[Vision2020] Sixty Years Ago Today (September 23,1952)

[Tom Hansen]

You're right, Joe.

$18,000 wouldn't even pay the taxes on any of the donations that the Koch brothers made to the Romney campaign.

Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .

"Moscow Cares"
http://www.MoscowCares.com
  
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students.  The college students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."

- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
 

On Sep 23, 2012, at 6:56 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

> $18000 "for political expenses"!?!
> 
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>> Then-VP candidate Richard Nixon's "Checkers Speech".
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------
>> 
>> "My Fellow Americans:
>> 
>> I come before you tonight as a candidate for the Vice Presidency and as a
>> man whose honesty and integrity have been questioned.
>> 
>> The usual political thing to do when charges are made against you is to
>> either ignore them or to deny them without giving details.
>> 
>> I believe we’ve had enough of that in the United States, particularly with
>> the present Administration in Washington, D.C. To me the office of the Vice
>> Presidency of the United States is a great office and I feel that the people
>> have got to have confidence in the integrity of the men who run for that
>> office and who might obtain it.
>> 
>> I have a theory, too, that the best and only answer to a smear or to an
>> honest misunderstanding of the facts is to tell the truth. And that’s why
>> I’m here tonight. I want to tell you my side of the case.
>> 
>> I am sure that you have read the charge and you’ve heard that I, Senator
>> Nixon, took $18,000 from a group of my supporters.
>> 
>> Now, was that wrong? And let me say that it was wrong—I’m saying,
>> incidentally, that it was wrong and not just illegal. Because it isn’t a
>> question of whether it was legal or illegal, that isn’t enough. The question
>> is, was it morally wrong?
>> 
>> I say that it was morally wrong if any of that $18,000 went to Senator Nixon
>> for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly
>> given and secretly handled. And I say that it was morally wrong if any of
>> the contributors got special favors for the contributions that they made.
>> 
>> And now to answer those questions let me say this:
>> 
>> Not one cent of the $18,000 or any other money of that type ever went to me
>> for my personal use. Every penny of it was used to pay for political
>> expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the
>> United States.
>> 
>> It was not a secret fund. As a matter of fact, when I was on “Meet the
>> Press,” some of you may have seen it last Sunday—Peter Edson came up to me
>> after the program and he said, “Dick, what about this fund we hear about?”
>> And I said, “Well, there’s no secret about it. Go out and see Dana Smith,
>> who was the administrator of the fund.”
>> 
>> And I gave him his address, and I said that you will find that the purpose
>> of the fund simply was to defray political expenses that I did not feel
>> should be charged to the Government.
>> 
>> And third, let me point out, and I want to make this particularly clear,
>> that no contributor to this fund, no contributor to any of my campaign, has
>> ever received any consideration that he would not have received as an
>> ordinary constituent.
>> 
>> I just don’t believe in that and I can say that never, while I have been in
>> the Senate of the United States, as far as the people that contributed to
>> this fund are concerned, have I made a telephone call for them to an agency,
>> or have I gone down to an agency in their behalf. And the records will show
>> that, the records which are in the hands of the Administration.
>> 
>> But then some of you will say and rightly, “Well, what did you use the fund
>> for, Senator? Why did you have to have it?”
>> 
>> Let me tell you in just a word how a Senate office operates. First of all, a
>> Senator gets $15,000 a year in salary. He gets enough money to pay for one
>> trip a year, a round trip that is, for himself and his family between his
>> home and Washington, D.C.
>> 
>> And then he gets an allowance to handle the people that work in his office,
>> to handle his mail. And the allowance for my State of California is enough
>> to hire thirteen people.
>> 
>> And let me say, incidentally, that that allowance is not paid to the
>> Senator—it’s paid directly to the individuals that the Senator puts on his
>> payroll, but all of these people and all of these allowances are for
>> strictly official business. Business, for example, when a constituent writes
>> in and wants you to go down to the Veterans Administration and get some
>> information about his GI policy. Items of that type for example.
