Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., speaks during a presidential forum at the National Right to Life Convention in Kansas City, Mo., Friday, June 15, 2007. (AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)
Posted on 06/17/2007 9:57:45 PM PDT by Plutarch
WASHINGTON - An aide to GOP presidential candidate Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) has been reprimanded for sending e-mail to Iowa Republican leaders in an apparent attempt to draw unfavorable scrutiny to rival Mitt Romney's Mormonism.
Emma Nemecek, the southeastern Iowa field director for Brownback's presidential campaign and a former state representative candidate, violated campaign policy when she forwarded the June 6 e-mail from an interest group raising the questions, the Brownback campaign said Sunday.
The e-mail requested help in fact-checking a series of statements about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Among the statements: "Theologically, the only thing Christianity and the LDS church has in common is the name of Jesus Christ, and the LDS Jesus is not the same Jesus of the Christian faith" and "The LDS church has never been accepted by the Christian Council of Churches."
"Sen. Brownback completely disavows himself of this and any personal attacks on religion," said Brian Hart, a spokesman for the Kansas senator. Hart said the campaign apologized to Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, once they learned of the e-mail.
"It was not originated by Ms. Nemecek and the purpose was to fact-check. But it was in violation of campaign policy and it won't happen again," he said.
So I guess fact checking a religious question will soon be outlawed.
Co-incidentally, a serial killer named Nemecek is currently up for parole here in KS.
Fact checking is all right if you are actually looking for facts from those who would know the facts. It was sent to Republican leaders. Why would they be in the position to confirm or deny religious rulings? This appears to me to be the type of communication intended to put out rumors or allegations while still maintaining plausible deniability (”I was only asking”). So since it was not sent to religious spokespersons who could give true information on those “facts”, I’d say it was inappropriate.
I still say I will vote for the guy who can list reasons we should vote for him and not mudsling. I assume Fred Thompson hasn’t muddied anyone yet?
Nope. Not a one.
It must really bother you that Senator Brownback doesn’t want to buy the the anti-mormon garbage your crowd is peddling.
The article states: “Sen. Brownback completely disavows himself of this and any personal attacks on religion,” said Brian Hart, a spokesman for the Kansas senator. Hart said the campaign apologized to Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, once they learned of the e-mail.
LOL. It must be time for the Flying Inman Posse to issue a fatah against Brownback.
Ken Connor decided to take a page out of the Bush, public relations, play-book for immigration, to trample on mom and pop business, big business, and Republican ideals of loser pay and punitive caps.
We are apparently “bluebloods” not “true conservatives” and we want to “relieve wrongdoers of the consequences” of their actions, intentional or unintentional.
“Thompson, Torts, and True Conservatives”
Ken Connor
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=1851945%2C6
It is quite obvious what the Brownback campaign was up to. Dishonest too.
“It must really bother you that Senator Brownback doesn’t want to buy the the anti-mormon garbage your crowd is peddling.”
No, what bothers me is that a candidate can’t explain the doctrine of his religion in public for fear of being ridiculed, and therefore must run a stealth campaign - and by proxy forcing the topic of religion off the table for ANY candidate.
FC,
Well, you already seem to know “ALL” the answers, so what more do you want him to say? The last time I checked, the only candidate whose religion keeps coming up is Romney’s and some folks here on FR are having a lot to do with that.
AFAIC, any candidate is not under any obligation to explain their religion unless they chose to. If they lose a vote because of it, oh well.
It’s going to be a long year and a half with you and the rest of your crowd searching out articles to post and then under the guise of “helping” people understand the perceived fallacies of a religion you start thrashing people and their faith instead of the candidate and his failures to stand for the positions he claims to.
See ya around,
SZ
Emma Nemecek
Emma's Blog
“Well, you already seem to know “ALL” the answers, so what more do you want him to say? The last time I checked, the only candidate whose religion keeps coming up is Romney’s and some folks here on FR are having a lot to do with that.”
Actually, I haven’t seen a single vanity on the subject, except the big long one from a Mormon calling everyone else a bigot. So, these articles that talk about a certain candidate’s religion are from the outside media, not from the certain “folks here at FR”.
Apparently you know more than I do, so you know more than someone who “knows it all”. Perhaps that makes you a “more than knows it all”.
“AFAIC, any candidate is not under any obligation to explain their religion unless they chose to. If they lose a vote because of it, oh well.”
That’s my position as well. Where we differ is that you would censure anyone who discussed the later situation “why can’t a certain candidate discuss his religion”. So, you would allow candidates to lose votes by not discussing their religion, but through censorship of discussion of religion you’d cut off voters right to voice their opinion on that religion. I see how this works, freedom for you but not for me.
“It’s going to be a long year and a half with you and the rest of your crowd searching out articles to post and then under the guise of “helping” people understand the perceived fallacies of a religion you start thrashing people and their faith instead of the candidate and his failures to stand for the positions he claims to.”
You think we are bad, who are enjoined to keep a civil tongue (if not biting), wait till a certain candidate is on the world stage and is subjected to criticism from the decidedly uncharitable.
“See ya around,”
Buh bye!
Bump for later reply.
SZ
For you to disqualify Romney from running for a President because he is a Mormon is the ultimate religious bigotry and shame on you for doing so.
“Your anti-Mormon rants are disgusting.”
No more so than your rants against free speech.
“The Mormons are Christians whether you like it or not.”
I see you are a demi-God yourself, making decisions on whose doctrine is correct and whose is not.
“The vast majority of Mormons are good Christians including Governor Romney.”
Harry Reid. Enough said.
“I told you before that your anti-Mormonism goes against the heart of the principles that this great nation was founded upon.”
You mean my right to have religious beliefs that oppose Mormon beliefs, goes against the principles of this nation? I think not. No one I know has questioned Romney’s right to worship Baal for all we know. All we’ve said is we won’t vote for him. Apparently that is a crime.
“For you to disqualify Romney from running for a President because he is a Mormon is the ultimate religious bigotry and shame on you for doing so.”
Who disqualified him from running for President??? Romney can run up one hill and down the other in pursuit of the Presidency all he likes, and I shall encourage him to do so, but I will never vote for him. Neither will I vote for Hillary because she is a hypocrite about her Christian beliefs, nor did I vote for John Kerry because he was a Catholic hypocrite (though I might vote for Lieberman if he were truthful in a senate campaign). Similarly, I will not vote for Romney because he cannot mutter a word about his true beliefs in public lest he be exposed as a believer in seer stones and the occult. He has every right to believe whatever he likes, but I just want the right not to be forced to vote for him.
So perhaps you can make the world better by sitting in voting booths with a shotgun to make sure people like me do not vote their conscience.
“I see, you are good at truncating my statements and commenting on it without the full context. I expect this from you anyway.”
Come now, you truncated about twelve years of my research and experience on the subject into a few name calling epithets, and now you want to cry like a little girl, even though I answered your words quote for quote? But I expect this kind of lack of rigor from you anyway.
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.