[JasonC]

So, interpreting his comments quoted in the article, he believes that secular leaders should not have moral opinions. He believes having moral opinions is an illegitimate thing for a secular leader to do. He believes morality should be a strictly private affair. He is for the separation of morality and state.

And I am for the separation of Romney and state.

Men so shallow and thoughtless and unwilling to stand up for truth or decency, on principle not on this specific issue, do not belong in public office, and certainly not on the Republican ticket.

[TheLion]

He didn’t say that at all. He said he wouldn’t tell a pastor what to say. Romney has very strong moral opinions. Have you ever listened to him?

[omnivore]

"He believes morality should be a strictly private affair. He is for the separation of morality and state."

I don't see the word "morality" or "morals" anywhere in the Constitution. I think it's wrong to confuse what the government does with anything that's moral. We might wish that what government would do would be to make laws that are informed by morality as we see it, but I think that's really way too much to hope for.

We don't elect philosopher-kings. We just elect politicians. If we're really lucky, we'll have on the ballot somebody who can beat Hillary. I'll be thankful enough for that. I'm not going to get picky, quibbling over stuff that's not even mentioned in the Constitution.