>> 
>> But there are other expenses which are not covered by the Government. And I
>> think I can best discuss those expenses by asking you some questions.
>> 
>> Do you think that when I or any other Senator makes a political speech, has
>> it printed, should charge the printing of that speech and the mailing of
>> that speech to the taxpayers? Do you think, for example, when I or any other
>> Senator makes a trip to his home state to make a purely political speech
>> that the cost of that trip should be charged to the taxpayers? Do you think
>> when a Senator makes political broadcasts or political television
>> broadcasts, radio or television, that the expense of those broadcasts should
>> be charged to the taxpayers?
>> 
>> Well, I know what your answer is. It is the same answer that audiences give
>> me whenever I discuss this particular problem. The answer is, “no.” The
>> taxpayers shouldn’t be required to finance items which are not official
>> business but which are primarily political business.
>> 
>> But then the question arises, you say, “Well, how do you pay for l these and
>> how can you do it legally?” And there are several ways that it can be done,
>> incidentally, and that it is done legally in the United States Senate and in
>> the Congress.
>> 
>> The first way is to be a rich man. I don’t happen to be a rich man so I
>> couldn’t use that one.
>> 
>> Another way that is used is to put your wife on the payroll. Let me say,
>> incidentally, my opponent, my opposite number for the Vice Presidency on the
>> Democratic ticket, does have his wife on the payroll. And has had her on his
>> payroll for the ten years—the past ten years.
>> 
>> Now just let me say this. That’s his business and I’m not critical of him
>> for doing that. You will have to pass judgment on that particular point. But
>> I have never done that for this reason. I have found that there are so many
>> deserving stenographers and secretaries in Washington that needed the work
>> that I just didn’t feel it was right to put my wife on the payroll.
>> 
>> My wife’s sitting over here. She’s a wonderful stenographer. She used to
>> teach stenography and she used to teach shorthand in high school. That was
>> when I met her. And I can tell you folks that she’s worked many hours at
>> night and many hours on Saturdays and Sundays in my office and she’s done a
>> fine job. And I’m proud to say tonight that in the six years I’ve been in
>> the House and the Senate of the United States, Pat Nixon has never been on
>> the Government payroll.
>> 
>> There are other ways that these finances can be taken care of. Some who are
>> lawyers, and I happen to be a lawyer, continue to practice law. But I
>> haven’t been able to do that. I’m so far away from California that I’ve been
>> so busy with my Senatorial work that I have not engaged in any legal
>> practice.
>> 
>> And also as far as law practice is concerned, it seemed to me that the
>> relationship between an attorney and the client was 80 personal that you
>> couldn’t possibly represent a man as an attorney and then have an unbiased
>> view when he presented his case to you in the event that he had one before
>> the Government.
>> 
>> And so I felt that the best way to handle these necessary political expenses
>> of getting my message to the American people and the speeches I made, the
>> speeches that I had printed, for the most part, concerned this one
>> message—of exposing this Administration, the communism in it, the corruption
>> in it—the only way that I could do that was to accept the aid which people
>> in my home state of California who contributed to my campaign and who
>> continued to make these contributions after I was elected were glad to make.
>> 
>> And let me say I am proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me
>> for a special favor. I’m proud of the fact that not one of them has ever
>> asked me to vote on a bill other than as my own conscience would dictate.
>> And I am proud of the fact that the taxpayers by subterfuge or otherwise
>> have never paid one dime for expenses which I thought were political and
>> shouldn’t be charged to the taxpayers.
>> 
>> Let me say, incidentally, that some of you may say, “Well, that’s all right,
>> Senator; that’s your explanation, but have you got any proof7″
>> 
>> And I’d like to tell you this evening that just about an hour ago we
>> received an independent audit of this entire fund. I suggested to Gov.
>> Sherman Adams, who is the chief of staff of the Dwight Eisenhower campaign,
>> that an independent audit and legal report be obtained. And I have that
>> audit here in my hand.
