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)
To: Dane
Then why did Fox News spend millions to cover them. Because December is always a slow news month, and insignificant or not, people like the drama of the primaries.
32 posted on
01/02/2008 12:26:58 PM PST by
Kleon
To: Dane
That doesn’t answer the question, but then that’s as close as I’m going to get so... okay.
The Iowa Caucus isn’t worth didley. That’s the long and the short of it, and if FoxNews wants to point that out, it’s okay by me.
33 posted on
01/02/2008 12:27:57 PM PST by
DoughtyOne
(< fence >< sound immigration policies >< /weasles >< /RINOs >< /Reagan wannabees that are liberal >)
To: Dane
They have to fill that time with something. Their just saying now what a lot of us on FR have been saying all along.
39 posted on
01/02/2008 12:28:45 PM PST by
ontap
(Just another backstabbing conservative)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson