<b id="pnpzh"></b>

      1. <u id="pnpzh"><address id="pnpzh"></address></u>
      2. <source id="pnpzh"><div id="pnpzh"></div></source>

        <video id="pnpzh"></video>

        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