>> 
>> It’s an audit made by the Price, Waterhouse & Co. firm, and the legal
>> opinion by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, lawyers in Los Angeles, the biggest law
>> firm and incidentally one of the best ones in Los Angeles.
>> 
>> I’m proud to be able to report to you tonight that this audit and this legal
>> opinion is being forwarded to General Eisenhower. And I’d like to read to
>> you the opinion that was prepared by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and based on
>> all the pertinent laws and statutes, together with the audit report prepared
>> by the certified public accountants.
>> 
>> “It is our conclusion that Senator Nixon did not obtain any financial gain
>> from the collection and disbursement of the fund by Dana Smith; that Senator
>> Nixon did not violate any Federal or state law by reason of the operation of
>> the fund, and that neither the portion of the fund paid by Dana Smith
>> directly to third persons nor the portion paid to Senator Nixon to reimburse
>> him for designated office expenses constituted income to the Senator which
>> was either reportable or taxable as income under applicable tax laws.
>> (signed) Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher by Alma H. Conway.”
>> 
>> Now that, my friends, is not Nixon speaking, but that’s an independent audit
>> which was requested because I want the American people to know all the facts
>> and I’m not afraid of having independent people go in and check the facts,
>> and that is exactly what they did.
>> 
>> But then I realize that there are still some who may say, and rightly so,
>> and let me say that I recognize that some will continue to smear regardless
>> of what the truth may be, but that there has been understandably some honest
>> misunderstanding on this matter, and there’s some that will say:
>> 
>> “Well, maybe you were able, Senator, to fake this thing. How can we believe
>> what you say? After all, is there a possibility that maybe you got some sums
>> in cash? Is there a possibility that you may have feathered your own nest?”
>> And so now what I am going to do-and incidentally this is unprecedented in
>> the history of American politics-I am going at this time to give this
>> television and radio audience a complete financial history; everything I’ve
>> earned; everything I’ve spent; everything I owe. And I want you to know the
>> facts. I’ll have to start early.
>> 
>> I was born in 1913. Our family was one of modest circumstances and most of
>> my early life was spent in a store out in East Whittier. It was a grocery
>> store — one of those family enterprises. he only reason we were able to make
>> it go was because my mother and dad had five boys and we all worked in the
>> store.
>> 
>> I worked my way through college and to a great extent through law school.
>> And then, in 1940, probably the best thing that ever happened to me
>> happened, I married Pat—who is sitting over here. We had a rather difficult
>> time after we were married, like so many of the young couples who may be
>> listening to us. I practiced law; she continued to teach school. Then in
>> 1942 I went into the service.
>> 
>> Let me say that my service record was not a particularly unusual one. I went
>> to the South Pacific. I guess I’m entitled to a couple of battle stars. I
>> got a couple of letters of commendation but I was just there when the bombs
>> were falling and then I returned. I returned to the United States and in
>> 1946 I ran for the Congress.
>> 
>> When we came out of the war, Pat and I—Pat during the war ad worked as a
>> stenographer and in a bank and as an economist for Government agency—and
>> when we came out the total of our saving from both my law practice, her
>> teaching and all the time that I as in the war—the total for that entire
>> period was just a little less than $10,000. Every cent of that,
>> incidentally, was in Government bonds.
>> 
>> Well, that’s where we start when I go into politics. Now what I’ve I earned
>> since I went into politics? Well, here it is—I jotted it down, let me read
>> the notes. First of all I’ve had my salary as a Congressman and as a
>> Senator. Second, I have received a total in this past six years of $1600
>> from estates which were in my law firm the time that I severed my connection
>> with it.
>> 
>> And, incidentally, as I said before, I have not engaged in any legal
>> practice and have not accepted any fees from business that came to the firm
>> after I went into politics. I have made an average of approximately $1500 a
>> year from nonpolitical speaking engagements and lectures. And then,
>> fortunately, we’ve inherited a little money. Pat sold her interest in her
>> father’s estate for $3,000 and I inherited $l500 from my grandfather.
