Just a thought that crossed my mind as I'm laying here trying to sleep. James A. Rhodes was reelected governor of Ohio in 1974, certainly a bad year for most Republicans. In 1975 he set out on his third term as governor (In Ohio a governor can be elected to no more than two consecutive terms, but can run for as many non-consecutive terms as he can win). In his previous tenure, Governor Rhodes slashed state spending to turn a deficit of more than $80,000,000 into a surplus by cutting spending by almost 10 percent in every agency as well as laying off 4,000 government employees. He had overseen a robust expansion to Ohio's economy; expanded the state's infrastructure by adding hundreds of miles of highways and promoting the construction of local airports throughout the state; and he successfully cast himself as a moderate on the race issue by funding student loans and job skill training aimed primarily at African-Americans.
He is not without his weaknesses, however. He was believed to be linked to organized crime (an unproven accusation), had not completed his college education, was only barely able to win reelection in 1974, the tendency to use the national guard as a tool to control race riots across the state, and there are many other scandalous things that might creep up in an election. The big one, though, is his decision to send the National Guard onto Kent State's campus in 1970, his speech the day beforehand that claimed the agitators were worse than Nazi Brownshirts or Soviets, and what seemed like a lack of remorse for the resulting deaths.
So does Rhodes add anything to the ticket? His reputation as a pragmatic conservative who has helped his state achieve job creation adds a compelling narrative for the Ford campaign being dragged down by stagflation and the faltering economy. Yet his national reputation is tarnished by the events at Kent State and he may be too Nixonian for many people's liking. Nevertheless, given that Dole was little help to Ford either, it is possible that he might give the Republican ticket a little umph to help them win.
So the point:
Given that Ford lost Ohio, and thus the election, by approximately 11,000 votes, is it possible that with Rhodes on the bottom of the ticket Ford is able swing the state and achieve victory? Or does the man many see as responsible for Kent State scuttle the campaign's hopes of any success?
He is not without his weaknesses, however. He was believed to be linked to organized crime (an unproven accusation), had not completed his college education, was only barely able to win reelection in 1974, the tendency to use the national guard as a tool to control race riots across the state, and there are many other scandalous things that might creep up in an election. The big one, though, is his decision to send the National Guard onto Kent State's campus in 1970, his speech the day beforehand that claimed the agitators were worse than Nazi Brownshirts or Soviets, and what seemed like a lack of remorse for the resulting deaths.
So does Rhodes add anything to the ticket? His reputation as a pragmatic conservative who has helped his state achieve job creation adds a compelling narrative for the Ford campaign being dragged down by stagflation and the faltering economy. Yet his national reputation is tarnished by the events at Kent State and he may be too Nixonian for many people's liking. Nevertheless, given that Dole was little help to Ford either, it is possible that he might give the Republican ticket a little umph to help them win.
So the point:
Given that Ford lost Ohio, and thus the election, by approximately 11,000 votes, is it possible that with Rhodes on the bottom of the ticket Ford is able swing the state and achieve victory? Or does the man many see as responsible for Kent State scuttle the campaign's hopes of any success?