Posted on 10/17/2011 1:22:39 PM PDT by JustAnotherOne
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has publicly distanced himself from the anti-Mormon rhetoric of a prominent Baptist minister who has endorsed his presidential campaign. But new evidence suggests that Perry’s team may be quietly advancing the notion that Mitt Romney’s faith should disqualify him from the White House.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has publicly distanced himself from the anti-Mormon rhetoric of a prominent Baptist minister who has endorsed his presidential campaign. But new evidence suggests that Perry’s team may be quietly advancing the notion that Mitt Romney’s faith should disqualify him from the White House.
Lane responded the next day with a lengthy email that began, “Thank you for what you are doing and for your leadership. Getting out Dr. Jeffress [sic] message, juxtaposing traditional Christianity to the false god of Mormonism, is very important in the larger scheme of things.”
Publicly, the Perry campaign has insisted that Jeffress was not speaking at their behest when he attacked Romney’s religion, and Perry himself has said he does not personally believe that Mormonism is a cult. As recently as Friday, Perry attempted to dismiss the controversy, calling it a “sideshow” that voters were uninterested in, and reiterating, “We clearly said we didn’t agree with that statement.”
But in the emails, Lane—on whom Perry is reportedly relying to rally evangelical voters to his candidacy—struck a different tone.
“We owe Dr. Jeffress a big thank you,” he wrote to Bott, adding that the media criticism that has called attention to the pastor’s comments was “a stroke of luck.”
Lane and Bott did not respond to multiple requests for comment by The Daily Beast.
The emails raise questions about whether Jeffress’s anti-Mormon rhetoric was a deliberate strategic move by the campaign, or simply the prerogative of an independent pastor expressing a widely held view among evangelical Christians.
Mark Miner, a spokesman for the Perry campaign, declined to answer questions about the nature of Lane’s relationship with the campaign. When The Daily Beast shared quotes from the emails, Miner responded, “Based on what you’ve provided this appears to be a private conversation that has nothing to do with our campaign.” According to the campaign’s most recent FEC report, Lane doesn’t appear to be on the candidate’s payroll.
But Lane’s involvement with Perry’s nomination efforts has been widely reported, and he is seen as the linchpin to the candidate’s outreach to evangelicals. In August, when the Texas governor held a large prayer rally for evangelical Christians shortly before entering the race, the Los Angeles Times reported that Lane was one of the masterminds behind the event. And a Religion News Services article listed Lane as one of several prominent evangelical figures who is “lin[ing] up behind Perry.”
Perhaps even more telling, Lane reportedly arranged a conference call last June for conservative Christian heavyweights that was designed to identify an ideal presidential candidate. The consensus was that if Perry entered the race, they would get behind him—a message that Lane, who has been organizing evangelical voters in key states ahead of 2012, took seriously. Lane’s influence in that community is well documented. Doug Wead, a leading historian of the Christian right, has described Lane as “the mysterious, behind the scenes, evangelical kingmaker who stormed into Iowa in 2008 and tilted the whole thing from Romney to Huckabee.”
Lane made clear in his emails that he has similar plans to derail Romney’s candidacy this time around. In fact, he told Bott that he would rather sit the race out than vote for a Mormon or President Obama.
“Let me go on the record, I won’t vote for Mitt Romney as Republican nominee in 2012.” He followed the statement with a link to a news article describing Romney’s various ecclesiastical positions in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He also cited Romney’s past positions advocating for abortion and gay rights before adding, “The Soul of America is at stake, where is the Church? Will a Gideon or Rahab the Harlot please stand?” (The last question refers to Biblical characters whom God called to save the Israelites in the Old Testament—an apparent plea for a candidate who will bring America in line with conservative Christian values.)
The emails refer to Lane strategizing with the Perry campaign to mobilize evangelical voters. In an earlier email to Bott that makes no mention of Romney specifically, Lane described a conversation he had with an unnamed “key Perry aide” in which he argued that “the creation of a clarion call to Evangelical pastors and pews is critical and from my perspective is the key to the Primary.”
He also told the aide that Perry needs to be praying and reading the Bible daily; “otherwise he has nothing to say” on the campaign trail. There is no mention in the emails of how the aide responded to this counsel, but the messages do indicate that Romney isn’t alone on Lane’s list of unacceptable nominees.
