Jennifer Kim Campaign Admits to Placing Anonymous Robocalls

I hate robocalls too (0.00 / 0)

But I find trumped up political endorsements of city council candidates even more offensive. First, I think groups, such as the public safety groups, that endorsed before the filing deadline is a disturbing new trend. Secondly, groups that have a executive committee or board dictate a group's political endorsement without a full vote of it's membership is flat undemocratic.

Rather than being fired up about anonymous robocalls, voters should be more concerned about the criteria and process involved in obtaining political endorsements from the various groups that candidates so proudly tout in their commercials and mailers.

---

by: ssuits @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 21:25:55 PM CDT

It's not about robocalls, (3.00 / 1)

it's about illegal, anonymous robocalls. And then lying about it before finally 'fessing up. I don't want anybody who stoops that low on my city council.

I'm not a big Randi Shade fan, and I voted for Kim in the BOR Poll. Can I take that back, please? There's no way that I'm voting for Kim on Saturday!  

---

by: LSadun @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 22:39:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hate illegal, anonymous robocalls. (0.00 / 0)

But I find questionable political endorsements even worse along with the poor Statesman coverage of this race.. If I had not already early voted for Kim, I would consider voting for Weiss at this point. At least he is from Southeast Austin and has not gotten any money from any special interests.

---

by: ssuits @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 22:33:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm glad I voted for Randi after this (3.00 / 2)

I was somewhat torn at the UDems endorsement meeting, but this confirms that I made the right decision to vote for Randi at the UDems meeting and at the ballot.  Anonymous negative phone calls are not acceptable, and I'm not a big fan of the guilt by association tactics of Kim's mailer.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 22:28:56 PM CDT

One word (0.00 / 0)

Lame.

---

by: Frank L. Stated @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 22:51:35 PM CDT

Two words... (0.00 / 0)

who cares?

If this has any impact, positive or negative, I'd be surprised.

---

by: McBlogger @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 00:07:52 AM CDT

Hey (0.00 / 0)

I'm just reporting what happened. I mean, this is totally typical BOR fare.

The flipside of that is- what does have an impact in this race? Or any of them?

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 00:21:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

yeah (2.00 / 1)

I think it's good to hear about the campaign tactics candidates are utilizing, but this is four front-page posts in 3 days about the same story -- city council candidate goes negative (with the possibility that a disclaimer wasn't made properly).   I don't like negative campaigning myself, but it seems pretty routine in today's political atmosphere.

Randi's campaign has largely been based on negatives about Kim -- some fair (job performance), some Kelsoesque (she's an elitist primadonna) -- and I've heard that Shade also has a negative flier that just hit (but haven't seen it yet to confirm), yet that hasn't hit the front page.  Shade did admit to "mistakes" in filing her campaign report, but that was only posted here once and only after everybody first accused Kim of filing trumped-up charges without evidence.

Overall I think y'all are doing a great job covering the races, but I think the coverage has been a little unfair to Kim recently.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 00:35:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

well (3.00 / 5)

It's funny how BOR has gone from being unfair to the Shade campaign to being unfair to the Kim campaign in a week's time. My head is already spinning. :)

Sometimes it's just called reporting.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:15:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Come on (0.00 / 0)

Negative campaigning which is clearly identified is far, far, far better than anonymous negative campaigning.

---

by: m1ek @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:15:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's what I'm saying... (2.00 / 1)

I don't think it'll have any impact, much like that 3 am ad Clinton ran. I don't think it will change anyone's mind. I think the mailers will have more of an impact... the Kim's look good. Randi's hit on the expenditures was weak, way too busy and dense.

---

by: McBlogger @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:05:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Robo calls are near worthless (0.00 / 0)

They do nothing to increase turnout. Statistically nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. Don't think they help turnout. They don't. They do have a place such as reminding club members of an event, or reminding like minded people of something, but not to turn out and vote.

But...a controversy might turn some votes if the main stream media gets hold of it.

---

by: johncoby @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 14:58:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry... that was kinda directed at ... (0.00 / 0)

...Frank, not you, KT:)

As for what will have an impact? Mail and TV. If these cheesy calls have an impact, then Shade never had a chance.

---

by: McBlogger @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 21:00:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You ought to care (0.00 / 0)

She's showing even more evidence that the opinion many of us have acquired of her is correct - that she's only interested in power, and doesn't care about ethics at all.  

---

by: m1ek @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:13:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes... yes... she IS power mad (0.00 / 0)

Once elected, she's pledged to crown herself Empress of Austin. I will become the Duke of Northwest Hills.

Madness I tell you... MADNESS!

No one gives a crap about ethics. Oh sure, it's important on a telephone poll, but when it comes to voting for someone, ethical lapses are WAY down the list.

Beside, it's not like Kim's doing anything other than rubbing Randi's nose in it a little. You make it sound like she's the most corrupt politico in Austin and we both know that she's not at all corrupt. She doesn't raid her campaign account to pay her mortgage. Even her council expenditures were not irrational, despite the assertion otherwise from Shade. That hit on the W Hotel in Murray Hill...damn near everything in that area is around 300 per night. She could have stayed at any number of hotels in the vicinity for 500+ per night. Hell, when I go to Dallas to my corporate office the Omni I stay at is $300/night.

That was, in particular, a really stupid thing to hit on.  

---

by: McBlogger @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:24:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where'd my comment go? (0.00 / 0)

Is pointing out the obvious contradictions in the Kim campaign off limits?

---

by: Amy Everhart @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 15:16:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not at all... (0.00 / 0)

It's just irrelevant. No one has ever said that candidates have to be consistent. The whole thing is kinda... meh. You know what I mean?

I did see your comment earlier but I can't see it now. Not sure what happened? KT?

---

by: McBlogger @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 20:52:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You ought to care (0.00 / 0)

She's showing even more evidence that the opinion many of us have acquired of her is correct - that she's only interested in power, and doesn't care about ethics at all.  

---

by: m1ek @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:13:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

you care (0.00 / 0)

if this was the candidate you oppose rather than the candidate you support.

it most assuredly will have a very negative impact because you've got a politician with an ego problem (at least a perceived ego problem) breaking the law and being flip about it...blaming it on her opponent.

---

by: colin @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:49:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]