Hey Spazito! He's gone!

[HEyHEY]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/12/tory-candidate060112.html

The federal Tories are dumping a B.C. candidate who faces charges of attempting to smuggle a car and booze across the Canada-U.S. border.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said on Thursday that it's too late to replace Derek Zeisman as a candidate, but that he wouldn't be allowed to join the caucus.


Derek Zeisman (courtesy derekzeisman.com)
"Mr. Zeisman will not be sitting as a Conservative should he be elected," Harper said. "He'll have to get this matter resolved."



ANd I belive it's past the dealine, which means you, sir, shall have an NDP MP!
Unless the cons vote for the libs.

[iverglas]

1. a big "unless"

ANd I belive it's past the dealine, which means you, sir, shall have an NDP MP!
Unless the cons vote for the libs.

And anybody want to take bets on exactly that happening?

If some of the otherwise Conservative voters don't vote Conservative, we have three possibilities:

(a) They vote NDP.
(b) They vote Liberal.
(c) They don't vote.

I suspect that (b) will be the most common reaction. (Maybe not by a majority, but by a plurality in a three-way split; the Canadian way.) 'Cause I suspect that voting not-NDP would be a more important factor in their decision than voting not-Liberal.

I'd be curious to know what somebody who actually knows something about the local situation (i.e. not me) thinks, of course! From what you say, HEyHEY, could I take it the Liberals couldn't be expected to take it even if the NDP and Conservative candidates both died? ;)


(fixed wrong word; that's three-way split, not vote)
(yes, and otherwise, not other wise ...)

[HEyHEY]

2. Well, last election

The Con Candidate (Also incumbant) only won by a few hundred votes over the NDP. Zeisman is still going to run, and all his signs and stuff will be con... BUT if he wins he will sit as an independent.
So, what hopefully happens, is the cons in the area still vote for him, but enough will be put off that they'll vote liberal, which was a few thousand votes back last time, and then the NDP will win!
On the other hand, we can hope that maybe the Cons in that riding hate the libs scandals so much and hate Zeisman so much, they vote NDP. Of course it all could go lib

I guess, it's really a crapshoot. But I have a feeling the NDP will come out on top, it's a pretty NDP area.

(I was a newspaper editor in this riding last election and am still kind of covering it for this one.)

[iverglas]

3. ta

It will be most interesting to see. Maybe they'll all stay home in a huff.

[Liberal_and_proud]

4. And guess which moran Conservative skipped out on his own riding..

To campaign for Zeisman? That Conservative Darling Rob Anders? Anders has been abscent from his own riding and got raked over the coals recently for skipping out on debates to campaign for Zeisman.

[daleo]

5. Harper will have him sit as an independent

But he will vote with Harper's Conservatives in the house (should he win). Then, Harper will quickly "rehabilitate" him, and he will join the Conservative caucus. That's my hunch.

[HEyHEY]

6. He won't be elected though

I'd be shocked,....if he were, however, I agree with you that's what would happen.

[daleo]

7. I hope you are correct about him not being elected

I don't have a great feel for predicting BC election results - they are pretty volatile.

[Spazito]

8. Thanks, HEyHEY, for the good news!

It certainly does look like Alex will take this riding this time! He only lost by 700 the last election and that was with an established incumbent so it is looking VERY good! I just heard on the news that it is too late for the faux Cons to drop him so Harper is stuck with a candidate charged with smuggling, how delicious is that for the party that promises to bring back ethical behavior, roflmao!!!

This calls for at least three

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Here's CTV's take on it:

B.C. Conservative candidate to go on trial
Kathy Tomlinson, CTV News

The Conservative Party was not aware that its candidate in the B.C. riding of British Columbia Southern Interior is due to go on trial next month on smuggling charges, and if convicted, he could end up in jail.

snip

Zeisman is still in hospital with injuries from that accident, and would not agree to an interview. However, he did speak with CTV News off-camera.

snip

In July 2004, Zeisman was crossing into British Columbia from the United States, when Canada Customs charged him with attempting to smuggle in a Mercedes-Benz vehicle and 112 containers of alcohol.

