“Mitt? Mitt who?”

We seem to be hearing that a lot lately from Romney’s handpicked Lieutenant Governor, Kerry Healey, who nowadays runs screaming every time Romney takes a public position on anything.  The latest: Healey has stated unequivocally that she would not support legislation exempting Catholic Charities from the state law barring discrimination against gay couples who wish to adopt.  Romney, on the other hand, held a big friendly meeting with the bishops to discuss strategy and hinted that he might file legislation to create an exemption – although Romney is reluctantly adhering to his earlier conclusion that he lacks the power to just wave his magic wand and create an exemption.  Small favors, I guess.

The bishops and Mitt Romney are apparently the only people in the state who want this mean-spirited, anti-child exemption.  Catholic Charities sure doesn’t – their board voted unanimously to continue serving gay couples, and eight board members have resigned over the bishops’ efforts to push Catholic Charities down this road.  (Kudos to them, by the way, for doing the right and courageous thing and taking a stand.  Thanks to Peter Meade, Geri Denterlein, Donna Gittens, Paul LaCamera, Brian Leary, Colette Phillips, Micho Spring, and the unnamed (by the Globe) eighth board member who resigned today.)  Sal DiMasi doesn’t want it either – he’s made it clear that any legislation seeking an exemption is DOA in the House.  No word, apparently, from Trav – no doubt too busy worrying about health care.  Or something.

Commentators, too, are letting Romney have it with both barrels these days.  Let’s start with the Herald’s Ginny Buckingham, usually every Republican’s best friend.

Gov. Mitt Romney is prone to excessive vacillation for a guy who wants to be in charge of the most important decisions in the country, don’t you think? … Romney’s issue-morphs seem to emanate either from excessive caution or no conviction.

Also in the Herald, here’s Margery Eagan:

You never know with Mitt Romney.  Either, as his ex-strategist said, Mitt “faked” his pro-choice credentials to run against Ted Kennedy in ’94 and Shannon O’Brien in ’02. Or he’s “faking” his pro-life ones now that he would be president.  I know. We’re all tired of abortion. But either Mitt’s faking yet again, or he’s shown himself capable of the sort of political pandering that makes your skin crawl.

And over on Morrissey Boulevard, here’s Joan Vennochi:

The road to the White House gets rocky when you’re a Massachusetts flip-flopper.  On Fox News Sunday, Mitt Romney was trying to reconcile a past prochoice statement with his current antiabortion position, when host Chris Wallace interrupted him: “But I don’t understand, Governor,” Wallace said.

Join the crowd, Chris. In Massachusetts, neither do we….

But thanks to Massachusetts, the man born Willard Romney has a Clintonesque “Slick Willie” image problem to overcome. Romney said certain things to win election here. He will have to answer for them.

Vennochi goes on to lay out chapter and verse on Romney’s “evolving” position on choice.  Great material for anyone interested in painting Romney as the unprincipled opportunist he is.  You listening, Senator McCain?

“Slick Willard.”  Love that.