in the party resonates with, they should form a position on voting rights.

Topics should include:
Open-Source, Open Design voting machines,
Instant Runoff Voting,
Uniform standards for federal elections,
Direct Election of President,
Federal Financing of Elections,
Many others

They should take a long, hard look at what the greens and libertarians are advocating in election reform and adopt those things they can agree on.

It would demonstrate the kind of courage that people hope the Democratic Party can come up with.

by ascot on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:41:29 AM EST

Speaking of the elections (none / 0)

  Guess most of you heard that ol' contract with America himself, said he might run for Prez, if the other candidates don't include his ideas.
  Tell me really, how much further to the right could another Repub president take us,short of
Berkas, maybe imprisoning gays, eliminating all taxes, except for the middle class and gee whiz, best of all, maybe they'll eliminate public schools..so we can take our official place as a third world country.
by grammy on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:58:25 PM EST

When Cronkite Speaks... (none / 0)

...they should listen. I long for the days when news was news, and Walter Cronkite is next to Edward R. Murrow when it comes to journalistic integrity and professionalism. If we only had more Cronkites and Murrows we might have a news media that we could be proud of.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
by A Patriot on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 04:15:54 PM EST

Another Thought (none / 0)

I wonder how many of those who disagree with Cronkite actually ever saw him anchor the news or speak? just a guess, but I'd say that those of us who trust what he's saying have and those of you who don't haven't. let the fanging begin, but please remember that I'm just speculating here...it's all very harmless.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
by A Patriot on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 04:28:12 PM EST

Re: Another Thought (none / 0)

Patriot, I'm fifty years old, and I loved Walter Cronkite, he was my favorite anchorman, and would have voted for him for President when people used to talk about that sort of thing.  When I referred to him as a "wonderful old geezer", I did so with the greatest affection--although of course that may not have been obvious here.  

But I just think this is a bad idea, for the reasons that I stated.  I think the Democratic Party is in a period of transition unlike any since the days prior to FDR, and I don't trust our party membership to get together and come up with anything constructive without clear direction from clear individual leadership.  Judging from the blogosphere, I fear that if we have a convention a bunch of people are going to be pissing all over each other in public, with no good end coming from it.  Progressives in the party (and I include myself) seem to have no tolerance for moderate voices, and seem intent upon fixing the positions in the absence of an apparent voter mandate.  

Never mind that one of the clearest, strongest voices in the Democratic Party is coming from Harry Reid.  I may not agree with him on everything, but I trust his party loyalty, his courage, and his political instincts.  What if we come up with that perfect platform, and nobody buys it?  If as you say, we do screw the pooch, judging from the polls we will have actually LOST something that we have NOW--public favor and hope.

It's not about Cronkite--it's about this idea.  I think it's warm, fuzzy, and dangerous.  

by paul minot on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:13:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.