Zeisman is also accused of lying to Canada Customs about the incident.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051230/derek_zeisman_whistleblower_060111/20060112?hub=TopStories

[V. Kid]

9. Provincially the NDP dominated...

...Katrine Conroy and Corky Evans won with about 60% of the vote each, and their ridings are in Southern Interior. This is looking more and more like an NDP pickup. Lots of people who vote either NDP or Conservative in the west would never vote Liberal.

Whats funny about this story is that the guy is completely contradicting Conservative claims about ethics and what not. Sure they talk about Liberal corruption, but I bet they'll be just as corrupt once they get their snouts in the troff. I feel bad for the guy for getting in the car accident recently but that's a diffrent subject. And this thing is a bit bizzare to say the least.

A) they had plenty of time to check out his record.

B) this is a contridcition to Con claims to clean up politics.

C) the candidate knew full well what he was doing considering his day job.

[Spazito]

10. Agree, the Liberals were virtually non-existent in the last election

in this riding and it is the same this year. They have a candidate but it is, in reality, a token one. Even the candidate doesn't expect to do much.

[Wabbajack]

11. Great!

But why is it illegal to bring a car and a bunch of booze across the border? Tax evasion or something?

[daleo]

12. I presume that's it

You would avoid a lot of taxes that way - GST, BC provincial taxes, booze taxes...plus, 100+ bottles of booze seems like a lot anyway. He must have a healthy appetite. Perhaps his political judgment would be in some question for that reason.

An MP who lies to customs agents may not have the country's best interests at heart either. That would make him quite at home in a conservative caucus, though.

[iverglas]

14. I still don't get it

How the hell do you smuggle a *car*?

Anything to declare? Nope. Certainly not this car I'm sitting in as we speak.

As I fuzzily recall the details of whichever free trade agreement applies, we have free trade in used cars, over a certain vintage (i.e. the year of make advances each year). Not in new cars. How would you even register the vehicle in the province without a proof of purchase that was legally compliant? Perhaps a phoney receipt of some sort, misidentifying the car? (And forever after, an illegally registered car.) Wild guessing here.

100+ bottles of booze seems like a lot anyway. He must have a healthy appetite.

Actually, I'd suspect he has some good customers. That sounds like what y'd call "trafficking", to me.

A profit of 20 bucks on a bottle, not unreasonable and maybe low, I imagine, on high-priced booze, would make $2,000. Hardly seems worth it. But as an add-on to a car, one might just think what the hell. I'd wonder whether the car was for personal use, too, and suspect maybe not. And then I'd wonder just exactly whom this guy was hanging out with.

Wot a dingbat.

Perhaps his political judgment would be in some question for that reason.

I'd say so!

[HEyHEY]

16. For certain

"Actually, I'd suspect he has some good customers. That sounds like what y'd call "trafficking", to me."

Especially considering this all went down July 3rd! HMMM... was he planning to sell some to some Canada Day celebrators?

[daleo]

13. The Globe had the story today

But, on page 7 or so, with a headline that softened the matter for Harper. You can bet this would have been page 1 if he had been a Liberal (or NDP for that matter).

[HEyHEY]

15. No, it was page seven because the globe was a day late

[daleo]

17. Now there is a BC Liberal scandal story (allegation anyway)

My bet is it will be on the front page of tomorrow's Globe, and all the Canwest papers, very prominent, and with a fairly spectacular headline. It will be an interesting test.

I am talking about the alleged bribe to an NDP candidate to drop out of the race, that was on the CBC website this afternoon.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/13/oliver060113.html

[HEyHEY]

18. It's been all over the newswire today

Of course so is the Zeisman story. As well, Zeisman was front page yesterday and today the story in the province says HE says he DID tell the party of his charges... hmmmm. interesting. That story had a teaser on page one.

The globe's a reliable paper...not like that fucking National post piece o shit.

[daleo]

26. The Globe had the main story on A12 (Alberta edition)

My local Canwest rag (Edmonton Journal) buried it in another story. To say I am surprised would be an understatement. Granted, they are only allegations, but I still expected more play.

Generally, I like Globe, although it does have a rightward slant. Still, they do publish some alternative viewpoints (e.g. Salutin) and their actual reporting is not too biased, by today's standards. I have rarely bothered reading the Post, and turned down all the free trial offers.

