Is O'Leary's Lie a Misogynistic Lie?

[Brian Essi]

As we approach the 100th Anniversary of Women's Suffrage, here are some facts to consider about one of Sam O'Leary's latest lies:

1. Sam O'Leary was in diapers when Meghan George was well into elementary school.

2. Meghan George has had 20 consistent years of exemplary employment work experience while O'Leary was unemployed, jumped from jump to job and was still in school for 8 of those same 20 years.

Yet O'Leary makes the following campaign lie in relation to his female opponent:

That he is somehow "the only experienced candidate."

It is clearly a lie, but is this lie misogynistic?

[Bridget Conant]

I wondered about his “work” history myself

Look at his LinkedIn page. This is a page he can create himself so he can put his best foot forward.

Yet, he has these odd gaps in employment. Months long.

Did it take him that long to find another job? I mean, someone as special as he seems to think he is should have been snapped right up!

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sam-o-leary-b52b1643

[Bill Call]

Councilman O'Leary's latest campaign mailing did not contain a claim to be a prosecutor and did not contain a claim to have the endorsement of Lakewood Democrats. I guess that's progress.

[Michael Deneen]

Sam's lies are so plentiful that it's hard to properly categorize them.
However, this is another example of Democratic Establishment hypocrisy.
The County Party (along with its satellite groups like the Stonewall Democrats) had a chance to endorse a qualified woman for a leadership position.
Instead they decided to stick to the "old boys network" and endorse a much younger male candidate.
A male candidate with a known history of lying and political baggage.

This is the same County Establishment that will spend the entire year 2020 trashing Trump and the GOP as a bunch of sexists.

[img]

olearypinocchio.jpg (129.03 KiB) Viewed 5955 times

[/img]

[Dan Alaimo]

Sam's lies are so plentiful that it's hard to properly categorize them.
However, this is another example of Democratic Establishment hypocrisy.
The County Party (along with its satellite groups like the Stonewall Democrats) had a chance to endorse a qualified woman for a leadership position.
Instead they decided to stick to the "old boys network" and endorse a much younger male candidate.
A male candidate with a known history of lying and political baggage.

This is the same County Establishment that will spend the entire year 2020 trashing Trump and the GOP as a bunch of sexists.

Mike, I'm a bit confused here. Are you talking about the endorsement for Ward 1 (younger male candidate?) or something else?

Aside from that, local Dems need to get out of the endorsement business - county and Lakewood. The endorsement votes are too easy to manipulate. For example, many of us joined the Lakewood Dem club to influence the vote to endorse the hospital initiative, achieving a tie. But some of us recognized the group's potential and stayed to support progressive voices and the club's growth. And if I understand the club's history correctly, Ed F used a similar strategy to gain an endorsement over Tom G. My point is not that this sort of thing should be done but rather that it is too easy, so don't endorse.

[Michael Deneen]

Mike, I'm a bit confused here. Are you talking about the endorsement for Ward 1 (younger male candidate?) or something else?

No, I'm referring to their mayoral endorsement.
In Ward 1, they chose the white candidate over the minority candidate (if their "re-endorsement" goes as planned, the county party will endorse TWO white candidates over the only minority candidate).

When push comes to shove, the "party of inclusion" chooses its white and/or male cronies over diversity.

[mjkuhns]

I'm going to reopen this, mainly I think to congratulate Brian Essi for being well ahead of me, on it.

This message had to get a lot louder before I really heard the misogyny, in it, but it has gotten louder.

This is not a first-order argument for this election. To the extent that I have any individual priority argument to push, it's an argument for Meghan George, and I have said what I have to say there, already. My priority for the next 10 days is to promote that argument, whatever trolling or garbage comes Lakewood's way.

Even within criticism of the opposing effort, more-offensive negative campaigning has arguably emerged already.

But from another, bigger perspective, the readiness with which some in our community have embraced the complete erasure of an accomplished woman is genuinely terrible.

That's absolutely what this "the only qualified candidate" refrain amounts to. It's an attempt to erase from existence all the work and achievements of a successful professional woman.


I don't, obviously, agree with the Plain Dealer editorial board's assertion that there's no wrong choice to be the next mayor of Lakewood. But I must credit them, all the same, for explicitly denying that there's only one candidate who is even qualified. In the sense of resume qualifications, yes, this election is a choice between two options, which they acknowledged.

The effort since then to twist their editorial's substance, to reinforce an attempt at completely denying any discussion or choice, is deplorable as is the whole attempt.

Meghan George has worked hard, has had to work hard, to get where she is: a community leader, a titled public official, and an in-demand professional.

The voluble assertions that her younger, less experienced opponent is nonetheless "the only qualified candidate" are offensive. As Mr. Essi proposed, I think they are also misogynist.

What's particularly awful is, again, the way which people including other women have supported this attempted erasure. That's a loss for our entire community, not just for one election but by a more lasting measure of who we really are. It's dismal that a woman activist leader, e.g., helps promote an endorsement among two beneficiaries of an establishment in which men are routinely appointed to office, while every woman has to fight her way in from outside.


I'm very thankful that there are women in Lakewood who take on that challenge, anyway. I'm thankful that one of them, Meghan George, has taken on this challenge—with some notable success—and will hopefully manage to change the whole system. I'm thankful for the opportunity to support her.

Also, I'm thankful that there are perceptive people who recognize unfairness in its various forms, and who speak out to call it wrong.