>> 
>> We live rather modestly. For four years we lived in an apartment in Park
>> Fairfax, in Alexandria, Va. The rent was $80 a month. And we saved for the
>> time that we could buy a house.
>> 
>> Now, that was what we took in. What did we do with this money? What do we
>> have today to show for it? This will surprise you, Because it is so little,
>> I suppose, as standards generally go, of people in public life. First of
>> all, we’ve got a house in Washington which cost $41,000 and on which we owe
>> $20,000. We have a house in Whittier, California, which cost $13,000 and on
>> which we owe $3000. * My folks are living there at the present time.
>> 
>> I have just $4,000 in life insurance, plus my G.I. policy which I’ve never
>> been able to convert and which will run out in two years. I have no
>> insurance whatever on Pat. I have no life insurance on our our youngsters,
>> Patricia and Julie. I own a 1950 Oldsmobile car. We have our furniture. We
>> have no stocks and bonds of any type. We have no interest of any kind,
>> direct or indirect, in any business.
>> 
>> Now, that’s what we have. What do we owe? Well, in addition to the mortgage,
>> the $20,000 mortgage on the house in Washington, the $10,000 one on the
>> house in Whittier, I owe $4,500 to the Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C. with
>> interest 4 1/2 per cent.
>> 
>> I owe $3,500 to my parents and the interest on that loan which I pay
>> regularly, because it’s the part of the savings they made through the years
>> they were working so hard, I pay regularly 4 per cent interest. And then I
>> have a $500 loan which I have on my life insurance.
>> 
>> Well, that’s about it. That’s what we have and that’s what we owe. It isn’t
>> very much but Pat and I have the satisfaction that every dime that we’ve got
>> is honestly ours. I should say this—that Pat doesn’t have a mink coat. But
>> she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat. And I always tell her
>> that she’d look good in anything.
>> 
>> Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this
>> audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have
>> JavaScript enabled in your browser.
>> 
>> One other thing I probably should tell you because if we don’t they’ll
>> probably be saying this about me too, we did get something-a gift-after the
>> election. A man down in Texas heard Pat on the radio mention the fact that
>> our two youngsters would like to have a dog. And, believe it or not, the day
>> before we left on this campaign trip we got a message from Union Station in
>> Baltimore saying they had a package for us. We went down to get it. You know
>> what it was.
>> 
>> It was a little cocker spaniel dog in a crate that he’d sent all the way
>> from Texas. Black and white spotted. And our little girl-Tricia, the 6-year
>> old-named it Checkers. And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog
>> and I just want to say this right now, that regardless of what they say
>> about it, we’re gonna keep it.
>> 
>> It isn’t easy to come before a nation-wide audience and air your life as
>> I’ve done. But I want to say some things before I conclude that I think most
>> of you will agree on. Mr. Mitchell, the chairman of the Democratic National
>> Committee, made the statement that if a man couldn’t afford to be in the
>> United States Senate he shouldn’t run for the Senate.
>> 
>> And I just want to make my position clear. I don’t agree with Mr. Mitchell
>> when he says that only a rich man should serve his Government in the United
>> States Senate or in the Congress. I don’t believe that represents the
>> thinking of the Democratic Party, and I know that it doesn’t represent the
>> thinking of the Republican Party.
>> 
>> I believe that it’s fine that a man like Governor Stevenson who inherited a
>> fortune from his father can run for President. But I also feel that it’s
>> essential in this country of ours that a man of modest means can also run
>> for President. Because, you know, remember Abraham Lincoln, you remember
>> what he said: “God must have loved the common people—he made so many of
>> them.”
>> 
>> And now I’m going to suggest some courses of conduct. First of all, you have
>> read in the papers about other funds now. Mr. Stevenson, apparently, had a
>> couple. One of them in which a group of business people paid and helped to
>> supplement the salaries of state employees. Here is where the money went
>> directly into their pockets.