[V. Kid]

19. Thats a stupid thing to do considering that Abbotsford is a pretty...

...conservative place, and the only capital-L liberals who get elected there are BC Liberals (not affiliated with the federal party). So if the Liberal did this, all he did was create un-nessecary trouble for his party, since I can't really imagine anyone except a Conservative winning that riding for the near future.

[iverglas]

21. looked it up

Last election:

Randy White, Conservative: 61.4
Moe Gill, Liberal: 19.9
Scott Fast, NDP: 13.6

I mean, with a 3-way split, and no morals, one might see a point. That kind of effort to get a total of 1/3 of the vote ... evil *and* stupid.

The page is gone, but google's cached version lives on:
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:quGtr7mFbQkJ:www.liberal.ca/bio_e.aspx%3Fid%3D59001%26type%3Dcan+abbotsford+liberal+candidate&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

David Oliver is proud to be the Liberal candidate for Abbotsford.

Mr. Oliver is a devoted educator. He has taught grades 3-12 in public schools as well as in federal prison, and on reserve in a First Nations community.

I was curious because of the strong resemblance he bears to yer basic (ex)cop/thug.

An example of the latter: Rick McIntosh ("linked to an investigation into police corruption"), former president of the Toronto police union -- can't find one of Craig Bromell --



and Mr. Oliver, in a rather flattering light:



Oh well. We can't choose our genes.

[daleo]

27. Maybe he is a conservative Liberal

I gather the B.C. Liberal Party is the "free enterprise" party in British Columbia right now, so it wouldn't surprise me if it is, let's say "conflicted" by this election.

As you say, there doesn't even look to be vote split potential, so all this does is add to the "Liberal corruption" meme. Maybe some trickery here? Just speculation on my part, because it makes so little sense. I gather B.C. politics is quite the blood sport.

[Spazito]

20. Well, it looks like one scandal, Ziesman, is neutralized by the

other, David Oliver, so, in the long run, it is a wash. So goes politics I guess, sadly.

[iverglas]

22. rather a subdued response

to a Liberal attempting to subvert the very democratic process itself.

"A wash"? I'd say (assuming both alleged offences to be true) one stupid criminal, one stupid enemy of democracy. Neither nice, but not equivalent.

"So goes politics"? Let us hope not.

[Spazito]

23. Has he been charged with anything? If so, I must have missed it

whereas Zeisman has ACTUALLY been charged yet both stories have been treated with equal outrage ergo "subdued" if being "subdued" means I didn't rant and rave over a serious allegation as yet unproven and not charged under law. I don't care which party it is, if it can be proven they are trying to subvert the system whether through smuggling or bribery, they should be charged, thrown out of the party and into court.

Hmmmm, could it be because it was an NDP candidate that is alleging this that you feel my response is too subdued? Nah, merely coincidence I am sure.

Love how your response is "subdued", imo, in your comparison:

"one stupid criminal, one stupid enemy of democracy"

Should that not say one stupid, charged criminal and one stupid alleged enemy of democracy?

[iverglas]

24. actually, what one should say

Love how your response is "subdued", imo, in your comparison:
"one stupid criminal, one stupid enemy of democracy"
Should that not say one stupid, charged criminal and one stupid alleged enemy of democracy?

... is EXACTLY WHAT I DID SAY, which was, your careful editing notwithstanding, and with emphasis for assistance this time out:

I'd say (assuming both alleged offences to be true) one stupid criminal, one stupid enemy of democracy.

Btw, was OJ innocent ... or just not proved guilty to the satisfaction of a rather dull jury?

a serious allegation as yet unproven and not charged under law

The fact that someone has been charged is not evidence that s/he did something -- nor is the fact that someone has not been charged evidence that s/he did not do it.

The Liberal Party doesn't seem to have thought the allegation groundless, and I note that as an admission against interests of sorts.


Hmmmm, could it be because it was an NDP candidate that is alleging this that you feel my response is too subdued? Nah, merely coincidence I am sure.

I'm not quite sure (sincerely) that I take your meaning.

Is it: Is the reason for my response that the allegation is made by the NDP candidate?

Or is it: Is the reason for my response that I think the reason for your response is because the allegation is made by the NDP candidate?

The former, grammatically, I think. The answer is no, in any event.

