Castanet

Totoramona,

If I didn’t know better I would suggest you sound like a member of the very same anti-everything crown in Summerland that Mr. Ziebarth took on. I actually thought it was funny how he formed his own little “citizens association” much as the anti crowd always does around election time. Only Ziebarth did a better job and the slate he supported mostly won re-election in that campaign. Seems more like sour grapes to me.

Either way the best part about democracy is that you don’t have to vote for the candidate if you don’t like them and I doubt that Ziebarth will win the nomination, however he does make the race that much more interesting.

CTF said:

If I didn’t know better I would suggest you sound like a member of the very same anti-everything crown in Summerland that Mr. Ziebarth took on. I actually thought it was funny how he formed his own little “citizens association” much as the anti crowd always does around election time. Only Ziebarth did a better job and the slate he supported mostly won re-election in that campaign. Seems more like sour grapes to me.

hahahaha...CTF - if I didn't know better I would suggest you are in fact very close to the guy you say you never met, but who you spend a lot of time praising and defending...

CTF wrote:Totoramona,

Only Ziebarth did a better job and the slate he supported mostly won re-election in that campaign.

The fact that you say that he supported a "slate" is precisely why his actions were questionable during that election. He supported a slate while concealing his identity so as to avoid proper financial disclosure.

If the Citizens for Smart Governance was actually a group of citizens pooling money and efforts to support a campaign, then the group would have been required to file financial documents. As an individual advertising on behalf of candidates and/or their position, in-kind contributions include the donation services, and must be valued and reported by the candidate in their campaign financing disclosure statement. Indirect contributions – where specific contributions are given through another person or organization to a candidate – are not permitted.

Zeibarth's ads were indirect, placed by an imaginary organization; therefore, the Councillors and Mayor were left trying to report the donations anonymously or for reasons of privacy...whether or not they knew who he was, we will never know. But he admitted to doing it this way, against the intent of the law, and further, promised to double his efforts next time around.

So can we expect honesty from his campaign for MLA???? Well, I wouldn't expect so. That would be silly. Can we expect honesty if he is elected to the legislature???? Ya right. Scary stuff.

It took me a while to track these clips down, but it is worth it.

People in general have short memories, and the fact that this guy is making a run for our provincial government really ticks me off.

Please reacquaint yourself with Mark Ziebarth and his tactics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVP349ZoNXY (James Millar's questioning of the so called "winning slate")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpDGHT52a4k (Mr. Ziebarth's explanation)

Note his slip of the tongue, "...we,..I accomplished what I had hoped..... NICE!

Totaramonia ... all you do by bringing up Ziebarth's 'short comings' and 'wrong doings' during the 2008 election ... is bring back all of the memories as to why Ziebarth did what he did. There was a group in Summerland called the Association of Citizens for Summerland (or *bleep*) as I fondly referred to them. They were running their own slates in the Summerland elections ... congratulating one another on their success. The Association was hiding under the guise of 'Smart Growth' ... and were a very organized and determined group to stop growth and development in Summerland. Their fight was against 'rampant' growth, when in fact the growth rate in Summerland had been at near zero for years. The tactics used by the Association were less than 'straight up' ... and they had taken out their own FULL PAGE add encouraging folks to vote for their 'slate' of members who were all part of the 'smart growth' movement. 'We're not against growth - we just support 'Smart growth'.
You are obviously just suffering from a bad case of sour grapes. Ziebarth was better at the game than the Assoc. To lots of us who were watching that election carefully ... Ziebarth became a hero of sorts. He took on the Association that had been spinning their rhetoric for years and getting away with it. You can try and make him look like the bad guy ~ but in my opinion ~ he was the guy that finally stood up to a group of individuals who felt they had control of the community. They had perfected the art of 'stalling' projects ... and I, for one, was really happy to see those ads popping up that exposed the 'Association' for what it was.

Be that as it may, it is just that sort of scandal that effectively dashes any chance he may have had at getting elected. The Liberals are playing catch-up, they're not going to go for someone widely perceived as underhanded and disrespectful of the law.

