Home

About
- Who We Are
- Community Guidelines
- Right to Respond

Advertising on BOR
- Advertise on BOR
- Buy on all Texas Blogs

Advertisements

Search




Advanced Search


Jennifer Kim Responds to Questions About Anonymous Calls


by: David Mauro

Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:57 PM CDT


A day after Jennifer Kim's campaign confirmed they had placed anonymous robocalls, the campaign sent out an e-mail today titled, "Let's Not Lose Sight of the Facts."

The e-mail accused Randi Shade's campaign of "attempting to use this to distract from the fact that she is taking unpopular stands that will have a direct effect on city services and your taxes."

The e-mail denied the claim by some that the calls were intentionally misleading since they failed to say who was paying for them.

This call went to voters who received a mail piece about this same issue and used the same language in the mail piece. I do not believe we were being deceptive in any way.

Near the end of the e-mail, Kim once again brings up Shade's agreement to "increase public safety staffing without knowing the rest of the city's needs or financial limits."

On January 24, the editorial board of the Austin American Statesman reported on the police and firefighters associations making their City Council endorsement. They said," It was highly disappointing that Cid Galindo and Randi Shade, two of the candidates endorsed this week, promised - in writing - to increase public safety staffing without knowing the rest of the city's needs or financial limits."

I agree with these sentiments. It is irresponsible to make such promises without knowing the financial condition of our city.

The questions (whether they prove to be legitimate or not) about Randi Shade and the public safety unions could help Jennifer Kim in this race, but distractions like the anonymous robocall story are not what the Kim campaign needs less than a week before Election Day.

ADVERTISEMENT
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
interesting (0.00 / 0)
if true, it shows the lack of consistency of the Statesman editorial board.  It seems like they just decide on a candidate and then make up the rest.

From the Statesman endorsement on April 26:

Shade respects the work of police, firefighters and EMS workers and won endorsements from their unions without pandering to them

http://www.statesman.com/blogs...

January 24th:

It was highly disappointing that Cid Galindo and Randi Shade, two of the candidates endorsed this week, promised - in writing - to increase public safety staffing without knowing the rest of the city's needs or financial limits.

http://www.austinpolice.com/lo...


also of passing interest (0.00 / 0)
The Statesman only mentioned the issue of single member districts in their endorsement of Shade, not in Place 1 & 4. She supports a mixed district system to be voted on after the 2010 census with maps drawn before being submitted for voter approved, per the Statesman endorsement editorial.

So those of us that would like to see either mixed or single member district elections sooner rather than later can continue to wait for the perfect time to make the change, if we follow the Statesman's leadership on this issue. South Austin should have three seats on the City Council (SW, S, & SE) based on current population


[ Parent ]
Connect With BOR
Your source for Texas politics.

On Facebook: BOR
On Twitter: @BOR
On the Go: Mobile App

Upcoming BOR Events

"Do I Look Illegal?"
Arizona GOP Debate Watch

Wednesday, February 22
6:00-9:00 p.m.
Angie's Restaurant
1307 E. 7th Street
RSVP on Facebook

Save The Date:
Super Tuesday Super Watch Party!
Tuesday, March 6
6:00-10:00 p.m.
Scholz Garten
1607 San Jacinto



Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Shared On Facebook

Advertisement

Best of Texas Left
- (Complete Directory)
- B & B
- Bay Area Houston
- Blue Bloggin
- Bluedaze
- Brains and Eggs
- Capitol Annex
- Collin County Democrats
- Collin County Observer
- Community Forum
- Dog Canyon
- Dos Centavos
- Easter Lemming Liberal
- Eye on Williamson County
- Feet to the Fire
- Grading Texas
- Greg's Opinion
- Grits for Breakfast
- Half Empty
- Houtopia
- In the Pink Texas
- Kiss My Big Blue Butt
- Letters from Texas
- McBlogger
- Mean Rachel
- Musings
- North Texas Liberal
- Off the Kuff
- Panhandle Truth Squad
- Para Justicia y Libertad!
- Pink Dome
- San Antonio Mayor
- South Texas Chisme
- StoudDemBlog
- Texas Clover Leaf
- Texas Kaos
- The Caucus Blog
- There..Already
- Three Wise Men
Best of Texas Right
- Blogs of War
- BlogHouston
- Boots and Sabers
- Lone Star Times
- Publius TX
- Rick Perry vs the World
- Safety for Dummies
- Slightly Rough
- Urban Grounds
Other Texas Reads
- Burka Blog
- D Magazine
- DOT Show
- Statesman Elections
- Strong Political Analysis
- Texas Monthly
- Texas Observer
- The Texas Blue
- Quorum Report Daily Buzz
Around Austin
- Austin Bloggers
- Austin Chronicle
- Austin Contrarian
- Austin Metblogs
- Austin on Two Wheels
- Austin Real Estate Blog
- Austin Statesman
- Austin Texas Bike Shit Stuff
- Austin Towers
- Austinist
- Capital MetroBlog
- Daily Texan
- Do512
- Downtown Austin Blog
- East Austinite
- Elise Hu
-
Flash Mob Austin
- Keep Austin Blue
- M1EK
- Travis County Democrats
- University Democrats
TX Progressive Orgs
- ACLU Legislative Blog
- Atticus Circle
- Criminal Justice Coalition
- Equality Texas
- NOW Texas
- PFAW Texas
- Public Citizen
- SEIU Texas
- Tejano Insider
- Texas AFT
- Texas HDCC
- Texas Watch
- TFN
- TSTA
- TSEU
- Texas Young Democrats
- United Ways of Texas
TX Elections/Returns
- TX Returns 1992-present
- TX Media/Candidate List

- Bexar County
- Collin County
- Dallas county
- Denton County
- El Paso County
- Fort Bend County
- Harris County
- Jefferson County
- Tarrant County
- Travis County

- CNN 1998 Returns
- CNN 2000 Returns
- CNN 2002 Returns
- CNN 2004 Returns
- CNN 2006 Returns
- CNN 2008 Returns
Traffic Ratings
- Alexa Rating
- Quantcast Ratings
-
Syndication

Powered by: SoapBlox