At the height of speculation that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie would enter the presidential race, Lane wrote to Bott that “Christie is not a strong social conservative—says homosexuality not a sin, was for cap-n-trade, for civil unions and more.”
That email concluded, “If RP [Rick Perry] can sound the trumpet to Evangelicals, a spiritual call to war for the Soul of America, Christie is weak on our issues.”
The Romney campaign declined to comment for this article.
I've been considering candidates religious affiliation all my voting life. Please don't report me to the authorities, no telling how long a prison sentence I'd get.
Nana, do they have a federal prison in Tennessee? Perhaps you could bring me a pie with a hack saw blade in it (I prefers cobbler).
LOL now that is probably the biggest flip flop of them all.
Just to be clear Mit Romney disqualified himself as a Christain when he made this statement... Yes that is what we believe! MOREMANS...
The question was from a radio host. The question was ...Do you believe that when JESUS returns and speaks on THE MT of OLIVES then the moremans will administer the law from Missouri.
This has been scrubed from youtube as I posted it every chance I had during the last run up...
And the fact is I don’t want a MORE MAN any more than I wanted a Jihadi elected!
“Lane doesn’t appear to be on the candidate’s payroll.”
The line the keeps the Lawyers at bay.
The rest is nothing but smear, BS.
Yes, but voters have every right to question a candidate’s religion or lack of, and decide to vote for or against based on that.
I will never vote for a mormon anymore than I would vote for a muslim or satanist.
Yep, and killed a lot of folks while he was here too. Does that sound like our Prince Of Peace to you?
“....Mitt Romney’s faith should disqualify him from the White House.”
.
That is a plainly stupid comment considering what we have in the WH today. I dare Perry to comment on Obama’s religion.
(I have no intention of voting for Romney unless forced to in the general election.)
By the way, can Bambi’s lack of proof of his eligibility be brought up in any future debates? If the answer is “no”, then why not?
How ignorant can you get JustAnotherOne?
Do you realize that what you cited applies to the candidate & the government, not to the voter?
Here, read & weap over your lack of constitutional & socio-political discernment:
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You confuse "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
POINT 4- YOU (perhaps inadvertently) SLAM 78% OF GOP, 62% OF AMERICANS, & 92% OF EVANGELICALS with your mis-assessment : A Freeper posted a Rasmussen poll 5 years ago (late 2006) [see Election 2008: 43% Would Never Vote for Mormon Candidate (Rasmussen Poll) ]. According to that excerpt: The Rasmussen Reports survey found that 35% say that a candidate's faith and religious beliefs are very important in their voting decision. Another 27% say faith and religious beliefs are somewhat important. Ninety-two percent (92%) of Evangelical Christian voters consider a candidate's faith and beliefs important. On the partisan front, 78% of Republicans say that a candidate's faith is an important consideration, a view shared by 55% of Democrats. However, there is also a significant divide on this topic within the Democratic Party. Among minority Democrats, 71% consider faith and religious beliefs an important consideration for voting. Just 44% of white Democrats agree.
So…what % of the following groups found that a candidate’s faith and religious beliefs are an important consideration for voting?
(1) Americans: 62%
(2) Evangelical Christians: 92%
(3) Republicans: 78%
(4) Democrats: 55% [still a majority]
Disclosure: McKay Coppins, the author of this article, is a Mormon who was formerly employed by the Mormon church via the Deseret News (DesNews owned by Lds church)
JustAnotherOne, do you care to disclose if you're a Mormon as well?...or just a Mormon ally posting Lds propaganda pieces?
Stop beating a dead horse. This about the government forming an official religion that must be sworn to.
Good grief.
Like other mitt supporters - this passage is constantly misinterpreted. The 'religious test' is a statutory issue - that is any gov't (city through national) CANNOT exclude people base upon their religion.
However, that does not apply to the voters JAO, the voters can use any criteria they desire to evaluate the suitablity of a canidate for office. In this case, romney is a temple mormon who has sworn allegance to the mormon church first and foremost as a requirement to his progression to godhood, he believes as a fact that the lds founder translated 'gold plates' by placing a smooth pebble into a hat and reading the 'translation' provided by said pebble. Says a lot about his mental thought processes, and such evaluation IS permitted.
Mitt is losing his butt in the polls, Cain is trouncing him, he has nothing left but to enlist his surrogates to post unsourced "poor little mormons" comments...WITH no proof and no truth on FR.
