Casting Pearls Before Swine: The Fast for Mitt Romney

I am a Mormon Democrat.  One of my friends (also a Mormon Democrat) recently posted this Pat Bagley cartoon onto Facebook:

One of his friends commented:  "If something is important to a person, they should be able to fast and pray without ridicule."

You know what's important to me?  That Romney lose.  Should I fast for him to lose?  What's God going to do when some people fast for him to win and others fast for him to lose?  Majority rule?  Jews fasted during Yom Kippur recently.  Do they get a voice in this?  Should God evaluate the candidates Himself, and bless whomever He thinks is better?  Should He bless the candidate preferred by whichever set of fasters is more righteous?  Or should God just stand back, and let the candidates keep duking it out as if no one ever fasted in the first place?

Is the previous paragraph ridiculing those who fasted for Romney, or is it just following the logic of fasting for a politician to win an election to its ridiculous conclusion?  Is it offensive because it's hurtful, or hurtful because it's true?

To be fair, I know that the whole "fast for Romney" thing was more-or-less grassroots.  No one "campaigned" for the fast, beyond inviting close friends and family on a personal basis.  I also know fasting is personal and you shouldn't let schmucks like myself tell you what or what not to fast for.

So is fasting just too sensitive to discuss critically, then?  Is the solution to sweep the subject under the rug, and turn a blind eye when we find that someone is fasting for something "questionable?"  Is this just one of those times when "discretion is the better part of valor?"

When etiquette prevents us from discussing something we can no longer afford to keep silent on, that's when we need to call in the satirists.  They use humor to challenge and break down taboos so that we're no longer shackled by our manners.  That's exactly what Pat Bagley is doing in the cartoon.

One could accuse me of condoning those who cast their pearls before swine, or of mocking that which is sacred.  Bagley, however, isn't mocking that which is sacred.  On the contrary, he's satirizing those who errantly reverence that which isn't really reverence-able (Romney's candidacy).   Even if Bagley is a "swine,"  and fasting is a "pearl," to use the new testament imagery, how exactly did it get cast before him?  Was it when the "fast-for-Romney" movement came out in the open, making it inappropriate because other people found out about it?  Or was it when it started in the first place, when a small group of Mormons decided that Romney scoring points in a debate was a righteous desire for a fast?