While the need for SB5, or something quite close to it, seems to be a necessary component of getting Ohio back on track, the way it was passed in the Senate is no cause for celebration.

According to reports, Republicans on two committees had to be replaced to assure the bill got to the floor. How different is this from the Democrats who have left their states to prevent a vote on a bill they don’t like? Not very.

And let’s face it, this has moved quickly. That wouldn’t be a bad thing if it was relative minor legislation. However, since it’s a substantial change in a decades-old law and 475 pages long with a 99-page amendment, it’s been too fast. How different is this from the way the Democrat-controlled Congress pushed through Obamacare? Not very.

If you don’t have the guts to let the chips fall where they may on a vote, and if you fear letting legislation be examined thoroughly, at the least you diminish the perception of the legislation. At the worst, you essentially admit that the legislation is not ready for prime time.

Looks like some things will never change.

The contradictions in the public-employee union arguments are many.

We need the unions so we have good pay and benefits, but…

We don’t really have good pay and benefits.

We don’t really have good pay and benefits, but…

It’s time to tax the rich to pay for the budgets that pay for our pay and benefits.

We have to have public-employee unions and collective bargaining because it’s the only way we’ll improve our lot in life, but…

Union membership in the private sector continues to decline – don’t they need unions to improve their lot in life?

If you stop collective bargaining in the public sector you’ll eliminate the middles class, but…

Most people don’t work for the government and most people are in the middle class.

We need unions and collective bargaining in the public sector to protect us from the government “man,” but…

Aren’t the people who work in government good, unlike businessmen? Whom do you need protection from? The voters? The citizens?

They just want to end collective bargaining and public-employee unions to intentionally destroy the middle class, but…

Really, seriously, why?

The private sector has unions and collective bargaining and so should the public sector, but…

Private-sector unions have to deal with a free market, company profit and loss; public-sector unions are funded through mandatory taxes and the customers – citizens – are locked into the state monopoly.

People should be allowed to assemble as they see fit, but…

A right-to-work state that doesn’t require the payment of union dues to work is wrong?

Public employees deserve good or great pay because they do good and great jobs, but…

Requiring pay based on merit is an attack on public employees?

If collective bargaining is ended and unions weakened, all public employees will quit, but…

Well, probably not.

As the Kasich administration makes moves that result in bad PR (the latest is here), its apparent adversary, public-employee unions, would be mistaken to enjoy Kasich’s troubles. Indeed, in their opposition to the proposed legislation revising their collective-bargaining agreements, they are making their own mistakes.

Public unions claim that Kasich and Republicans in the legislature want to destroy the state’s middle class. This is, frankly, asinine. It makes no sense whatsoever. Spouting such a silly idea sets off the noise of the BS bell we each have inside of us, making any legitimate arguments they might have all the harder to hear.

What the unions are ignoring too is that, as hard as their jobs can be, they have pretty good contracts. For the most part, their pay ain’t bad, and neither are their benefits. But what they sidestep is clear to the citizens who provide those wages and benefits.

And it’s abundantly apparent to those who are looking for employment because, as bad as public-employee unions paint their situation, the unemployed person is figuring they’re better off than he is.

The average citizen is also wondering how they got the time off to protest.

Unions are also creating a false choice. “We didn’t create the economic crisis, so why come after us?” But who is blaming them for the economic meltdown? What has happened is that the crisis has exposed yet another unsustainable government endeavor, pay and benefits that are too costly either now or in the future.

These protests at the Statehouse illustrate another problem.

Public-employee unions spend a lot of money and energy to elect politicians sympathetic to their demands. The corollary of that is true, too; they spend a lot to defeat those with differing viewpoints.

Thus, the taxpayers are not necessarily fairly represented in wage and benefit negotiations. For the elected official on the other side of the table, it can often become a bid for re-election, voluntary or otherwise, as these protests might show.

The demonstrations could be interpreted as fighting for what one believes in. But they could also be seen as strong-arm tactics, a Statehouse version of a schoolyard bully who expects to get his way simply because he’s big and strong, not because he is right.

Let’s look at it this way, from a public relations view.

As Ohio’s future governor was campaigning about the need to balance a budget that was expected to have a multi-billion dollar hole, would also planning to cost the state money protecting the new governor’s family home make sense?

Would choosing not to live in the already paid-for governor’s mansion and spending tax money for security at his home make sense if initially no information would be given about the cost of that extra security?

If as governor one was planning on supporting legislation that would make substantial changes to public-employee collective bargaining, would it have made sense to simultaneously plan on hiring some staff members at substantially higher salaries than before?

Would it also have made sense to plan on reducing the pay of some lower-level staff with the idea of being able to say that, overall, the total staff salary budget would not exceed that of the previous governor?

In a state where about 12 percent of the population is black, would it have been a good idea as the new governor to plan on not naming “a single nonwhite person in [the] first 22 cabinet appointments”?

This is not to say these decisions could not have reasonable, plausible, innocent explanations. Nor is it to say that these moves were indeed planned. But when looked at from the perspective of planning to do them, it’s easy to see how bad PR would follow.

Perhaps if we looked at more of our decisions from this standpoint, we might make better choices.

And if there is any doubt about the damage this has caused Kasich’s administration, a cursory look at letters to the editor and a “Kasich” search on Twitter can verify that it has been harmful.

