The Charlotte News
Friday, October 3, 1952
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that U.S. Sabre jets had shot down three enemy MIG-15s in dogfights over northwest Korea this date. The top jet ace in Korea, Major Frederick Blease, with ten kills, had shot down one of the enemy jets, and then had to be rescued from the sea when his Sabre ran out of fuel on the way home.
In the ground war, allied troops on the western front had captured one of four hills seized by the Chinese Communists in fierce hand-to-hand combat.
General Eisenhower opened his campaign in Wisconsin this date by declaring that he had differences with Senator Joseph McCarthy, but that both had the same goal of ridding the Government of subversives. He stated his appreciation for the fact that Senator McCarthy was among those who had come to welcome him to Wisconsin and had come aboard his special train. Despite several of the spectators calling for Senator McCarthy to appear alongside General Eisenhower on the rear platform of the train, the Senator made no appearance. The Senator said to reporters that he and the General had a pleasant talk the previous night in a hotel room in Peoria, Ill. Senator McCarthy had attacked the patriotism of General Marshall for his Far Eastern policy, a matter which had stuck in the craw of General Eisenhower, as General Marshall had been his primary military mentor. There was no indication of support by General Eisenhower of Senator McCarthy in his bid for re-election in Wisconsin.
General Eisenhower's mother-in-law, Mrs. John Doud, suffered a hard bump on her head early in the morning when the General's campaign train came to a sudden stop in Chicago. All of the members and guests of his official party were also shaken up, but no other injuries were reported.
Senator Nixon said this date that he had used his Senate franking privilege early during the summer in conducting a poll of 23,000 Californians to determine who they wanted nominated for the presidency by the Republicans. The San Francisco News reported that many backers of Governor Earl Warren had sent indignant protests to Senator Nixon for conducting the poll, the results of which apparently had never been published. Governor Warren, at the time, was running for the Republican nomination. The postage for the letters amounted to $690, according to the report. As part of his defense of the expense fund collected by wealthy Californians on his behalf, Senator Nixon had stated: "I'm 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." The law provided that Senators and members of the House could use their franking privilege for sending free through the mails matter to any Government official or to any person correspondence regarding "official or departmental business". Secretary of the Senate Leslie Biffle told a reporter that in practice, the determination of what was "official business" was left to the judgment of each member of Congress. He could not recall any instance in which a member had been prosecuted for abusing his franking privilege.
In Cincinnati, Governor Stevenson, in an address prepared for a Democratic luncheon rally, accused Senator Taft and the Republican "Old Guard" of fostering a new isolationism which could lead to "national tragedy". He said that General Eisenhower was supporting all the isolationists in the party and that the results of the election could parallel those of 1920 when U.S. membership in the League of Nations was in issue, and Warren Harding had been elected, with "terrible consequences in blood and disaster". He indicated that the new isolationism was as dangerous as the old isolationism of 1920. He said that the new isolationists had the money and organization, and that General Eisenhower had sought their support and bowed to their demands. He stated that the General was "not talking sense to the American people" in promising to cut taxes while strengthening the armed forces and the country's allies. He said that at least the people knew were Senator Taft stood, but that was not the case with the General. He also said that the Republicans were entitled to their nightmares, predicting bankruptcy, socialism and dictatorship, while Democrats were entitled to their dreams. Ohio had been won by President Truman in 1948 by only 7,000 votes out of three million cast. The Governor would deliver a major address this night at Columbus, dealing with the welfare of the people after 20 years of Democratic Administrations.
The President, in Klamath Falls, Ore., praised Senator Wayne Morse of that state for refusing as a Republican to work for General Eisenhower after the General had "surrendered to Senator Taft". He said that the Senator could "see through the five-star glitter to the sad fact underneath, that the Republican candidate is the captive of the Old Guard." He praised Senator Morse as "one of the finest men and best liberals I have ever known", adding that he had worked for the nomination of General Eisenhower, "thinking he was a liberal". He stated that Republican Senator William Langer of North Dakota had informed him during the week that he did not owe the Republican Party anything. The President's train traveled on to Redding, California, near which he inspected the Shasta Dam, where he again attacked the "Old Guard" of the Republican Party and indicated that the Republicans intended to sell all the public power plants to private investors.