>> 
>> And I think that what Mr. Stevenson should do is come before the American
>> people as I have, give the names of the people that have contributed to that
>> fund; give the names of the people who put this money into their pockets at
>> the same time that they were receiving money from their state government,
>> and see what favors, if any, they ave out for that.
>> 
>> I don’t condemn Mr. Stevenson for what he did. But until the facts are in
>> there is a doubt that will be raised.
>> 
>> And as far as Mr. Sparkman is concerned, I would suggest the same thing.
>> He’s had his wife on the payroll. I don’t condemn him for that. But I think
>> that he should come before the American people and indicate what outside
>> sources of income he has had.
>> 
>> I would suggest that under the circumstances both Mr. parkman and Mr.
>> Stevenson should come before the American people as I have and make a
>> complete financial statement as to their financial history. And if they
>> don’t, it will be an admission that they have something to hide. And I think
>> that you will agree with me.
>> 
>> Because, folks, remember, a man that’s to be President of the United States,
>> a man that’s to be Vice President of the United States must have the
>> confidence of all the people. And that’s why I’m doing what I’m doing, and
>> that’s why I suggest that Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Sparkman since they are
>> under attack should do what I am doing.
>> 
>> Now, let me say this: I know that this is not the last of the smears. In
>> spite of my explanation tonight other smears will be made; others have been
>> made in the past. And the purpose of the mears, I know, is this—to silence
>> me, to make me let up.
>> 
>> Well, they just don’t know who they’re dealing with. I’m going l tell you
>> this: I remember in the dark days of the Hiss case some of the same
>> columnists, some of the same radio commentators who are attacking me now and
>> misrepresenting my position were violently opposing me at the time I was
>> after Alger Hiss.
>> 
>> But I continued the fight because I knew I was right. And I an say to this
>> great television and radio audience that I have no pologies to the American
>> people for my part in putting Alger Hiss vhere he is today.
>> 
>> And as far as this is concerned, I intend to continue the fight.
>> 
>> Why do I feel so deeply? Why do I feel that in spite of the mears, the
>> misunderstandings, the necessity for a man to come up here and bare his soul
>> as I have? Why is it necessary for me to continue this fight?
>> 
>> And I want to tell you why. Because, you see, I love my country. And I think
>> my country is in danger. And I think that the only man that can save America
>> at this time is the man that’s runing for President on my ticket — Dwight
>> Eisenhower.
>> 
>> You say, “Why do I think it’s in danger?” and I say look at the record.
>> Seven years of the Truman-Acheson Administration and that’s happened? Six
>> hundred million people lost to the Communists, and a war in Korea in which
>> we have lost 117,000 American casualties.
>> 
>> And I say to all of you that a policy that results in a loss of six hundred
>> million people to the Communists and a war which costs us 117,000 American
>> casualties isn’t good enough for America.
>> 
>> And I say that those in the State Department that made the mistakes which
>> caused that war and which resulted in those losses should be kicked out of
>> the State Department just as fast as we can get ‘em out of there.
>> 
>> And let me say that I know Mr. Stevenson won’t do that. Because he defends
>> the Truman policy and I know that Dwight Eisenhower will do that, and that
>> he will give America the leadership that it needs.
>> 
>> Take the problem of corruption. You’ve read about the mess in Washington.
>> Mr. Stevenson can’t clean it up because he was picked by the man, Truman,
>> under whose Administration the mess was made. You wouldn’t trust a man who
>> made the mess to clean it up— that’s Truman. And by the same token you can’t
>> trust the man who was picked by the man that made the mess to clean it
>> up—and that’s Stevenson.
>> 
>> And so I say, Eisenhower, who owes nothing to Truman, nothing to the big
>> city bosses, he is the man that can clean up the mess in Washington.