I have to admit the last few weeks have been a bit tough. Some job opportunities seemed to have closed as fast as they opened. I won’t belabor it; I’ve talked about my job-search journey a few times here.

But today offered quite a nice surprise. When I went to get the mail, a package was waiting at my door. I didn’t think it was for me since I hadn’t ordered anything. The envelope was partially open and I could see it was a book. Now, I order books but was sure I hadn’t done so this time.

But there was my name on the label.

Upon opening it, I broke into smiles. It was a copy of Known and Unknown, A Memoir, by Donald Rumsfeld.

Just over a year ago, after I read who would publish the former Defense secretary’s upcoming book, I contacted the publisher. I humbly requested a copy prior to publication for review on this blog (which I began after I was laid off from my journalism job, see above).

My initial contact was met positively, but I was asked to get in touch with the publisher again when it was closer to the expected release date. When I did so, it sounded less promising. I was told there would not be any pre-publication copies given to the press.

But they still sent me a copy to arrive on publication day! A big Thank You to those at Sentinel/Penguin Group who still kept me in mind.

I have a lot of admiration for Donald Rumsfeld. He certainly became a lightning rod as Defense secretary. But I always saw him as a dedicated patriot who made the best interests of his country top priority.

Heck, I was even quoting him from time to time in some editorials I wrote in my previous job. The quotes were from some of the speeches he gave on the anniversary of 9/11. Whatever your feelings about Rumsfeld, you cannot help but be moved when he talks about the sacrifices our men and women in uniform, and their families, have made, and continue to make, for America.

Now, I’ve got some reading to do! This is a big book.

Word is Fox Sports has rejected this ad for the big game. Could the ad be less proselytizing?

The job looked great. But I knew there would be, as there usually are now, many interested candidates. So, for the heck of it, I thought I’d have a little fun with the cover letter. After all, it was for a writing position and I wanted to be creative.

I know it’s a buyer’s market. You’ve got scads of perfectly-aligned-with-your-needs applicants. Blah, blah, blah.

Well, if you’re still reading, and just in case you are interested in looking at someone who can do the job, even if coming from a slightly different angle, please give me a look.

I have a lot of journalism/writing experience. I recently finished a short-term writing gig for the local Chamber of Commerce. I have a bachelor’s degree from just a “few” years back and a newer graduate business degree.

While I have been looking for full-time work since December 2008, I worked for several months as a part-time meat clerk at a major grocery chain. I am also a substitute teacher occasionally.

I have a passport so I can freely travel the “tri-state area” and farther.

In other words, I’m the total package.

I can be reached at …

Thanks,
…

P.S. If you find this cover letter a bit unusual, please, blame the coffee.

Well, I didn’t get the job. But I did get a gracious response, something quite rare these days.

This ad aired again recently; it needs to be stopped.

The greatest problem is the “atmosphere.” There is no chemistry here, not in the setting and, most importantly, not between the two actors. Who are these people?

Their conversation is forced, robotic. At about 20 seconds in, the male character looks as if he doesn’t even know what to say.

Her line that Strickland “lost us 400,000 jobs on his watch” is overboard. I know that this is the message but, really, the way she states it in this ad, does even the most rabid anti-Stricklandite believe he personally “lost us 400,000″ jobs?

And her pronouncement that she “read that his aides lied to investigators” is unconvincing because it means nothing. This is not to defend Strickland’s aides, but one can read all sorts of things that are not necessarily true.

This is a Republican Governors Association ad, not the campaign’s. Still, it’s ineffective and demeans the viewers’ intelligence. Pull it.

While listening to the radio this morning, I was absolutely shocked to hear about a comment from Kasich’s campaign spokesman.

A spokesman for Republican challenger John Kasich ruffled feathers when he criticized Strickland by saying, “Having grown up in a chicken shack on Duck Run, he has all but ignored our cities’ economies and their workers.”

While the spokesman claimed to only be using the words of Strickland himself, this was an egregious error. And it’s especially damaging on two fronts.

Its worst aspect is that it’s an insult to low-income people. Now, that’s not what was claimed (more on that later), but that is how it came across and perception is reality.

Trailing close behind in the how-bad-could-it-be category is that it comes at a time when the Democrats are running ads saying Kasich became rich on Wall Street. The ads are suggestive and misleading. But for those who don’t know John Kasich – and that’s what surveys say about Kasich in Ohio, most don’t know him – the comment reinforces what the ads imply. And perception is reality.

Regarding the spokesman’s apology: As is usual in such instances, it not only did not go far enough, it placed the blame for offense less than squarely on the person who made the comment.

“When he [Strickland] says those things about himself, it’s different than when others say them, and it could be viewed pejoratively. That certainly wasn’t intended.”

“…It could be viewed pejoratively. That certainly wasn’t intended.” Frankly, it seems there was no other conclusion than to “view it pejoratively.” Why else would you say it? So it’s viewed as a compliment?

If the reason such dumb comments spew forth is that the other side does it, save it. If that’s the reasoning used in political strategy sessions, then I would suggest it’s time to grow up. That “Teddy does it” ceased to be an excuse for most of us around kindergarten.

Kasich rightly disowned the comment and said he reprimanded the spokesman. Good. Strickland deflected the remark with self-effacing humor, one of the most endearing qualities Americans value. Better.

Kasich should be our next governor. But it’s not a gimme.

Round Strickland.