The Soviets demanded the immediate recall of U.S. Ambassador George Kennan, referring to him as persona non grata because of recent "slanderous attacks" made by the Ambassador against the Soviet Union. Secretary of State Acheson announced that Ambassador Kennan would return to Washington for consultation, but that no consideration had been given to replacing him.
In Rome, the Italian Government lifted its ban against operations of the American-sponsored Church of Christ in Italy, following discussions between the U.S. Embassy and the Government. The Church of Christ, the Assembly of God and Pentecostal Church had protested to the State Department regarding police interference with their services.
Off the shores of Hokkaido Island in Japan, three ships with 24 fishermen aboard were missing after tidal waves and high winds had struck the area. Nine of the fishermen were feared drowned and 15 others were believed adrift on the Pacific. Eighty houses and 23 fishing vessels had been damaged.
In Austin, Tex., an escaped inmate from the State Hospital in Austin shot an Austin police officer and terrorized hundreds of persons in a neighborhood before he was killed by police in a running gun battle. The man was completely naked at the time, and took a police officer's .44 caliber revolver and shot him in the windpipe and shoulder, injuring him critically. Still carrying the revolver, the man fled down sidewalks and streets brandishing the pistol at residents, as police and sheriff's deputies moved into the area. He then jumped into the Colorado River after exchanging shots with the law enforcement officers and swam toward the south bank, whereupon police fired hundreds of rounds toward him. He stopped, apparently wounded, hid behind a rock, and eventually was shot to death by one of the officers.
In Redwood City, California, a teacher received a parking ticket, and then loaded his 39 fifth and sixth grade pupils into a bus and drove them to court the previous day, to show them how justice worked. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and the judge asked to see his driver's license, which had expired the previous January, and so was fined $10 and directed to appear the following Wednesday for a hearing on the parking ticket.
In Cleveland, a man talked about fire prevention the previous night to a group, while his seven-year old son set fire to the family home, burning a curtain, a wall, the floor, a window and the bed, prompting the father to give his second fire-prevention lecture of the night.
The newspaper publishes more excerpts from letters received in the contest for two $25 bonds, one for a student and one for an adult, for the best two letters on why it was important to register and vote. There still is nothing about Dick, with only one day left in the contest. At least send in something about him abusing his franking privilege.
Not on the page, in the third game
On the editorial page, "The Cost of Municipal Growth" tells of the various bond proposals to appear on the ballot in Charlotte in December, totaling 17.8 million dollars. It advises that when examined as to their necessity and the impact on the local tax rate, the amount did not appear so formidable. Of the total, 7.5 million dollars would be assessed against the County Government and reflected in the County tax rate for school improvements, though not providing for enough classrooms needed in the city and county. The City Council would seek 8.7 million dollars in "necessity" bonds, of which 7 million would be revenue-producing bonds. The other amounts would be for street improvements and a new fire station. An additional bond of 1.6 million would be for a new public library, half from the City and half from the County, with the carrying charges charged to the tax rates of both governments.
It indicates that with the population growth since the war, there had been growth outward to the suburbs, adding to the costs of public services. Improvements had not been possible during the Depression and under wartime restrictions between 1941 and 1946, and so now there was a need to catch up. It indicates that if the need could be substantiated by the City and County governments in the ensuing weeks, which it assumes would be the case, the bond measures ought to be approved by the people.
"Rebuttal" tells of Senator Joseph McCarthy having called General Marshall a "front man for traitors" and Senator William Jenner having called the General a "living lie". General Walter Bedell Smith, director of the CIA, who had been General Eisenhower's chief of staff in Europe during World War II and later had served as Ambassador to Russia, had testified in the libel suit filed by Senator McCarthy against Senator William Benton that asking him about the character of General Marshall was "like asking the molehill to comment on the mountain", that of all the great men he had known in the previous 10 years, he knew of no one who exceeded, and few who equaled, the General in the characteristics of loyalty, honesty and integrity.
The piece simply concludes, "Take your choice."
