Republican Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is rumored to be one of what already looks like a very crowded field of aspiring and potential GOP contenders for the 2008 Presidential race. In a state in which the Republican Party cannot even be readily located without the use of a map, compass, and maybe some tea leaves, the few brave, if not masochistic souls in this bluest of blue states often feel the need to share the liberal lunacy of the opposition and majority party, the Democrats, and hope "to be liked," rather than demonstrate some independent integrity and chutzpah and stand on their own principles, if not their own two feet. Romney, however, has recently proven to be an anomaly in that regard. He is not a "RINO," or a liberal pretending to be a (conservative) Republican, he is just the opposite, or so he says. He is actually a conservative, faking to be a liberal. Romney may just have just single handedly invented a reverse species of RINOs. Perhaps we can call this group's first leader an "ONIR," to reflect the backwards strategy. The common denominator between these two breeds, however, still appears to be the finger in the prevailing wind, and lies to the American electorate for the selfish sake of power obtained via a political sinecure. The sleazy strategies and tactics remain constant. Only the names and faces change.

In the June 6th issue of The Weekly Standard, (online at www.weeklystandard.com) Terry Eastland wrote an informative and thought provoking piece entitled, "In 2008, Will It Be Mormon In America?". In that article, Eastland analyzes Romney and his Presidential prospects, or lack thereof. Below is a quote from Eastland's article, in which Romney, in spite of his attempt at double-talk, seems to be pro-choice (or what I refer to as "pro-abortion"). You decide:

"On a more momentous issue, abortion, Romney told voters when he ran for Senate in 1994 that he was personally opposed to abortion but that abortion should be 'safe and legal in this country,' and that 'we should sustain and support' Roe vs. wade because it had been law for 20 years . When Romney ran for governor in 2002, he maintained his position on Roe, but also indicated that he didn't want to be known as 'pro-choice.' He promised voters that he would honor a 'moratorium,' meaning that he would not try to move state abortion law in one direction or the other, and he's kept his word. Romney speaks of the moratorium as an act of deference to 'an overwhelmingly pro-choice state' and not as reflecting any commitment he might still have to a pro-abortion rights position. 'I recognize the right for a state to choose its own course,' he says. Romney describes himself as 'pro-life,' but his own moratorium has prevented him from moving abortion policy in that direction, were he inclined to do so. On abortion, Romney's church is in favor of life but permissive of abortion in cases of incest or rape or when the mother's life or health is threatened ( that last a very roomy loophole). Suffice to say, Romney has not seen fit to advance his church's policy."

My interpretation of that paragraph is that Romney is pro-choice, but hiding behind a facade of states rights, but when it comes to human life, that is a constitutional civil rights issue, and thus a federal matter, so straddling both sides of this issue by pitting the federal government against states rights is a shell game and a dodge. As a Governor, Romney has proven himself not to be a leader, but a follower, ironically elected to an executive role. Yes, abortion is popular in Massachusetts. Slavery also used to be popular in the south at one time. So what? As far as keeping abortion, "safe and legal," that phrase is right out of the liberal pro-choicers' play book and has been recited so often by so many it is now little more than a cliche for those who wish to forward abortion without creating any more resistance to their vile agenda. As for choosing to be "in the middle of the road," Romney falls into the category of what Sir Edmund Burke summed up, in that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." Political drivel aside, Romney is pro-abortion. With the technology of sonograms, DNA and the increasing survival of many premature babies, science is now vastly overshadowing any semblance of doubt that a fetus is in fact, a human life, created at conception, which is not euphemistically "aborted," but simply murdered. And the sins of the father, in cases of incest or rape, or the life the mother, or the frequently manipulated, dubious and even more vast and vague definition of "the mother's health" still does not justify murder, a crime in our courts, and an affront and violation to our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, without even discussing religion, for the benefit of those from a secularist slant, who so incessantly rant that those opposed to abortion are "Christian right wing extremists," "religious zealots," etc..... Human life is precious and significant. It is not to be used as a rung to step on, to advance personal gain by further climbing up a political ladder.

Also in the Weekly Standard article, Eastland quotes Romney's friend and political advisor, Michael Murphy, who said that "He'd (Romney) be an electable Steve Forbes." Steve Forbes? Hmmm...interesting analogy! I came across several web articles and sites, on both sides of the abortion issue that showed Steve Forbes as giving mixed messages but leaning toward a pro-choice ideology in 1996, both with rhetoric and monetary contributions, while coming farther right toward the pro-life side of the aisle in 2000. Mitt Romney may be "an electable Steve Forbes," but he is certainly a much more easily persuadable Steve Forbes. While it took Forbes four years to flip-flop on this issue, it only took Romney about six days.

