Mitt Romney - again...

I have another article on Romney here, entitled "Warning!"

Why is it that the candidate who is spending the most time and money to get the publics attention is the one "flying under the radar"?
He is spending a 85,000+ dollars a day on television advertising, more than any other candidate in history.
He has spent a whopping 10.2 million dollars on ads already.
His closest competitor, John McCain, has spent only 300,000 dollars. You can see an article about his spending here.

Yet he is getting the least scrutiny.
People are blasting Fred Thompson over abortion when Romney professes the same view.
People are digging into Mike Huckabee's record and bringing up some stink, yet they ignore Mitt Romney who has a very much identical record on everything except abortion and gay marriage.
People are even giving Giuliani more thought - at least he is honest, he hasn't changed his views one bit, they just aren't conservative. Romney on the other hand had very liberal stances when he ran for governor, but now is toting himself as a conservative.


Well, it appears he is an aspiring robot who is just trying to stay out of the lime-light.
In a recent interview (located here) he claimed he is pleased to be in Clinton's newest ad because he has "always (aspired) to be a machine".

Now, acting as a robot, he has decided to skip the Iowa Fox news debate (read about here), opting instead to just run ads that say what he wants, instead of going out and actually answering the questions people have for him.
I hope the debate actually goes ahead, without Romney - especially given the fact that the most recent rasmussen poll has Huckabee moving ahead of Romney! (read about it here)

Much as I wish Fred Thompson were the one winning Iowa, at least people are realizing that Romney is not the best candidate, and picking one who is at least a little better.

So, why are people letting him slide under the radar?
I guess it is because most people do just listen to the media.
And since the media is liberally biased, which a recent Harvard study
(reported here) has proven, and since Romney is probably the most liberal candidate, except for maybe Giuliani - but that is only because Giuliani hasn't switched, it isn't unreasonable to believe that, since he is spending 34 times the amount of advertising of his nearest competitor, he would be very largely in the lead.

The only reason he is in second place is because he is buying people's time and vote, and because Giuliani is the only one courting the moderate/liberal vote.
If either of those changed, he would either be in first, or last.