"One Way To Get at the Truth" tells of Superior Court Judge Zeb Nettles having ordered during the week Solicitor Basil Whitener to investigate the possibility of perjured testimony, in so doing calling attention to one of the major defects in the judicial system, the tendency of witnesses to take lightly their oath to tell the truth. It ventures that perjured testimony occurred often in criminal trials, with directly opposing testimony by different witnesses. The usual practice was to allow the jury to determine who was telling the truth and not refer the matter for investigation of perjury. It suggests that if the courts took a stricter attitude toward the oath, there would be a rapid decrease in perjured testimony, enabling judges and jurors to approach the facts and justice more quickly. It commends the Judge for making the referral.
"These Amendments Merit Support" indicates that North Carolinians would be asked in the election to vote on three amendments to the State Constitution, finds that one was important and the other two relatively inconsequential, but all merited the support of the voters. The two inconsequential amendments would simplify the method of filling vacancies in the General Assembly and the Judicial Department. The most important of the three would ease the strain of financing important local functions carried out by the county governments of the state by eliminating the restriction in the State Constitution that county commissions could levy no more than 15 cents on each $100 of property valuation for general fund purposes, covering costs of running the county governments.
A piece from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, titled "Piano in the Dark", tells of a story about probably the only remaining piano accompanist for silent movies having reminded of the days when there were many such accompanists for the silents. There were no cue sheets for the movies in the early days which suggested tragic moments or critical situations for particular time intervals, to guide the accompanist. The best theaters had full orchestras in the pits and most had a pipe organ. But the music the piece most remembers was that of the lone piano, positioned under the center of the screen, providing a ghostly yellow light over the music sheets shining in the darkness.
When the couple on the screen fell
in love, the pianist played Traumerei
When the pipe organ began to provide more fancy music for the five-reelers, the music became less reliable, as often the player would become interested in the movie and the music trailed off, resuming again, and then trailed off again as suspense reached a climax. In consequence, it indicates, it found less enjoyment in movie music after the pipe organs came into use. It again states its preference for the lonesome piano.
Drew Pearson reports that politicians had stated to General Eisenhower at the end of the previous week certain things. Senator Taft had told him that Ohio would vote Republican, though Charles Taft, the Senator's brother, would have a tight race for governor. In West Virginia, Rush Holt, the pro-Nazi sympathizer, predicted that he would be elected governor, while others predicted that Chapman Revercomb would lose to Senator Harley Kilgore. North Carolina and Virginia were considered hopeful for the General, but doubtful.
The General had spoken at every whistle-stop which his managers had requested of him, but he drew the line at climbing down from the rear platform and shaking hands with the crowd at every stop, as had been urged by Congressman George Bender of Ohio.
The producer who had stage Senator Nixon's broadcast in defense of his expense fund on September 23, was Ed Sobol, NBC's top television producer. The man who had helped write the script was William Rogers—who would become Attorney General during President Eisenhower's second term and would be Secretary of State during President Nixon's first term, would also advise Vice-President Nixon, as reported by Theodore H. White in Breach of Faith, against contesting the results of the 1960 election in Illinois and Texas, as it would only lead to a Democratic challenge of the results in Southern California, an investigation which would reveal equal skulduggery in bringing California into the Nixon column late in the count.
Mr. Pearson also corrects a previous statement in the column that Bert Andrews, a correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune, had urged General Eisenhower to drop Senator Nixon from the ticket, indicating that was not the case.
U.S. Steel and other big steel companies had not been renowned for pro-labor sympathies, but John L. Lewis, head of the UMW, could thank them for the generous new contract he had gotten from the coal operators, providing miners with a $1.90 per day pay increase, plus additional welfare benefits. Unlike the commercial coal companies, which were in no hurry to settle, big steel wanted a quick settlement for its captive coal companies for the reasons that the steel companies feared that a prolonged strike might interfere with steel production and the fact that they could afford to absorb a substantial coal pay increase in their overall steel production costs much easier than commercial operators who mined solely for sale to consumers. As a result, the bargaining with Mr. Lewis, normally proceeding for days, was concluded in the first meeting with the Northern coal owners, represented by Harry Moses, chief spokesman for both the steel-owned captive mines and the commercial mines. He reviews the negotiations.
West Virginia Republicans were secretly setting a trap for Democratic "ghosts" who sought to stuff the ballot box on election day, by sending out more than half a million political circulars to registered voters, some of whom were believed to be dead, arranging with the post office to return all undelivered circulars, with the resulting list of names to be turned over to every Republican precinct captain, who would check the list against people who sought to vote on election day.