In an article entitled "Controversy Over Romney's Abortion Stance," published on NewMax.com  (www.Newsmax.com) on June 12th (about a week after the Weekly Standard article), Romney's advisor and pal, Murphy admitted to creating a stir when he recently told National Review magazine that Romney "faked" his abortion position. According to the NewsMax article, Romney promised to"fully protect a woman's right to choose," while running for US Senate against "the liberal lion, " Ted Kennedy, and again when running for Governor of Massachusetts. Murphy was quoted in the NewsMax article as telling National Review that his boss and friend, Romney has been "a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly." Romney now claims to be pro-life and back peddled with the insipid response that while he personally opposes abortion, he promised to uphold his state's abortion laws and honored his commitment. (More euphemistic, liberal playbook sounds bites.) That's nice. More double talk, More clouded states rights drivel. More cowardly lies to cover tracks not intended to be followed. It is not hard to speculate that both Romney and Murphy would have remained silent on this issue, had the Boston Globe not made a front page headline of Romney's double sided, coin flipping, chameleon-like abortion stance, courtesy of his less than discreet "friend and advisor, " Murphy. (If Murphy is a true "friend and advisor," he would give Romney some friendly advice to better choose his friends and to find a new advisor!) While Murphy may have stepped on his tongue, policy, be it honest or not, comes from the top and filters down, and as such, the source of the controversy is Romney, and that is rightfully where most of the blame should go. The sanctity of human life is the most important political issue of all. Human life is either alive or dead. There is no compromise, and no middle ground. It is about high time that empty suit weathervanes like Romney and their mouthpiece, robotic minions, all full and boiling over with poll numbers, and bereft of any real decisive and definitive core values or principles, learn that lesson.

Just south of the neighboring Bay State, down here in the equally liberal loony bin, ironically known as "the Constitution State," a former Connecticut Republican State Representative once told me that even pro-life Republicans soon become "pro-choice," or at least, very silent, because that is the only way that they can supposedly get elected and continue to get elected in Connecticut. This person told me that the pressure from so called "pro-choice" groups in the state's capitol in Hartford creates a stifling pressure and that the pro-life groups supposedly do not give enough support to elected officials who agree with their cause, so the pro-life politicians soon quietly capitulate to the perceived pro-choice majority, and go along to get along. More cowardice. More deceit. And this is government, as defined by today's two party system? If so, than it was this faulty system that has helped to murder over 40 million potential voters, Republican, as well as Democrat, since Roe vs. Wade.

This story is only one but a myriad of examples. Similarly, and sadly, Mitt Romney appears to be much the same, not a statesman, just another politician, and not even remotely the solution, but very much a big part of the problem. I don't know if in 2008, Romney will be our Presidential "Mormon In America," or not, but if he is, rest assured, "waffles" will be served for breakfast!

Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same task and actually expect a different result. By all means, you folks go right ahead and keep choosing "the lesser of two evils," which by definition, is still evil. But having so painted yourselves into the narrow corner of "Democrat or Republican," stop your whining when you don't get what you want and get even less than whatever little you expected in the first place. The only "wasted vote" is the one that you cast, but did not want, because you settled for less. In such a case, you, and possibly our country, are the real losers, despite whoever won or lost the election. And when the Mitt Romneys keep resurfacing every election year, remember that you have only yourself to blame. Just like with the fabled and pitiful Dr. Frankenstein, only you have the power to terminate your narrow minded experiment with the monster, or else in the end, once out of control, the monster will soon be strong enough to kill you, and it will. As for me, I will continue to vote for principle over party, and for whoever adheres to that ideal and high standard. It is only the third parties, and some assorted independent candidates today, who are truly independent of the increasingly assimilating Democrat-Republican conglomeration, absent of any genuine principle or vision, other than procuring and maintaining power, regardless of cost or harm to nation, citizen, integrity or liberty. Third parties such as the Constitution Party enjoy growth and can, and will only grow more because more Americans like me are tired of being fleeced like obedient lemmings. Trust me, it is much easier and less stressful to know, and subsequently either accept or reject your candidate's issue stances, than to need and follow continual updates as to what they may be or may not be this week, as the winds blow and the polls go. I'll choose a position paper over a program any day. While you settle and then whine, I will vote and then sleep blissfully. Henry Kissinger once claimed that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. Maybe so, but confidence is the ultimate tranquilizer. Never mind the glitz and empty promises. Talk is cheap, and glory is fleeting. Vote smart, and rest well.

Doug Wrenn

Doug Wrenn is a newly elected representative of the state central committee of the Concerned Citizens Party, the Connecticut state affiliate of the Constitution Party.