OK, Michael--"stupid and insulting" is quite an allegation.  You have penned nothing to back it up.  Your punch line makes no sense.  He is making this speech to blunt criticism from Christians that he is not like them.  The speech was designed to refute that sentiment. It has been very warmly received and he is getting a bit boost from it, while you refuse to even try to comprehend its content.

When Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama make some kind of foreign policy speech, might they be bashed for failing to talk about the American homeland?

Romney's speech was about religion and politics in America.  Got it?  It was designed to bring all Americans together and decipher what is unique about our nation.  There is no trouble when fine people try to describe unifying themes--it is inspiring and unifying.  When the left brings out their laudry list of special interests, heaven forbid, someone is not left out.  This is the difference between the political left and right.

 The left seeks to divide and choose their favorites.  The right seeks to inspire and appeal to all Americans.

It is some serious tunnel vision that brings you to observe that Mitt Romney is ignoring people when he is attempting to include everyone, by implication. This raises the whole problem of how you could possibly be a leftist since the whole point of the left is the choose sides and point fingers.  One must take from one man and give it to another man, presumably the "better" person. 

If you deny that the Founding Fathers were anything but Bible bent fundamentalists, you simply do not know anything about the history of America.  Romney's speech is layered in themes also put forward by Washington and Lincoln and so many others.  Honoring America has no downside--except for leftists who believe that America did not exist until it found atheism and socialism in the recent past.

Romney's challenge to you is for you to agree that someone does not have to be an atheist and a socialist to be a good American?    The intolerance of the left is legendary.  By contrast, the Founding Fathers, in their Bible based fundamentalism, have created the freedom for atheists and socialists to have nirvana in America.  

The pertinent question remains: having reached such power and influence, will the Left ever allow a proud Jew or a proud Mormon  equal standing in the socialist heaven they are attempting to create?  I think it is clear the answer to this question is :"never."

The answer to the question will "Romney's" America be kind and open to all--is obvious.  Failing to miss the obvious, there is a  substantial secularlist influence that is rampant in our schools and in the public square.  It is so great that it has most of the country in an uproar about it.  If some leftist fails to notice, it is because they view it only as normal.  America has quickly dropped its national character and replace it with a secular political correctness that is legendary.  

There is no trouble when fine people try to describe unifying themes--it is inspiring and unifying. When the left brings out their laudry list of special interests, heaven forbid, someone is not left out. This is the difference between the political left and right.

By this logic, then, Romney plainly fails. My gripe against him, if you read my post, is that he chooses to include Americans of no belief whatsoever in his category of "friends" and "allies." There are plenty of us, and so if his speech was, as you say, all about "religion and politics in America," don't you see this as a rather stark elision?

As for inclusiveness, Romney was a Mormon missionary in France when his religion still sanctified racism and prohibited blacks from becoming members.

If you deny that the Founding Fathers were anything but Bible bent fundamentalists, you simply do not know anything about the history of America.

To give one famous example, Thomas Jefferson took a razor to the Bible, excising all passages he found to be anathema to common sense. He as a Founding Father, and this one anecdote disproves your charge of fundamentalism.

Romney's challenge to you is for you to agree that someone does not have to be an atheist and a socialist to be a good American?

Nowhere do I name this as some metric for judging who is and isn't a "good American," nor do I think Mitt Romney had socialists in mind when he delivered his pathetic speech.

Michael, it is fine and well to not like Mitt Romney and to indicate you would never vote for him. It is quite another to judge him so unfairly.

The secularists that he highlighted in his speech are, to generalize, socialists.

The sense that the FF were Bible thumpers is accurate but it is a generalization. Some cite Thomas Paine as a non-believer. Jefferson's theology was clearly his own, he was a free thinker and he did object to passages in the Bible--mostly from the so called New Testament. But even for Jefferson, let's be fair-minded. He revered the Bible and he considered it the most important document he ever read--and he was very well-read. One can pick dozens of passages in Jefferson's writings that indicate his agreement with the Bible and Romney is not here as a "fundamentalist"--rather, only as one who values "Judeo-Christian values. Even the alleged Bible questioner Jefferson is fairly assessed to have been to the right of Romney.