Ostensibly Vietnam is none of a state governor's business, Nothing he could possibly do will affect the conduct of the war in anything but the most minor way, and most of he issues he must deal with have nothing to do with the conflict. In fact Vietnam may help governors, since it will tend to increase state revenues and thus eliminate any need for a tax increase.

Governors are politicians, however, and they can hardly be expected to stay entirely silent on an issue that is on everyone's mind. At last year's Governors Conference all members present endorsed President Johnson's conduct of the war, with the exceptions of Romney of Michigan (who later adhered to the endorsing resolution when he learned what it meant) and Hatfield of Oregon.

Aside from Romney, few governors have higher political ambitions, which may explain their silence on Vietnam. Their greatest importance, as far as affecting policy is concerned, will be the effect of their showing on their states' congressional delegations. If Romney, for example, runs strongly, he may defeat all four of Michigan's marginal Congressional seats and sweep newly-appointed Senator Robert Griffin into a full term. The expected weak showing of Governor Rockefeller of New York, on the other hand, may help produce surprise victories for three of four marginal Democrats--a result which would tend to overstate the President's support.

Surely the most interesting bernatorial race is California's. As this is written, the primaries have not been held, and the final nominees are not yet known. But if the race turns out to be between Governor Pat Brown and actor Ronald Reagan, then Vietnam will certainly creep into the expected discussions of the state budget, water policy, Berkeley, and Watts, Reagan, despite his public relations firm's efforts, is more a right-winger than a moderate in most voters' eyes. He takes a hard line on Vietnam, and his election as Governor would be the biggest hawk victory of the year. Those of us who view this prospect with trepidation can take comfort in the fact that Los Vegas bettors, who are not in business to lose money, will not take any bets on Governor Brown. Though he is lagging behind in the polls (as he was against Know-land in 1958 and Nixon in 1962), they consider him a sure winner. It is a pleasure to be able to report at least one event of heart-warming familiarity in an otherwise war-torn political year.