I’m only stating that you are a blogger with an axe to grind, not an objective, dispassionate observer. And, just like you write your blog to communicate your message to your audience, Romney wrote his “Faith in America” speech (note that his press releases did not bill it as a “My Faith” speech, nor did the leaked text present any view other than that of a discourse on the role of faith and religion in American civic life.) to communicate to potential primary voters who dismiss his candidacy because of his religious beliefs.

Again, the Romney campaign was guilty of not managing wild expectations. But, as you have not been able to point to any Romney campaign communication that indicated that the speech would be a discussion of mormon theology as you and others were hoping for, I think it is safe to say that the Romney campaign never billed it as a discussion of mormon doctrine. Again, it’s your own fault for hearing “Romney will give a speech on faith,” and thinking “Romney will discuss the intricacies of mormon doctrine.”

And I heartily agree with you that Romney’s own position on the issues (remember, that’s [presumably] why we favor one candidate or party over another) is enough to sink his candidacy from the perspective of a Republican primary voter. I just have a respect and reverence for our Constitution than to trash a candidate based on his religious beliefs. But, it’s your blog, and your axe … grind on.

Perhaps, he, like Harry Reid, like Joe Lieberman, like other religionists who seek a civic office, actually feel that it is not their place to educate the public about their private religious beliefs (for more information, please see the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Section 1, Clause 3).

If he were attempting to evangelize the nation to mormonism, then, yes, those questions would be appropriate. But he’s not; he’s running for the GOP nomination for POTUS.

Gindy also said, “He is a member of the HIGHEST order of bishops the Mormons have.”

Having lived, studied, and worked among mormons for a few years now, I’m curious … what is this mysterious “HIGHEST order of bishops the Mormons have.” (I thought you had to be a member of the Osmond clan, or a 49er Q.B. to reach that??)

As for citing a source that proves he was there to address his faith, first before I do, tell me, why exactly do you think he was making that speech? The whole thing was in reference to his faith. Have you been living under a rock for the last few weeks, or are you just feigning ignorance for the sake of your argument?

Now, follow a plethora of links to articles that all state that he’s there to address his faith and lack of any protests from Romney’s media team that contradict this. Also, read through his official press releases heavily promoting the event.

As for him being a target to spew at, he doesn’t need to address his Mormonism to make this possible. All he has to do is keep uttering inane statements like the fact that he wants to “double guantanamo” Such silliness is ripe for satire.

Cite, please?

If anything, the Romney campaign is guilty of not managing wild expectations. But, in the end, you inflated your expectations of the speech hoping it would be a dissertation on mormon doctrine, therefore, you are responsible for your own disappointment.

Simon, as far as the rest of your comment, it shows that you really do have an axe to grind. You (and likely numerous others) were hoping that Romney would mention specific mormon creeds so you could have a target to spew at. How does that disappointment taste?