If Reagan's 1976 Schweiker strategy worked better?

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Ahead of the '76 Republican convention, Reagan announced that Pennsylvania Senator Dick Schweiker would be his running mate, thereby putting pressure on President Ford to also announce his running mate ahead of time.

Reagan's Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All, Craig Shirley, 2005, page 272:

https://books.google.com/books?id=fPWPDH-0TZYC&pg=PA272&dq=%22if+his+pro-union+votes+were+removed+from+his+record%22&hl=en&output=html_text&sa=X&ei=uXyrVIuoK4K5yQSMmYDYAw&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA

' . . . History has written that Schweiker was a liberal. In fact, he was from a heavily unionized state, and if his pro-union votes were removed from his record, Schweiker was fairly conservative. . . '
Click to expand...
Maybe it did work in the sense that it changed Reagan's close but losing position to a shake up where he had some chance.

But how could it have worked better?
 
Last edited:

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
And for people who like didn't particularly follow politics and weren't political junkies, apparently it was easy to confuse Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker with Connecticut Senator Lowell Weicker who was very liberal. I mean, Schweiker--Weicker, what's the difference?

Reagan's Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All, Craig Shirley, 2005, pages 280-81:

https://books.google.com/books?id=fPWPDH-0TZYC&pg=PA280&dq=%22+Contributing+to+the+initial+negative+reaction+to+the+announcement+of+Schweiker+was+that+many+Reagan+supporters+around+the+country+confused+him+with+Senator+Lowell+Weicker%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yvuuVJ-AJ4qBygSi7ILwAQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22%20Contributing%20to%20the%20initial%20negative%20reaction%20to%20the%20announcement%20of%20Schweiker%20was%20that%20many%20Reagan%20supporters%20around%20the%20country%20confused%20him%20with%20Senator%20Lowell%20Weicker%22&f=false

' . . . Contributing to the initial negative reaction to the announcement of Schweiker was that many Reagan supporters around the country confused him with Senator Lowell Weicker, a very liberal Republican from Connecticut who despised conservatives and joyously rubbed their noses in his liberal voting record. Weicker's ego defied description, especially after he served on the televised Senate committee investigating Richard Nixon. For example, Time reported, "Similarly confusing Schweiker with Connecticut's Senator Lowell Weicker, a table of lunching Chicago businessmen wondered why 'that Watergate Senator' would join Reagan." . . . '
Click to expand...
This is why you as a leader need to keep in fairly close contact with average citizens and why you need trusted members of your team who keep in very close contact. One of Reagan's allies perhaps Senator Paul Laxalt should have explained, even having a little fun and sense of humor with it, that Senator Lowell Weicker is one fellow and is in the liberal wing, whereas Senator Richard Schweiker is another fellow and is very much in the conservative wing.

And as candidate, Governor Reagan should have emphasized positives, positives, positives. Maybe he picks five conservative positions and praises Schweiker on each one. Maybe he keeps his speech shorter and picks just three. And regarding the fact that Schweiker is a pro-union guy, Reagan could have taken one of two tacts. He could say, I'm pro-union, too. Or, he could say, unions are necessary in heavy industry and were essential to building the country up, but sometimes in more modern areas of the economy, they can end up holding us back. Now, personally I think the first position is both better politics and better policy. But, as candidate, you make your own choices.
 
Last edited:

oudi14

The fact was, that going into the convention, Ford had a big enough delegate lead that it would have been very difficult for Reagan to overcome this. Choosing Schweiker ahead of time was, IMHO, a good gamble, intended to shake things up a bit; unfortunately for Reagan, it didn't work.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

oudi14 said:
The fact was, that going into the convention, Ford had a big enough delegate lead that it would have been very difficult for Reagan to overcome this. Choosing Schweiker ahead of time was, IMHO, a good gamble, intended to shake things up a bit; unfortunately for Reagan, it didn't work.
Click to expand...

It chipped away at the support base he had, though, and lead a critical minority to jump to Ford. Which, given how close that nomination was, could have lead to Reagan getting the nomination.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Craig Shirley seems to generally take the position that it was a good gamble on Reagan's part from a close but losing position.

As far as it chipping away at Reagan's support base, so far Craig says, hardly any. Reagan and others made phone calls before the Monday announcement. For example, Senator Jesse Helms wanted to note the time of 9:05 pm Sunday night as the time of the biggest political surprise of his life. But almost everyone stayed with Reagan.

But the next chapter of the book is about the Mississippi delegation and that may change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top