What if a person had simply moved?
Marquis Childs indicates that if the principals in each political camp had their way, there would be nothing further heard regarding the funds of Governor Stevenson and Senator Nixon. He suggests that it was not to say that they would not be exploited by others. He also indicates that in neither case had the whole story been told.
Governor Stevenson, in listing the uses made of his political fund had failed to include such expenses as the cost of a trip to New York to speak at the Herald-Tribune Forum and the cost of Christmas parties given for children in Springfield, costs which one of his aides had estimated would be no more than around $2,500. This second fund, apart from the fund established to supplement the salaries of a few State appointees who had taken severe salary cuts from their private sector jobs, appeared to have been completely political in nature. It had been disclosed by William McKinney, the former purchasing agent for the State of Illinois, whose several interviews indicated that he appeared to vacillate between one side or the other as to the propriety or not of the fund and the influence or not which its contributors exerted on State policy.
Mr. Childs indicates that political contributions were made generally by those who wanted to do business with the state, in any state, running from big business seeking state contracts to small firms hoping to sell small items to state institutions. It accounted for the high cost of government, as the contributors hoped to recoup their contributions through these state contracts. It was the way that campaigns were financed. He suggests that the costly system could be changed through permitting an income tax deduction for small political contributions up to a certain amount, encouraging small contributors. Laws also might be passed restricting large contributions from sources with interests in policy, and such an effort would likely be made when the new Congress met the following year, albeit not likely to get very far.
Privately, Governor Stevenson had said that in providing his income tax returns publicly, he had no intention of forcing General Eisenhower to do likewise. The main feature of the General's postwar income was the fact, publicized already, that he had been given a break by the IRB on his wartime memoirs, enabling the million dollars he received to be taxed at the much lower capital gains rate than the regular rate for ordinary income, a savings of about $550,000 in taxes. The fact had been publicized by the Chicago Tribune and other sources who had been supportive of Senator Taft when they were seeking to derail the movement for General Eisenhower prior to the Republican convention. The political effect had probably dissipated and the people were not likely to begrudge the General such a reward for his life's work.
Mr. Childs finds that political morality appeared at times to have a disturbing relativity about it. It had only been three months since the Eisenhower forces had been hurling angry words at the Taft forces and the Old Guard regarding "The Great Texas Swindle", the effort to "steal" the Texas delegation to the Republican convention for Senator Taft away from the forces supporting General Eisenhower. Yet, now, Senator Taft was stumping the country for General Eisenhower, proclaiming that the two were in agreement on issues and policy, differing only in degree regarding foreign policy.
Robert C. Ruark finds it a very dirty political year, with its only saving grace being that the public had "found an education in filth". He believes that the interest in politics and the administration of government during the previous few years had taught the voter more of the actual processes of government than any lecture might have accomplished. The politician no longer appeared as a minor superman, aloof from the public. His errors had been publicized and mean-spirited nature made known, his chicaneries and foibles brought into the open. Investigations had shown that thieves and opportunists had been heavily at work in Washington.
The public had seen on television the effort of Senator Taft and his supporters to "steal" delegates from Texas and Louisiana at the Republican convention, in the end costing him the nomination. The public had seen more when the Democrats squabbled over civil rights at their convention, resulting in the draft of a candidate who seemed honestly not to want the job. But since the convention, the public had also seen Governor Stevenson "duck and sidestep the painful past of his own party with a series of wisecracks".
The public had also seen the embarrassing spectacle of candidates having to declare their personal finances because of nationwide suspicion regarding private slush funds and peculiar tax deals. He finds in that regard that there had not been much calling of the kettle black by the pot because there was considerable fault on both sides.
He says that he was most impressed by several instances of deliberate dishonesty and cover up of political contempt for the public on the Truman and Democratic side, such as when the President in fall, 1948 had dismissed the allegations regarding Alger Hiss as a red herring. "We have seen the mighty with foot firmly in mouth. We have seen deliberate avoidances of truth for political purposes."
He goes on to indicate that taxes had risen and inflation grown despite the opinions of the expert economists. There had been a political war for two years, with no hope of end in sight. "You have seen a rich and powerful nation heading to hell in a Cadillac convertible, and the mink coat become the symbol of corruption. You have seen enough to ensure a closer eye on the doings of your elected servants in the future, no matter whether it's Ike or Adlai at the final accounting."
