A presidential candidate needs to answer for the misdeeds of religious leaders decades dead? What is Robert Novak's problem?

Today's Mormons, including Romney, cannot be blamed for those events. Nevertheless, the candidate has followed the church's example and ignored the movie. Romney will not comment on "September Dawn" and indeed will not watch it. That follows his decision not to defend his faith or actively fight religious bias that has impeded his candidacy.

Why should Romney have to answer for the sins (if there are any) of Brigham Young? Why should he watch a film that he (and his church) view as an attack on his faith and historically inaccurate to boot? Aren’t we past that sort of garbage yet?

Captain Ed Morrisey makes a similar observation.

Novak's entire column wants to place historical blame for all ills of the Mormon church squarely on the shoulders of Mitt Romney. Novak, at the end of his piece, notes that Romney wouldn't discuss the movie with Novak, and apparently that annoyed the columnist to no end. I don't blame Mitt one bit. The movie has nothing to do with Mitt and nothing to do with the campaign -- and that's even if one could rely on Hollywood to handle history with any accuracy at all.

This is nothing more than an attempt to use a fear of Mormons to smear Mitt Romney, with all the subtlety of a brick blackjack. It's the worst kind of religious bigotry wrapped up in Novak's dire language that it relates to the current war against Islamofascist terrorism, a charge that Novak never even bothers to support in his column. It's designed to force Romney to start conducting Mormon apologetics on the campaign trail instead of talking about public policy and national security.

Indeed, Romney doesn’t need to be dealing with LDS history or theology on the campaign trail, given that his religion should not be an issue as he runs for the job of President. As none other than prominent Southern Baptist leader Richard Land has pointed out, Romney is not seeking to become Theologian-in-Chief.

Not only that, but Novak also makes at least one false statement, pointed out by radio host and author Hugh Hewitt.

[W]hen Novak writes that Romney has "never seized this issue" of religious bias against him, the reporter also reveals he hasn't done much reporting as Romney has done so again and again --at length in my book, but also in profile after profile.

If Novak cannot even get something that simple correct, how can we take him seriously when he comments on the Romney candidacy – or any other presidential candidacy.