We just got finished checking out former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s cut-and-run surrender speech. And we have to say, even as cynical as we are, this really changed our view of the man.

"Frankly, I’d be making it easier for Senators [Hillary] Clinton and [Barack] Obama to win," said Romney of continuing his increasingly long-shot bid for the White House. "Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

And again: "I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I have to now stand aside, for our party and our country."

Wow.

You know, before today, we looked at Romney as an extremely well-dressed confidence man with curious religious beliefs, willing to say just about anything to get to the White House. (In other words, a pretty typical candidate for president.)

But after that speech, we see Romney in a whole new light.

As far as we’re concerned, we now think he’s one of the most fucking despicable, lying, falsely patriotic, self-deluded, warmongering sons-of-a-bitch the War Party can currently boast, and that includes sitting Vice President Dick Cheney. Truly, Romney has distinguished himself!

Pardon our French, by the way.

Now that we’ve gotten that off our chest, let’s take a look at what’s really happened here: Americans — nay, Republicans, his own people — rejected him, in favor of an ex-Baptist preacher who wants to replace the Constitution with the 10 Commandments and a septuagenarian war-lover who re-writes perfectly good Beach Boys tunes to score his own bloodlust. That’s got to hurt, especially after Romney spent so much of his own money, flip-flopped like a recently caught marlin and gave a speech desperately trying to blur the doctrines of his own church so evangelical Christians wouldn’t think of him as a cultist.

So, Romney leaves the race as he entered it: A lying sack, destined for history’s footnotes. On your way, Mitt. We’re so done with you.

The Las Vegas Sun today ponders why voters, especially evangelical Christian conservative voters, didn’t go for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday. Was it because he’s a Mormon, as adherents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are known?

Well, maybe.

To the extent that a Christian voter would consider similarity of faith as an important part of his or her voting decision, then Romney’s faith would be highly relevant. No matter how they change up the church’s logo, talk up Jesus as central to their faith, or attempt to build bridges with evangelicals, the fact is, Mormon theology and Christian theology are far apart.

Christian theology is summed thusly. And a Mormon, if he or she is being honest, cannot subscribe to that creed. Therefore, a Christian who does subscribe to it would consider a Mormon to be a non-Christian. And certainly, that played a role in some voters’ minds to vote for somebody else.

But what if — and we’re just spitballing here — the decision by evangelicals to go with Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee or U.S. Sen. John McCain didn’t have to do with Romney’s Mormonism? What if it had to do with the fact that he’s simply untrustworthy? Sure, being a Mormon doesn’t help; in fact, it adds to the distrust that an evangelical might feel for Romney.

Now, having said all that, we think a candidate’s religion is a terrible basis on which to pick a president. In fact, we think religion ought to have nothing whatever to do with it. We’re as suspicious of Romney’s remark that freedom requires religion as we are of Huckabee’s call to change the Constitution so that it better reflects the Bible. As far as we’re concerned, neither of them should be elevated to office with attitudes like that.

In fact, we think the division of the religious right is a good thing for our democracy. We shouldn’t let those people get too much power.

Then again, it’s probably moot anyway. Turns out Romney is cutting and running.