The reason for my response was that I suspect the reason for your response is that the allegation is made *against* a Liberal candidate rather than *against* a Conservative candidate. The NDP or its candidate didn't come into it either way, in my mind.

Conservatives have a history of subverting the democratic process by running as phoney Green candidates. I hold no brief for Greens, but I denounce the practice. Of course, I also would acknowledge that the practice is aimed directly at the NDP, and anybody can accept my assurances that I'd denounce it regardless, or not.


stupid omissions fixed

[Spazito]

25. It is exactly your...

"(assuming both alleged offenses to be true)" I take issue with because one is merely an allegation without criminal charges whereas the other is alleged and charges have been laid, there is a difference between the two cases. They are, as yet, not equal in the eyes of the law and will not be until charges have been laid which I feel sure they will be if the alleged bribery actually took place. At this point we have an allegation only with regard to the Liberal candidate.

It seems you are determined to place me squarely in the Liberals camp regardless of the multiple times I have assured you I belong to NO party, will be voting for the NDP candidate in my riding because he has the best chance to win against the faux Cons.

As to this:

"Btw, was OJ innocent ... or just not proved guilty to the satisfaction of a rather dull jury?"

How does this relate to the topic under discussion?

Regarding my comment:

"Hmmmm, could it be because it was an NDP candidate that is alleging this that you feel my response is too subdued? Nah, merely coincidence I am sure."

Yes, your first read was correct, that being:

"Is the reason for my response that the allegation is made by the NDP candidate?"

It was in response to your suspicion that my response was subdued because the candidate in question was a Liberal, your suspicion is wrong.

In reality, the original post I had made that you felt was 'subdued' was, in my thinking, more about the media coverage than anything else as well as the lack of ethics to be found in all the parties but it lacked the clarity so I can understand where you were coming from in your first response to me..

[iverglas]

28. "the eyes of the law"

For pity's sake. "The law" is the arbiter of *nothing* -- except whether someone may be properly charged and whether someone may be lawfully punished. No charge is evidence of anything except the charge itself, i.e. the fact that police/prosecution believe there are grounds for a conviction; and no conviction is evidence of anything except that a judge/jury believe there are grounds for a conviction. Police, prosecutors, judges and juries are really not omniscient.

"Innocent until proved guilty" means cannot be punished until proved guilty, not "didn't do it until proved did".

If you recall, the facts alleged against the Conservative Party candidate occurred quite some time ago. The facts alleged against the Liberal Party candidate occurred a couple of days before the discussion here. It would have been rather unusual if charges *had* been laid at that point, regardless of the evidence available at that point.

In forming our own opinions, we rely on the facts we know and often on how credible we consider the people who are relating facts we don't know. I don't know whether either of these two people did what is alleged against them, but I don't find any of the allegations particularly non-credible.

[Spazito]

29. You have your facts wrong

The news about the Conservative candidate scandal broke on January 12th, the news that he was facing six charges:

B.C. Tory candidate dumped over smuggling charges
Last Updated Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:27:00 EST

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/12/tory-candidate060112.html

The Liberal candidate was dumped by the Liberal Party following allegations he offered an NDP candidate a job to drop out of the race and support the Liberals on Jan 14th.

Liberals axe candidate accused of offering job to opponent
Last Updated Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:12:25 EST
CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/13/oliver060113.html


"If you recall, the facts alleged against the Conservative Party candidate occurred quite some time ago."

Since when does two days apart constitute 'some time ago' in relation to the Conservative scandal versus the Liberal scandal?

Your opinion, how you judge guilty before proven based on YOUR interpretation of the facts as you know them via the media, is a fascinating albeit disturbing view of the world. Most people I know wait until someone is charged and convicted before condemning them but there are always a few who hold your view, sadly.

The Liberal candidate may or may not be charged with something, I will wait to see as I would have waited to see if the Conservative candidate had had allegations without charges levied against him.

People who condemn out of hand tend to see a world in black and white with no gray and often lack compassion as a result.

[iverglas]

37. not I

Because what I SAID was:

If you recall, the facts alleged against the Conservative Party candidate occurred quite some time ago.

Nothing to do with:

The news about the Conservative candidate scandal broke on January 12th, the news that he was facing six charges: ...