It is interesting that he never once mentions, except obliquely, the fund involving Senator Nixon, finally appears to come to the conclusion that both sides were equally at fault, but the Democrats and President Truman more so than the Republicans. It is that kind of thinking, a kind of barroom thinking, which led the country down the primrose path with Richard Nixon—the very same kind of barroom thinking which led a bunch of idiots to "elect" the present "President", the same kind of barroom thinking on the part of certain Republican leaders who vow now to protect His Highness from his efforts to enlist Ukraine interference in the 2020 election by seeking the Ukraine's assistance in a probe of his primary political opponent, whom he knows by the polls will give him the toughest fight next year in the general election.
We suppose that it's becoming a hackneyed part of American politics by now that if you can't win the election through votes, you find some way to steal it. In the case of President Nixon in 1972, the goal was not just to win the election, never much in doubt judging by the polls, but to win it so convincingly that he would consolidate his power in his second term to do pretty much anything he wished to do without much political check by the Democratic Congress. Things did not work out quite that way, despite his landslide victory over Senator George McGovern, providing him the solid mandate which he lacked in his first term after his relatively narrow 500,000 popular vote victory in 1968 over Vice-President Hubert Humphrey.
Of course, also, in the case of Mr. Nixon, there may have been other problems troubling him, which have never been disclosed, something worth the risk of his entire Presidency to keep from the public eye, things which he believed the DNC and its then-chairman, Lawrence O'Brien, might have on him—going back to the "Bay of Pigs thing".
In the case of the current "President", the effort to steal yet another election appears to derive from his desire to stay out of prison as long as he possibly can regarding his crimes of 2016, crimes related to the same affairs for which his personal attorney is now serving a prison sentence, payoffs to two individuals to prevent embarrassing revelations in October, 2016, agreements to relent on making public those accusations, not disclosed as campaign contributions, thus a crime. Republicans spin artists will try to say that Senator John Edwards, indicted on the very same type of conduct, "got off", when, in fact, the prosecution in that case was never able to show that he knew that the funds in question were being paid, plus the inability to show whether the funds were paid for silence to benefit his campaign or in an honest attempt to care for the person in question and her child. In the case of the current "President", there is no question of knowledge, as there is a recording of the conversation made by the personal attorney, showing the "President's" understanding and complicity in the act of payoff to buy silence on the matter, the latter fact also explicitly stated in the recording.
But if you get your information from Fox News and the functional equivalent, good luck on being an informed citizen and not simply a dupe of the financial interests pulling the strings, the Rupert Murdochs, consigned to being merely a puppet mouthing the junk "news" you hear on those silly infotainment programs. Such puppets latch onto such phrases as "no quid pro quo", "no collusion", "no pressure", "perfect call" and run with them, without understanding that the law in question regarding the Ukraine matter is not concerned with those things. We heard one of the former Fox News geniuses the other day trying to proclaim that because there was no Constitutional prohibition against solicitation of interference with an American election by a President, there could be no impeachment. He failed to understand that the oath of office includes not just the vow to uphold the Constitution but also "the laws of the United States". And the Constitutional standard for impeachment, of course, is "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors", the latter term in reference to misbehavior, not, per se, misdemeanors in the legal sense.
The real question is not whether the present occupant of the White House has committed crimes in the Ukraine matter, as clearly he has, but rather whether the matter rises to the level of impeachable offenses. Clearly, if the standard is the low bar set by the Republicans in 1998 with respect to President Clinton, there is no question that it does.
The present offense directly relates to the fitness to serve in office and involves a violation of the law, a misbehavior, intended to impact for his benefit the 2020 election. That was the Nixon scenario which gave the entire matter its gravitas, though in that case, the attempt to use the FBI director to convince the CIA to cover up the connection between the Watergate burglars and the committee to re-elect the President, because the burglars led back to the "Bay of Pigs thing", became the "smoking gun" supporting the primary obstruction of justice article of impeachment, as foreknowledge of the Watergate break-in, itself, was never proved—though other covert domestic spying operations and campaign intrigues had been approved by the President as part of the so-called "Huston plan".