That's just it Fluffy ... I don't think that Ziebarth is 'widely perceived' as the bad guy. I think that the Association in Summerland tried their best to have him strung up for his actions (because he took them on). The media got involved in the sensation ... but I still think that most realize that Ziebarth isn't the villian he was made out to be. He may not be elected ... but he wasn't the bad guy that some tried to make him out to be. He took on a group that out-deceited him ten fold. I understand that it doesn't make things right ... but at least he had the courage to shake those worms from the trees.

glassmaster wrote:The tactics used by the Association were less than 'straight up' ... and they had taken out their own FULL PAGE add encouraging folks to vote for their 'slate' of members who were all part of the 'smart growth' movement.... Ziebarth was better at the game than the Assoc. To lots of us who were watching that election carefully ... Ziebarth became a hero of sorts.

I think you and I have been through this before, glassmaster. You may not have agreed with the position of the ACS, but the FACT remains that it was a real GROUP, with real PEOPLE, willing to show their faces and sign their names to a position they believed in.

Ziebarth was not better at "the game". He twisted the rules of the game, and he was exposed. I think maybe the "lots of us" that you refer to as holding Ziebarth up as a "hero" are as imaginary as the "Citizens" he hid behind.

And if you see Ziebarth as a hero, you must be hard up for inspiration.

glassmaster wrote:That's just it Fluffy ... I don't think that Ziebarth is 'widely perceived' as the bad guy. I think that the Association in Summerland tried their best to have him strung up for his actions (because he took them on). The media got involved in the sensation ... but I still think that most realize that Ziebarth isn't the villian he was made out to be. He may not be elected ... but he wasn't the bad guy that some tried to make him out to be. He took on a group that out-deceited him ten fold. I understand that it doesn't make things right ... but at least he had the courage to shake those worms from the trees.

That may be true, but I'm talking about the way the general public perceived what went down. The videos of the council meeting where the Herald's editor asked the questions that sparked the whole thing were pretty damning in themselves. The acting mayor stumbled and backtracked and contradicted statements he made only seconds earlier which didn't come off as particularly honest and forthright. Add to the the fact that Mr. Ziebarth didn't have anything to say until pretty much cornered, at which time he made himself fall guy for the entire slate that he supported, allegedly without their knowledge. Add to that the issue of his unregistered election support well in excess of legal limits, a matter he wasn't prosecuted for only because a time limit for filing a complaint had passed by the time it came to light. I don't have the benefit of knowing Mr. Ziebarth personally, nor do I have any close relationship with the councilors involved, I'm just describing the way it looks from my vantage point as someone who reads the papers and hears the chat in the coffee shops, a vantage point I think I'm safe in assuming is shared by most.

He's outspoken and given to independant action in support of his views, which may endear the voting public but not the party he's running for, and he carries the stain of scandal, which is a major strike against him no matter who you are. Do you realistically think he has a chance? He just might be the right man for the job, given those he's running against strike me as a selection of same-old-same-old, but that's just not the way things work right now in Canadian politics.

Yes, we have been through this before Totoramona ... and it probably won't be the last time. The Association was indeed a 'real' group of people ... but they were using very dishonest tactics to get votes for their ACS members. They played on the fears of the 'older folks' in the community ... and yes, they had a slate. I will give you credit though, at least you don't try to deny the existance of the ACS.

You can say whatever you want about Ziebarth ... but, at least he did something ... and nobody else seemed to have the courage to take on the rhetoric that the Association was feeding to the older members of community on a regular basis. It wasn't so much that I disagreed with the 'beliefs' of the ACS ( I can live with not sharing the same beliefs) ... I strongly disagreed with their methods of manipulation. As it turns out, Ziebarth exposing those methods (in a way that could be perceived as dishonest), may indeed prevent him from being elected.