Coppins is nothing but a mormon shill and the daily POS is a nothing sandwich masquerading as a "news source".
Only a Romney bot would post this garbage given Jim Robinson's warnings and you are going to have to do a better job of trying to tear down Christians than you have done here.
Perry should rely on his powerful oratory skills instead of this fundie hater.
/s
lds jesus - created
lds jesus - not sufficient for salvation, must do works
lds jesus - conceived by a physical sex IE intercourse with Mary
lds jesus - married and possibly a polygamist.
lds jesus - paid the price in the Garden NOT on the Cross
lds jesus - brother of satan
lds jesus - worked his way to this exalted state
Is that enough or do you need more differences?
Disclosure: I am a Rick Perry supporter and campaign contributor. I am very disappointed in the campaigns’ slow response to this sh!tstorm, with the associated collapse in the internals.
The media has used this opportunity to splash Herman Cain on the front pages. The internals reflect a meteoric ascent for the Cain camp.
Rick, sometimes you have to either agree with a comment; or condemn it and give the donations back (or to charity). Man up and make a clear statement. Or the money will dry up from everywhere else. These ministers are running low on funds as it is. The shearing (or fleecing) of the flock is running net negative. Not so much with the rest of your donors. Do not let us down.
Some support for Rick you have going here.
Please, tell us, Jakraig, what's your alternative that you might offer to voters exercising complete freedom as they live and vote in a Free Republic?
What might it be?
Send thugs out to beat up voters who fail to fall into line with others' blitzkreig effort to stampede voters into their camp?
What? Candidates can have their religious views (worship Satan; suicide-terrorism in exchange for 72 virgins; "I'll not only be the next POTUS, but the next god") but voters can't?
What? Are you going to pass a constitutional amendment to permanently hermetically seal "religion" from "politics?"
Exactly what alternative do you propose, JAKraig?
I mean, the finger-waggers will start with their lectures on political correctness on these matters: They'll preach,
"Hey, you, yeah, you, Mr. or Ms. Individual Voter...if you even DARE to consider the Hare Krishna aspect of this candidate...
..."the Moonie ties of this candidate...
..."the Satanic ties of this candidate...
..."the Wiccan beliefs & practices of this candidate...
..."then we'll accuse you of weakening the very foundation of the constitution!!! 'Vote for the Hare Krishna dude or else!!!"
By their standards --& yours<>/i> as well, Jakraig, we couldn't even take into consideration a candidate's expectation of 72 virgins awaiting them post-'martyrdom' death as a glimpse of their broader religious perspectives, eh?
Or how about if a candidate favored building a Mosque @ Ground Zero in Manhattan? Because that crosses into the "religion realm," we can't consider such a stance because that brings "religion" into "politics?"
What a sorry ass corner you & JustAnotherOne paint yourself into once you go out on a limb with such absolute stances!
How long before JAKraig posters become JAK-booted thugs enforcing their "all religious worldviews are equal & equivolent" impositions upon all voters?
I'm disappointed in you. Here, I thought we lived in an actual Free Republic...instead of trying to stampede all voters into a THOU SHALT approach to voter choices!
#1 Cain still hasn't come close to Perry on incoming funds (per reports released Sat...Cain has $2.8 million raised vs. Perry's 17 mil...Perry even raised $3 mil more than Romney)
#2 The "comment" you reference wasn't made while announcing Perry at an event. (It was done in a follow-up interview). If you're saying that a candidate needs to address EVERY, MOST, or even a LOT of the religious worldviews of ALL, MOST or even SOME of their endorsing supporters, what an assenine religio-political worldview that is! Once a precedence is set, where does a candidate begin to "stop" in his condemnation of various beliefs held by his supporters? How ludicrous of a position on your part!
I am very disappointed in the campaigns’ slow response to this sh!tstorm, with the associated collapse in the internals. The media has used this opportunity to splash Herman Cain on the front pages.
Hey...not happy with how the MSM has presented this, either. But I am "satisfied" about one thing: It serves as an "inkling" of what could be ahead. If you think one little "c" word ("cult") can cause such a 'storm, just wait & see what happens if Romney gets the nomination. The MSM would ensure that 2012 becomes the Media Religious Storm of the Century, bar none!
THX 1138
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.