Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
So this is your premise:




and you use this to suppport it:



I am not sure how you extract from that train of thought that the media is somehow backtracking on what they see as the importance of Iowa when the guy who essentially wins Iowa (santorum) earns all the media. Sounds pretty consistent to me but certainly you are free to hate and criticize the media until your hearts content.

Actually I agree with HR here which happens about every 1000 posts. Most of the media I read downplayed Iowa from the beginning as no longer that important and that opinion was only reinforced with Santorum's unlikely success there. This will all be confirmed by January 22nd when Santorum is, as Perry would say, lumped back onto that giant ash heap of GOP primary candidates who had their 15 minutes of fame only to quickly fade leaving only Mitt standing.

I also agree with HR that Paul absolutely had to win convincingly in Iowa to deserve any press. His third place finish should lead him to dropping out but Bachmann beat them to the quit. He and Perry are going to push forward to the dismay of everyone who wants a single anti-Romney candidate left to take on Romney.

Romney will be the candidate for the GOP in light of 75% of the Republican nation rejecting him now for 4+ years.
I honestly don't understand at all why you don't understand.

The media starts talking about how the Iowa caucus is ridiculously important for the nomination process, which one can certainly argue that it is. Santorum, Romney, and Ron Paul finish within 4,000 votes of each other. The next thing you know, the media starts in on how the Iowa caucus isn't really that important.

So, which is it? You know? Is it important or is it not important? I don't understand how the media can take a stance on one thing and then basically go "wait, we were just joking". Completely takes away from the minute amount of credibility that these journalists and media pundits have.