Sarah Palin’s Checkers speech
September 5, 2008 at 12:24 am by Ken Edelstein in NewsA Republican war hero picks an inexperienced right-winger as his running mate.
Questions quickly arise about the upstart VP candidate’s qualifications, and a scandal gets national media attention. But the running mate wows the party’s conservative base with a scrappy televised speech, turning the table with attacks on Democrats and the media.
Sound familiar? Yeah, I’m talking about Richard Nixon.
There are remarkable parallels between Nixon’s famous “Checkers speech,” which saved his spot alongside Ike in 1952, and Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican convention, which … well, which may have done the same thing for her.Here’s one of the speeches:
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 are dealing with.
Here’s an excerpt from the other:
I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion.
Here’s what Checkers was about: In 1952, Eisenhower sent a sop to the right wing of the Republican Party by catapulting Nixon — until then viewed as something of a sleazy lightweight — onto a national ticket. Then, the New York Post revealed that Nixon had used $18,000 in gifts from businessmen for personal expenses.
Ike, who wasn’t particularly fond of Nixon to start with, seemed ready to drop him from the ticket. But Tricky Dick’s backers responded by getting him air time for one of the first nationally televised speeches by a political candidate.
It was classic Nixon demagogic jujitsu. He portrayed himself as a common man beleaguered by elitists. He quoted an audit (prepared by campaign supporters) that said his use of the contributions was legal. Then, he slyly turned the tables on his detractors by claiming they were the ones with ethical issues — and what’s more that they were soft on communists.
Near the end, Nixon mentioned another gift: a dog sent to his daughters by an admirer in Texas. “Our little girl Tricia, the six-year-old, named it Checkers,” he said. “And you know, the kids, like all kids, loved the dog, and I just want to say this, right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it.”
The country ate it up. Ike had to keep Nixon on the ticket. They won. Twenty years later we got Watergate.
One difference between Nixon and Palin is that Nixon apparently played a large role in writing the Checkers speech and in orchestrating the event. Palin … not so much.
But the similarities between the two speeches really is remarkable, which reminds me how Nixon’s dark brand of us-versus-them politics has so infected the GOP, now for a half a century. Here’s a transcript of Nixon’s, and here’s one of Palin’s.
And remember: “Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by. … Folks, he is a great man, and a vote for Eisenhower (or is it McCain?) is a vote for what is good for America.”
Send to a friend:
September 5th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I have never read so much about politicians not writing their speeches until Gov Palin came along….
Comparing her to Nixon is a less than artful smear attempt, don’t you think? One is led to believe that another Watergate is inevitable with Palin becasue of the “similarities” with Nixon.
Pretty weak, Ken.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
That’s not what I meant to imply, at all, Dale. My point really was that, like Nixon, Palin (actually, the McCain campaign) is tapping into populist envy and suspicion to misdirect the campaign from actual issues and toward bashing the media, intellectuals and others who are exposing perfectly relevant shortcomings. Nixon’s shortcoming was that he was a morally corrupt man with contempt for democracy. Palin’s is that she’s utterly unqualified. God forbid that the public actually recognize that — much less discuss the actual issues.