There is, of course, also an obstruction of justice aspect to the current scenario, as well, because of the transfer of the record of the phone call to the Ukrainian president to a classified computer server, when such records were not usually so treated. Only the stated intention two weeks ago to go forward with an impeachment inquiry in the House prompted the release by the White House of the notes on the phone call, which is not purported to be a verbatim transcript, though the substance of the phone call and the key words of the phone call, soliciting an investigation of the "President's" political opponent, are undisputed. Whether that occurred while applying pressure, by the fact in the same part of the conversation that the Ukrainian president stated his country's need for American aid followed by the immediate statement by the "President" that he wanted to ask a "favor though", then imparting his desire for the investigation of his political opponent, is irrelevant, as there is no need for coercion or pressure to be applied for the campaign laws to be violated. Solicitation of a contribution from a foreign national to benefit the campaign is enough. The fact of pressure or a "quid pro quo" would only add to the egregious nature of the solicitation, making the crime more akin to bribery by implicitly withholding aid to the Ukraine until the conversation in question between Messrs. Trump and Zelensky could take place and the arrangement made to conduct the investigation, despite it already having been made previously in the Ukraine and determined that no violation of Ukrainian law had occurred by the former Vice-President or his son in connection with the withholding of aid in early 2016 until the former corrupt prosecutor was fired.
And, for those indoctrinated by Fox News who find no difference between the two scenarios, in the 2016 withholding of aid there was no issue of any violation of U.S. campaign law as it did not relate to solicitation of a contribution to a political campaign by seeking an investigation of a political opponent of the Obama Administration or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. To make the two situations at all analogous, there would have to have been a solicitation of such a criminal investigation of Mr. Trump in more or less exchange for release of the aid. And, of course, the former Vice-President was not acting on his own hook, but rather as a designated emissary for the Obama Administration in withholding the aid in question until the corrupt prosecutor was fired.
There is also no substance to the argument being made by the "President's" defenders that there was no campaign finance law violation because he did not connect, implicitly or explicitly, his re-election bid to the solicitation. That would be a good argument if the object of the solicited investigation were Joe the Plumber, or, for instance, G. Gordon Liddy, and not Joe Biden. No one save a dunce whose ideas are directed and delineated by Fox News would accept the argument that seeking an investigation by a foreign government of the primary political opponent in the 2020 presidential campaign in late July, 2019, at the time of the phone call, is not seeking a contribution of a thing of value to the re-election effort of the "President", who has made it plain that he is running for re-election. That conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that the investigation had already been conducted in the Ukraine, without finding any wrongdoing by the former Vice-President or his son, and that fact communicated to the "President's" personal attorney, the former Mayor of New York.
The overarching question is whether the solicitation of a contribution to a political campaign by seeking a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent is one of those "other" high crimes and misdemeanors, classed alongside treason and bribery. The absence of such an equation was, plainly, the reason why the impeachment of President Clinton was such a farce, as lying in a deposition about sex with a third party does not amount to such an impeachable offense, to be ranked alongside treason and bribery as an "abuse or violation of some public trust" or relating "chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself", as set forth in Federalist Paper No. 65.
But soliciting a foreign country to interfere with a U.S. election is of a different specie, deriving directly from Article I, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution, providing that "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." There are therefore antecedent reasons for the campaign finance laws preventing such solicitations or contributions, going back to the Founding. If they are to be treated cynically and as a joke by the person cloaked with the power of the Chief Magistrate of the land, then who should bother with them? Why not repeal all of them tomorrow and just say that as a matter of policy, henceforth, all American elections will be free-for-alls in which any foreign national or government can contribute with propaganda, money, or any other form of intrigue in any way they wish to try to manipulate the will and choice of individual American voters, at the behest of the White House or any other candidate? Do we want foreign governments, not subject to our laws or Constitution, injecting matter into our elections, whether a traditionally friendly ally, such as Britain, or some hostile government? Is direct solicitation of same the moral equivalent of treason and bribery? The months ahead will provide the answer.
In the meantime, the "President", who is constantly at work appealing to his dwindling base, knowing that they are his only hope for survival in office, by shoring up support among the Republicans in Congress who hop and skip to their constituents' every whim rather than seeking to educate and lead the uninformed among them back to reality, would likely be better served by shutting his big mouth, as he, daily, manages to make the matter worse, a problem which befell, to a lesser degree, President Nixon and eventually led to his political as well as legal downfall, losing most of his own party in the process.