[m buckley]

I'm going to reopen this, mainly I think to congratulate Brian Essi for being well ahead of me, on it.

This message had to get a lot louder before I really heard the misogyny, in it, but it has gotten louder.

This is not a first-order argument for this election. To the extent that I have any individual priority argument to push, it's an argument for Meghan George, and I have said what I have to say there, already. My priority for the next 10 days is to promote that argument, whatever trolling or garbage comes Lakewood's way.

Even within criticism of the opposing effort, more-offensive negative campaigning has arguably emerged already.

But from another, bigger perspective, the readiness with which some in our community have embraced the complete erasure of an accomplished woman is genuinely terrible.

That's absolutely what this "the only qualified candidate" refrain amounts to. It's an attempt to erase from existence all the work and achievements of a successful professional woman.


I don't, obviously, agree with the Plain Dealer editorial board's assertion that there's no wrong choice to be the next mayor of Lakewood. But I must credit them, all the same, for explicitly denying that there's only one candidate who is even qualified. In the sense of resume qualifications, yes, this election is a choice between two options, which they acknowledged.

The effort since then to twist their editorial's substance, to reinforce an attempt at completely denying any discussion or choice, is deplorable as is the whole attempt.

Meghan George has worked hard, has had to work hard, to get where she is: a community leader, a titled public official, and an in-demand professional.

The voluble assertions that her younger, less experienced opponent is nonetheless "the only qualified candidate" are offensive. As Mr. Essi proposed, I think they are also misogynist.

What's particularly awful is, again, the way which people including other women have supported this attempted erasure. That's a loss for our entire community, not just for one election but by a more lasting measure of who we really are. It's dismal that a woman activist leader, e.g., helps promote an endorsement among two beneficiaries of an establishment in which men are routinely appointed to office, while every woman has to fight her way in from outside.


I'm very thankful that there are women in Lakewood who take on that challenge, anyway. I'm thankful that one of them, Meghan George, has taken on this challenge—with some notable success—and will hopefully manage to change the whole system. I'm thankful for the opportunity to support her.

Also, I'm thankful that there are perceptive people who recognize unfairness in its various forms, and who speak out to call it wrong.

Spot on. Bump.

[Brian Essi]

I'm going to reopen this, mainly I think to congratulate Brian Essi for being well ahead of me, on it.

This message had to get a lot louder before I really heard the misogyny, in it, but it has gotten louder.

This is not a first-order argument for this election. To the extent that I have any individual priority argument to push, it's an argument for Meghan George, and I have said what I have to say there, already. My priority for the next 10 days is to promote that argument, whatever trolling or garbage comes Lakewood's way.

Even within criticism of the opposing effort, more-offensive negative campaigning has arguably emerged already.

But from another, bigger perspective, the readiness with which some in our community have embraced the complete erasure of an accomplished woman is genuinely terrible.

That's absolutely what this "the only qualified candidate" refrain amounts to. It's an attempt to erase from existence all the work and achievements of a successful professional woman.


I don't, obviously, agree with the Plain Dealer editorial board's assertion that there's no wrong choice to be the next mayor of Lakewood. But I must credit them, all the same, for explicitly denying that there's only one candidate who is even qualified. In the sense of resume qualifications, yes, this election is a choice between two options, which they acknowledged.

The effort since then to twist their editorial's substance, to reinforce an attempt at completely denying any discussion or choice, is deplorable as is the whole attempt.

Meghan George has worked hard, has had to work hard, to get where she is: a community leader, a titled public official, and an in-demand professional.

The voluble assertions that her younger, less experienced opponent is nonetheless "the only qualified candidate" are offensive. As Mr. Essi proposed, I think they are also misogynist.

What's particularly awful is, again, the way which people including other women have supported this attempted erasure. That's a loss for our entire community, not just for one election but by a more lasting measure of who we really are. It's dismal that a woman activist leader, e.g., helps promote an endorsement among two beneficiaries of an establishment in which men are routinely appointed to office, while every woman has to fight her way in from outside.


I'm very thankful that there are women in Lakewood who take on that challenge, anyway. I'm thankful that one of them, Meghan George, has taken on this challenge—with some notable success—and will hopefully manage to change the whole system. I'm thankful for the opportunity to support her.

Also, I'm thankful that there are perceptive people who recognize unfairness in its various forms, and who speak out to call it wrong.

Spot on. Bump.

"Bump"---quoting Mr. Mark Buckley

[Dan Alaimo]

.
What's particularly awful is, again, the way which people including other women have supported this attempted erasure. .

Historically, some of the most vocal critics of women advancing in politics have been other women. Think about the long Suffrage campaign. I suspect that much the same kind of thing is at work here.

[dl meckes]

This is misogynistic. Vote for a girl? Ew.

Sam O'Leary and his friends need to run a push poll to try to get their message straight. How pathetic.

It wasn't until Tom George ran and won the position for Mayor that a candidate who had been on the city council was elected to that seat. The argument that Ms. George is unexperienced is specious when you look at the history of that position. (I was very involved in Tom George's mayoral campaigns.)

Everybody knows that endorsing groups can be stacked and I agree with Dan. It's a long-time tradition.

I don't support Meghan George because I supported her father, or because she's a woman, I think she is a capable person and I think she better represents my sensibilities than Sam O' Leary.

Politics are changing. It's time for a change and it's time to get out from under the shadow of the Summers group.