To: Dane
Well the expected Iowa and New Hampshire combined vote amounts to about 0.0015% of the planned vote November 2008, so why is it problematic for Fox to point out the relative insignificance of those two primaries?
They mean very little in the overall scheme of things.
22 posted on
01/02/2008 12:22:15 PM PST by
DoughtyOne
(< fence >< sound immigration policies >< /weasles >< /RINOs >< /Reagan wannabees that are liberal >)
To: DoughtyOne
Well the expected Iowa and New Hampshire combined vote amounts to about 0.0015% of the planned vote November 2008, so why is it problematic for Fox to point out the relative insignificance of those two primaries? Then why did Fox News spend millions to cover them.
If Fox News did not think that Iowa and New Hampshire were important, then they should have decided that months ago.
29 posted on
01/02/2008 12:24:45 PM PST by
Dane
("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson