WI: Schultz succeeds Nixon?

Speaker Carl Albert had said that if he had had to succeed Nixon, he'd have appointed a Republican and resigned as the country elected a Republican in 1972 by a pretty wide margin.

Had he stayed on a few months longer (he resigned just a few months before Nixon did) Schultz is the highest eligible Republican in succession in 1974. What if Albert proceeded to appoint Schultz and then step aside?

At this point Schultz has been Secretary of Labor, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Treasury Secretary. Schultz was also considered the unofficial ambassador to the AFL-CIO as Labor Secretary. During the Eisenhower Administration he'd served on the Council of Economic Advisers as a Staff Economist and he'd later be President of UChicago's Business School until 1969.

Schultz would be interesting because while Labor Secretary he pressured the unions in Pennsylvania to accept black members, but he also was an economic conservative influenced by Milton Friedman. I don't think there'd be a Reagan challenge to him and he also has himself covered on the moderate end of things.
 
Gerald Ford was no liberal. He vetoed budgets that he thought were too excessive in costs and was generally in favor of small government-leaning policies at large. The fact that he oversaw the Panama Canal turnover and the end of Vietnam doesn’t make him so anti-war hippie, but a pragmatic person leading a country just exhausted by war and economic troubles. Ford and Nixon and Hugh Scott and Henry Kissinger and George H. W. Bush and George Schultz were not Movement Conservatives and so would be open to a challenged by default.

I am interested in if that challenge could be as popular though. It’d depend on how Schultz handles the economic woes, the end of Vietnam, the Panama Canal issue, and rising crime rates. If he handles it better than Ford, or if he does it in a more right wing way, people could wonder why bother challenging him. The Con. Movement-types might sit out like in ‘72, but I don’t think that’s likely. I think that Schultz would be weak no matter what as an unelected official who had worn many hats in the Nixon Administration and had probably pardoned Richard Nixon.

But either way, I think it’s much harder to keep conservatives and moderates on the same side with the issues of the late ‘70s.
 
You could also avoid to nominate Schultz as VP, a little unusual move (I think Rockfeller would be better). If Albert stays as President a little he could be hit earlier by Koreagate and forced to resign before nominate and confirm a new Republican VP. Schultz was from GOP so no problem.
So:

37 Richard Milhous Nixon (R-California)/ Spiro Agnew (R-Mayland) 1969-1973/ Vacant 1973-1973 [Nixon resigns in late 1973, before Ford be confirmed, so delaying Schultz departure]
38 Carl Bert Albert (D-Oklahoma)/ Vacant 1974 [Resigns due Koreagate]
39 George Pratt Schultz (R-Pennsylvania)/ Vacant 1974-1975/ Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller (R-New York) 1975-1977

Schultz is not popular or well-connected enough to win primaries and Reagan is the GOP nominee. Carter run as a moderate outsider who oppose Washington "tricks" and wins. In 1980 George HW Bush is elected as President.
 
Top