• <button id="t52j7"></button><tbody id="t52j7"></tbody><legend id="t52j7"></legend>

  • <li id="t52j7"><object id="t52j7"></object></li>
  • <li id="t52j7"><acronym id="t52j7"></acronym></li>
    <rp id="t52j7"></rp>

    英語演講6. Richard Nixon - Checkers

    作者:admin

    來源:

    2008-10-16 22:19

    英語演講6. Richard Nixon - Checkers

    00:00

    6. Richard Nixon - Checkers

    My Fellow Americans,

    I come before you
    tonight as a candidate for the Vice Presidency and as a man whose honesty
    and integrity has been questioned.


    Now, 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'm sure that you
    have read the charge, and you've heard it, that
    I, Senator Nixon, took 18,000 dollars 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, 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 dollars 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 dollars 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
    [Edson] his [Smith's] address. And I said 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. #p#副標題#e#

    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 campaigns, 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.

    Well, 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 dollars 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 13 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 pay roll.
    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 Veteran's 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's 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.

    Well, then the question arises, you
    say, "Well, how do you pay for 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 pay roll. Let
    me say, incidentally, that
    my opponent, my opposite number for the Vice Presidency on
    the Democratic ticket, does have
    his wife on
    the pay roll and has had it her on his pay roll for the ten years for
    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 pay roll. 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 am
    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 pay roll. #p#副標題#e#

    What 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 so 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 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'm 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 of 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 proof?" And I'd like to tell you
    this evening that just an
    hour ago we received an
    independent audit of this entire fund. I suggested to
    Governor 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 hands. It's
    an audit made by the Price Waterhouse & Company
    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 am 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. Quote:


    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. #p#副標題#e#

    (signed)


    Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher,

    by Elmo
    H. Conley


    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 am not afraid of
    having independent people go in and check the facts, and that is exactly what they did. But
    then I realized that there are still some who may say, and rightfully 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 are
    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 to this television and radio audio audience,
    a complete financial history, everything I've earned, everything I've
    spent, everything I own. 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. The 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's 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 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 had worked as a
    stenographer, and in a bank, and as an economist
    for a Government agency and when we
    came out, the total of our savings, from both
    my law practice, her teaching and all
    the time that
    I was in
    the war, the total for that entire period was just a little less than 10,000 dollars.
    Every cent of that, incidentally, was in
    Government bonds. Well
    that's where we start, when I
    go into politics.

    Now, what have I
    earned since I went into politics?
    Well, here it is. I've 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 dollars from estates which were in my law
    firm at 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 into the firm after I went
    into politics. I have made an average of approximately 1500
    dollars 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 dollars, and I
    inherited 1500 dollars from my grandfather. We lived rather
    modestly. For four years we lived in an apartment in Parkfairfax, in Alexandria,
    Virginia. The
    rent was 80 dollars 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. #p#副標題#e#


    First of all, we've got a house in Washington, which cost
    41,000 dollars and on which we owe 20,000 dollars.
    We have a house in Whittier, California which cost
    13,000 dollars and on which
    we owe 3000 dollars. My folks are living there at the present time. I have just
    4000 dollars in
    life insurance, plus my GI policy which I've never been able to convert, and which will run out
    in two years.
    I have no life insurance whatever on Pat. I have no
    life insurance on our two
    youngsters, Tricia 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 dollar mortgage on the house in Washington, the
    10,000 dollar one on the house in
    Whittier, I owe 4500 dollars to
    the Riggs Bank in
    Washington, D.C., with interest
    4 and 1/2 percent. I owe 3500 dollars 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 percent
    interest. And then
    I have a 500 dollar 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 she'd look good in anything.


    One other thing I probably should tell you, because if I 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 six 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 nationwide audience and bare 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 this 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." #p#副標題#e#


    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 should be to come before the American
    people, as I have, give the names of the people that
    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 gave 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. Sparkman 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 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
    they're 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 smears, 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 to tell you this: I remember in the dark days of the
    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 to fight because I
    knew I was right, and I can say to this great
    television and radio audience that I have no apologies to
    the American people for my part
    in putting Alger Hiss where he is today. And as far as this is concerned, I intend to continue to
    fight.

    Why do I feel so deeply? Why do
    I feel that in
    spite of the smears, the misunderstanding, 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 the only man
    that can save America at this time is
    the man that's running for President, on my ticket Dwight
    Eisenhower. You say, "Why do I
    think it is in danger?" And I
    say, look at the record. Seven years of the TrumanAcheson
    Administration, and what'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 the loss of 600 million people to the Communists, and a war which
    cost 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 get them 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 the 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 owed 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 poohpoohed
    and ridiculed the Communist threat
    in the United
    States he
    said that they are phantoms among ourselves. He has 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 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 am 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' 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 dollars, 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 am 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 in 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.


    xoxo日本影院