>> 
>> Take Communism. I say that as far as that subject is concerned, the danger
>> is great to America. In the Hiss case they got the secrets which enabled
>> them to break the American secret State Department code. They got secrets in
>> the atomic bomb case which enabled them to get the secret of the atomic
>> bomb, five years before they would have gotten it by their own devices.
>> 
>> And I say that any man who called the Alger Hiss case a “red herring” isn’t
>> fit to be President of the United States. I say that a man who like Mr.
>> Stevenson has pooh-poohed and ridiculed the Communist threat in the United
>> States—he said that they are phantoms among ourselves; he’s accused us that
>> have attempted to expose the Communists of looking for Communists in the
>> Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife—I say that a man who says that isn’t
>> qualified to be President of the United States.
>> 
>> And I say that the only man who can lead us in this fight to rid the
>> Government of both those who are Communists and those who have corrupted
>> this Government is Eisenhower, because Eisenhower, you can be sure,
>> recognizes the problem and he knows how to deal with it.
>> 
>> Now let me say that, finally, this evening I want to read to you just
>> briefly excerpts from a letter which I received, a letter which, after all
>> this is over, no one can take away from us. It reads as follows:
>> 
>> Dear Senator Nixon:
>> 
>> Since I’m only 19 years of age I can’t vote in this Presidential election
>> but believe me if I could you and General Eisenhower would certainly get my
>> vote. My husband is in the Fleet Marines in Korea. He’s a corpsman on the
>> front lines and we have a two-month-old son he’s never seen. And I feel
>> confident that with great Americans like you and General Eisenhower in the
>> White House, lonely Americans like myself will be united with their loved
>> ones now in Korea.
>> 
>> I only pray to God that you won’t be too late. Enclosed is a small check to
>> help you in your campaign. Living on $85 a month it is all I can afford at
>> present. But let me know what else I can do.
>> 
>> Folks, it’s a check for $10, and it’s one that I will never cash.
>> 
>> And just let me say this. We hear a lot about prosperity these days but I
>> say, why can’t we have prosperity built on peace rather than prosperity
>> built on war? Why can’t we have prosperity and an honest government in
>> Washington, D.C., at the same time. Believe me, we can. And Eisenhower is
>> the man that can lead this crusade to bring us that kind of prosperity.
>> 
>> And, now, finally, I know that you wonder whether or not I am going to stay
>> on the Republican ticket or resign.
>> 
>> Let me say this: I don’t believe that I ought to quit because I’m not a
>> quitter. And, incidentally, Pat’s not a quitter. After all, her name was
>> Patricia Ryan and she was born on St. Patrick’s Day, and you know the Irish
>> never quit.
>> 
>> But the decision, my friends, is not mine. I would do nothing that would
>> harm the possibilities of Dwight Eisenhower to become President of the
>> United States. And for that reason I am submitting to the Republican
>> National Committee tonight through this television broadcast the decision
>> which it is theirs to make.
>> 
>> Let them decide whether my position on the ticket will help or hurt. And I
>> am going to ask you to help them decide. Wire and write the Republican
>> National Committee whether you think I should stay on or whether I should
>> get off. And whatever their decision is, I will abide by it.
>> 
>> But just let me say this last word. Regardless of what happens I’m going to
>> continue this fight. I’m going to campaign up and down America until we
>> drive the crooks and the Communists and those that defend them out of
>> Washington. And remember, folks, Eisenhower is a great man. Believe me. He’s
>> a great man. And a vote for Eisenhower is a vote for what’s good for
>> America."
>> 
>> ----------------
>> 
>> Videos of the Speech
>> 
>> Part 1
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXnwW-rGWsU
>> 
>> Part 2
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe5vnpUR4J4
>> 
>> Part 3
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X6sibf5New
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------
>> 
>> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>> 
>> "Moscow Cares"
>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>> 
>> Tom Hansen
>> Moscow, Idaho
>> 
>> "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students.  The college
>> students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."
>> 
>> - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
>> 
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================