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.
