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

[Kris Freitag]

Actually $18,000 is probably  more than the Koch brothers paid in taxes 
period.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
To: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sixty Years Ago Today (September 23,1952)


> 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
>> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================