NFL Quiz: 1) The two oldest records in the NFL are rushing TDs
in a single game and points (accomplished in the same contest).
Who holds it? 2) For the last ten years, 1992-2001, which team
had the best Sept. record? Best Dec. record? Worst Dec. record?
Answers below.
[Note: Your editor is overseas and not keeping up with current
“bar chat” type material. The following was written before I
left.]
September 23, 1952
Richard Nixon had a meteoric rise to the upper echelon of
American politics. As a congressman, he led the fight to expose
Alger Hiss as a communist in 1948 and then at the age of 38, he
was elected U.S. senator.
An outspoken critic of the Truman Administration, Nixon soon
found himself at the top of the list to be Dwight Eisenhower’s
running mate in ’52, but just a few days after he was selected, a
New York Post headline screamed, “Secret Rich Men’s Trust
Fund Keeps Nixon in Style Far Beyond His Salary.”
Nixon was accused of maintaining a “secret fund” of $18,235
($125,000 in today’s dollars), donations supposedly from
California businessmen. Democrats had a field day, labeling it a
“slush fund” amid charges of corruption and high living. [Say
what you want about Richard Nixon…but this was never a man
of ‘high-living.’]
Unfortunately for Nixon, Eisenhower let him twist in the wind
(not Ike’s finest hour), but the shrewd Veep candidate
counterattacked in brilliant fashion, using Republican National
Committee money to make a direct appeal to the American
people in a nationwide address, Sept. 23, 1952.
The address came to be known as the “Checkers Speech,”
because in it Nixon brings up the gift of a cocker spaniel to his
family. Additionally, Nixon turned the tables on his Democratic
critics and asked them to disclose their own finances. The
maneuver caught the Dems flat-footed and a once reluctant
Eisenhower heartily embraced his running mate. The
Republicans, at one point trailing badly in the polls, rallied to
swamp Adlai Stevenson 55-44 percent.
Here now, Richard Nixon in one of his finest moments.
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
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 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 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 then 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
proof?"
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. 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 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 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. Every cent of that, incidentally, was in
Government bonds.
Well, that\’\’s where we start when I go into politics. Now what I\’\’ve
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
the past six years of $1,600 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 $1,500 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 $l,500 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 $10,000. [Ed. Nixon inadvertently said “3,000”
as to the latter figure.] 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 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 at 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. [Ed. There had been rumors of a ‘mink’ coat.]
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 nationwide 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 have (received) out of 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 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
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 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 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 the fight.
Why do I feel so deeply? Why do I feel that in spite of the
smears, 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 running
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 we 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.
—-
Top 3 songs for the week of 9/23/78: #1 “Boogies Oogie Oogie”
(A Taste of Honey) #2 “Kiss You All Over” (Exile) #3
“Hopelessly Devoted To You” (Olivia Newton-John)
NFL Quiz Answers: 1) Ernie Nevers, Chicago Cardinals, had 6
touchdowns rushing, along with 4 PATs for 40 points in a single
game, November 1929.* 2) 10 year records, 1992-2001: Best
Sept. – Miami 26-7, .787 (overall, .606) Best Dec. – Green Bay
33-11, .750 (overall, .650) Worst Dec. – Cleveland 7-23, .233
(overall, .375).
*Ernie Nevers was a star at Stanford in the mid-1920s, though
after graduation he signed contracts in both pro basketball and
baseball, but the owner of football’s Duluth Eskimos offered him
a $15,000 contract in 1926. The Eskimos played 29 games, 28
on the road, and Nevers played 1,721 of 1,740 possible minutes.
Nevers’s record effort was against the Chicago Bears, all 40
points in a 40-6 win. Ernie was inducted into the Pro Football
Hall of Fame in 1963 and died in 1976.
Next Bar Chat, Thursday.