One can say that it does not matter much as this "President" is foredoomed to lose in 2020 by the polls. The problem is that, just as his campaign found a way to circumvent the polling data in 2016, by careful stress of propaganda dissemination to individual districts and precincts in particularly electoral rich states, with a socio-economic makeup deemed readily receptive to that kind of propaganda, the same could be accomplished again in 2020, aided and abetted by baseless propaganda injected by a foreign source—not excluding from that means of propaganda dissemination the ownership of Fox News.
A letter writer from Concord indicates that one of his kinsmen had been Colonel Joseph Alston, Governor of South Carolina 140 years earlier, and that his first cousin, Willis Alston, had been chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee at the same time, while another cousin about 100 years later, Claude Kitchin, had been chairman of the Ways & Means Committee. He says that he had served in the Army at Greenville, S.C., in 1917 and at Columbia in 1940, and that for all of those reasons was interested in the welfare of South Carolina and the Democratic Party in particular. He thus wants to know why Governor James Byrnes would desert the Democratic Party and sell out to the so-called Democrats for Eisenhower. The Governor had lived off the Democratic Party for more than 50 years and had received most of the honors which a party could bestow on a person, including having been a Senator, Supreme Court Justice appointed by FDR, and Secretary of State, appointed by President Truman. He asserts that the reason the Governor was deserting the party was that he was still mad about the Southern Democrats demanding that someone other than former Vice-President Henry Wallace be placed on the ticket in 1944, and the nod having gone to Senator Harry Truman instead of Mr. Byrnes. He hopes that if the Governor ever returned to the party, the "real Democrats of South Carolina" would "beat the daylights" out of him, as North Carolina had done to Senator Furnifold Simmons in 1930 after he had deserted the party in 1928 to support Herbert Hoover over Governor Al Smith, a Catholic who favored the end of Prohibition. He says that he had sent the same recommendation to Governor Allan Shivers of Texas, who had also deserted the Democrats for General Eisenhower. He also adds that he hopes that Governor Byrnes was obtaining a mink coat or cold cash for his desertion.
A letter writer from Lincolnton responds to a letter from the international representative of the national CIO, published the previous Saturday, who had stated that Senator Clyde Hoey was correct only five times and wrong 16 times in his voting on 21 key issues important to labor. This writer wants to know if the writer decided the right or wrong of those votes or whether it was decided by someone else. He also wants to know whether the votes were considered from the point of view of the CIO or the citizens of the state, and asks what percentage of the citizens were members of the CIO. He states that he was a Republican but believed Senator Hoey had been a great Senator, for the same reason he believed that Charles Jonas would be a great Congressman, putting the duties to the people of the state before the demands of the "Fair Deal Administration".
A letter writer from Morganton tells of many Republicans and independent Democrats having come to Charlotte on the night before General Eisenhower had arrived a week earlier, to hear the Republican candidate for governor, Herbert Seawell. He believes it was one of the most powerful speeches he had heard in many campaigns. He thinks the people would like to hear a debate between Mr. Seawell and "any man the New Fair Deal would trot out".
A letter writer from Monroe indicates that the planned spot announcements on the television and radio by the Eisenhower campaign, in which the General would answer questions from voters, based on prerecorded questions, separate from the prerecorded answers, amounted to the same tricks which the opposition had pulled when President Roosevelt was a candidate. She indicates that, according to Drew Pearson, Jock Whitney, was behind the ads, and, she says, he was related to the Whitneys of Wall Street fame, one of whom had been indicted and tried after the market crash in 1929, and sentenced to prison. "Now the same money finaglers are asking you to put them back in the government's till. The people must decide that issue November 4."
A letter from three soldiers of the First Marine Division in Korea solicits mail from girls of all ages, and hopes to get pictures, says that they were lonely Marines between ages 18 and 21.
So, if you happen to be seven or eight and have a nice smiling picture taken of you in class at school, be sure and send it to the nice boys, along with your best wishes, hoping they are doing well fighting for your freedom. But if one should respond, best to let mama read it first so that she can be prepared to explain all of the big words.
Links-Date — Links-Subj.