The FACTS ALLEGED against the Conservative Party candidate occurred quite some time ago. The fact that he, or his party, or anybody else chose to keep the facts secret has nothing to do with what I was saying.

What I was saying, and what I said quite clearly, was that it was not surprising that no charges had yet been laid against the Liberal Party candidate -- even if the facts alleged are all true and do support a charge under some law. Because they are the kind of facts that police and prosecution generally want to investigate rather thoroughly before laying charges, if they do lay charges, which they might never do for a whole variety of reasons, *even if* the facts were exactly as alleged.

So you see --

If you recall, the facts alleged against the Conservative Party candidate occurred quite some time ago.
Since when does two days apart constitute 'some time ago' in relation to the Conservative scandal versus the Liberal scandal?

-- the facts alleged against the Conservative Party candidate occurred quite some time ago:

http://www.pentictonwesternnews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=102&cat=23&id=571892&more=

Media reports revealed Wednesday that Zeisman, who is running to replace his former boss Jim Gouk, is charged with trying to smuggle a 1989 Mercedes-Benz with 112 containers of alcohol across the U.S.-Canada border in July 2004. He's also charged with lying to customs officers about the incident.

That would be 18 months ago. The facts alleged against the Liberal Party candidate had occurred a couple of days before the discussion in issue.

My point had nothing to do with media coverage; it had to do with

(a) how reasonable it is to expect that charges would have been laid two days after allegations were made, in the case of a matter that is rather more complex, legally and factually, than smuggling a car; and

(b) what inferences can reasonably be drawn from the fact that charges have not been laid within that timeframe.

My submission is that it can certainly not be reasonably inferred that the allegations are false -- *or* that the police/prosecution will not be satisfied that the allegations are true, since investigation is required before they reach any conclusion at all.


Your opinion, how you judge guilty before proven based on YOUR interpretation ...

If only you could quote me as having done any such thing, particularly when what I actually said was:

I don't know whether either of these two people did what is alleged against them, but I don't find any of the allegations particularly non-credible.

Most people I know wait until someone is charged and convicted before condemning them but there are always a few who hold your view, sadly.

The Liberal candidate may or may not be charged with something, I will wait to see as I would have waited to see if the Conservative candidate had had allegations without charges levied against him.

Gee, you won't wait to see whether he's convicted?

Me, I don't "condemn" anyone based on either charges being laid or a conviction being pronounced. I don't believe that either a charge or a conviction proves a damned thing. Ever heard of Marshall, Milgaard and Morin? I prefer to reach my own conclusions, *if* I have sufficient facts on which to base them, and not to rely on anyone else's, including a judge's or jury's, unless I find them to be supported by adequate facts.

People who condemn out of hand tend to see a world in black and white with no gray and often lack compassion as a result.

Indubitably. If only that were a point that related to anything that's been said here.

MY point was that your reaction to an allegation of a Liberal subverting the democratic process was considerably more subdued than your reaction to an allegation of a Conservative smuggling a car.


-----

Btw, I've just realized that the car was a 1989 model. I'd thought that trade in used cars of a certain age was duty-free under the FTA or NAFTA, but I might have been premature, and google isn't helping me.

[HEyHEY]

30. Funny thing is the NDP candidate admitted he slept on the offer

[Spazito]

31. What do you mean?

He was sleeping? I haven't watched or listened to the news this weekend until just now so I am really out of the loop, or should I say more out of the loop than usual, lol.

[HEyHEY]

32. I heard the NDP canidate

Told Oliver that he'd think about it.

[Spazito]

33. He may have just said that to keep him 'on the line' so to speak

I assume the whole thing is under investigation, I hope we hear soon what the facts are, whether there will be charges or not.

[HEyHEY]

34. I thought it was funny when Martin asked him not to identify himself

As a liberal anymore... file this under "You know you've fucked up when...."

[Spazito]

35. LOL, me too, there was NO lack of clarity in that statement

and, under the circumstances, was the only thing he could do. If he did as alleged then a pox on his head for sure. If he didn't, I hope that comes out as well.

[V. Kid]

36. Yeah, but if you watch the CTV interview, it said he told the NDP...

...right after that. Since the NDP campaign office was just down the street from the Liberal one. And he also said he had no real intention of taking the offer. And once the morning came, he said he contacted a lawyer and got a notarized statement.