While many of the local business group hated what the ACS was doing ... they were afraid to put their names out there (for fear that the ACS would call for a boycott on their business). The desire to 'rid' Summerland of the ACS influence was there .. but, for whatever reason, nobody wanted to take them on. It was this small/extreme group of ACS members (and their slate), that Ziebarth targeted in his ads.

Fluffy, In answer to your question, No ... I don't suppose that Ziebarth has a very good chance ... but he could prove me wrong. Ziebarth reminds me of Rick Thorpe in some ways, and R.T. was/is one of my favourite politicians. Without a doubt, Ziebarth has his supporters. Although the Summerland 'fiasco' may be a negative to some ... there are many others that quietly cheered when those ads started to appear. Ziebarth didn't name names - he just peeled away the layers of ACS rhetoric. No longer able to hide behind the 'Smart Growth' banner ... The ACS slate was wiped clean in the election.

Ziebarth taking on the ACS (with his 'tongue in cheek' pretend Association) may have cost him the opportunity to win any kind of election ~ but I don't think that it will stop his enthusiasm for politics. I can't see him as a guy that would run scared from 'perceived' anything.

I have been reading with interest the comments regarding Mark Z's role in the Summerland election..Interesting that he puts his own agenda at the head of the line. Even though he never 'technically' broke any laws -- it was firmly in the grey area. If it walks like a duck.....

Here's some further perspective on what he believes in politically.

Mark was an executive with the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a right wing, Tea Party Republican organization. They boast members like: Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. A quick glance at their website can send chills down the spine. Check it out for yourself:http://www.heritage.org

Here's a direct quote from the 'Family & Religion' section: "Family and religion are foundational to American freedom and the common good. For example, the married family plays an important part in promoting economic opportunity. It is essential to build support for policy changes that strengthen marriage and family and advance a robust understanding of religious liberty and the role of religion in society."

I have always believed that there should be a clear separation between religion and government. So do most BC Liberals.

So I wonder. What does Mark Z really believe?

To be clear, the Tea Party is an ultra fiscal conservative movement made up of a coalition of social conservatives (the Anne Coulters and Glen Becks) and social liberals (the John Stossels and Dennis Millers) with one main goal: to reduce the size the government and reign in spending. Critics would phrase it as "gutting."

Glacier wrote:Critics would phrase it as "gutting."

And others might say "Finally"

It wouldn't be the first time that the Liberal Party has elected someone who is right of center. In present times, the Liberal party favours a variety of policies from both right and left of the political spectrum.
The fact that Ziebarth has religious beliefs ... and that he is a 'family man' ... won't interfere with his work for the Liberal Party. Party policy will dictate his work. Mr. Ziebarth is a straight shooter and he is tough enough to be in Ottawa. Deepthroat, you seem to want to demonize him ... perhaps if he were 'Left of Center' you would be more comfortable.

glassmaster wrote:It wouldn't be the first time that the Liberal Party has elected someone who is right of center. In present times, the Liberal party favours a variety of policies from both right and left of the political spectrum.
The fact that Ziebarth has religious beliefs ... and that he is a 'family man' ... won't interfere with his work for the Liberal Party. Party policy will dictate his work. Mr. Ziebarth is a straight shooter and he is tough enough to be in Ottawa. Deepthroat, you seem to want to demonize him ... perhaps if he were 'Left of Center' you would be more comfortable.

Couple of issues with your post Glassy. First, Mark Z is running for provincial office not federal. Secondly, being a straight shooter (really bad cliche) means being honest and transparent. Those are two words that I wouldn't use to describe Mark Z based on his previous actions.

I do agree that some BC Liberal candidates and MLA's could be described as right wingers -- however the distinction here is that they are up front about their politics. They let the voters decide.

Mark Z is not. He'll say whatever it takes to get the nomination and will say whatever it takes to get elected. I've even heard of him trashing the other candidates for the nomination. One of whom, he was the self described "campaign manager" for. Once elected, then the real Mark Z will come out. My hope is that my fellow BC Liberal members see through the rhetoric and decide to elect one of the other three well qualified candidates. At least they have transparent track records that we can be proud of.