That doesn't answer the question.
Is it any less "slick" than leading people down the path of a "guilt by association" logical fallcacy to get them to conclude that Romney is a racist on their own, without actually coming out and saying it?
No it says nothing about Romney personally, but the fact remains that he belongs to a church which, until 1978 (15 years after the Civil Rights Act) blatantly discriminated against blacks solely on the basis of the color of their skin. Romney was not a convert to Mormonism after the decision to rescind that teaching. This was something that was taught to him during his formative years and which he did not publicly reject until AFTER his church had made the decision to reverse itself on that issue. Romney was not a leader in bringing this change, he was a follower of those who promulgated it.
I left the Mormon Church long before the Mormons decided it was no longer politically correct to discriminate against Blacks on the basis of their skin color. I was a witness to the private conversations of many "good" Mormons who used the "N" word rather indiscriminately when describing people of African descent. Because of the teaching of the LDS Church that these people were not valiant during the war in heaven in the pre-mortal existence, it was logical that many Mormons (like Hindus) thought that their lot in life was what they deserved because of their behavior in the pre-existence.
The LDS Church has changed the rules, but they have not apologized for the blantant racism that permeated their church for 150 years. They will not apologize because they now claim that it was never the "official" doctrine of the LDS Church.
That, my FRiend is pretty slick, wouldn't you say?