Buzzards Return to Berea
28 April 2011
– by Mike Murray
Hinckley isn’t the only Ohio city that experiences — in regular, predictable fashion — the return of opportunistic, flesh-eating scavengers. Berea does, too. Every mayoral election season.
A campaign flyer, recently delivered door-to-door, signaled the 2011 descent of the road-kill-eating critters upon B-Town. In the flyer, some of Kleem’s staunchest supporters (there was a list!) bemoaned the imagined mistreatment of Berea’s “young mayor.”
They claimed that Kleem’s critics were out of line in questioning the state of his physical and mental health. (This, despite the fact that it has been widely reported that Kleem suffers from several serious medical conditions — at least one of which is potentially life-threatening — and that he also recently contemplated suicide. Moreover,other incidents of [allegedly] bizarre Kleem behavior have led to the filing of police reports.)
Nevertheless, thinking aloud about — and, most especially, commenting publicly about — Kleem’s fitness for office amounts to “dirty tactics” in the eyes of his sanctimonious supporters.
Give me a break. It would be irresponsible NOT to contemplate the reasonableness of reelecting (to the town’s highest governmental office) a person in Kleem’s physical and emotional condition.
And, regarding the issue of “fairness” with respect to campaign tactics, let me refresh the failing memories of Cyril Kleem’s signatory supporters.
Four years ago, Kleem backers (several of whom are listed on the aforementioned flyer) engaged in a whispering campaign, one in which they pronounced Dik Malott unfit to be mayor because he was — get this — “too old.” (One person who leveled that charge did so directly, to my wife, while she was out walking our dog.)
Kleem’s youth (he was then in his early 30s) was touted as an asset. He was “more alert” and “more energetic,” his supporters asserted, than was his 60-something opponent. Malott’s fitness for office was, they implied, impaired by his age.
That turned out to be a lot of hooey. Malott has proved to be (much) heartier — physically, mentally, emotionally — than has Kleem. (Moreover, no official investigations have been considered because of suspected misconduct by Malott.)
Kleem backers were hateful — and very wrong in 2007 — to use “health” as a sword with which to attack Dik Malott. And they are just as wrong — in 2011 — to use is as a shield with which to defend Cyril Kleem. Because there were no legitimate health issues for voters to consider four years ago. But there absolutely are, today.
And when it comes to age, Kleem’s supporters can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim (out of one side of their mouth) that Cyril’s youth makes him good mayoral material, and insist (out of the other) that he be treated with kid gloves because he’s only a “young person.”
Finally, members of Team Kleem can knock off their pretense at righteous indignation. When it comes to mud-slinging in Berea campaigns, they wrote the book.
Copyright © 2011 Michael F. Murray — All rights reserved.
Update: Fairness dictates that I relate the fact that, after reading this essay, Dik Malott contacted me and informed me of the following:
1) He has “put the past behind him” regarding Berea’s last mayoral election, and
2) He has since developed — as Councilman of Ward 5 — a good working relationship with the current administration.
Nevertheless, I stand by my assertions regarding Kleem’s campaign tactics (past and present), and with respect to the relevance of issues involved in this year’s race.
Note: This post was updated (on 5/2/11) to include a second link to a Plain Dealer story – the most recent one published on Sunday, May 1st — about Berea’s mayoral race, and also to include the word “allegedly” in describing Kleem’s behavior.
