[doctorhugo]

At the end of the excerpt the writer couldn't help but show his true Times colors with this innocent enough appearing remark...
"Mr. Rove made no mention of Republican opposition to both the Patriot Act and the surveillance program, which has posed a political problem for this White House, while he laid out his case against the Democrats, speaking rapidly."

I'd simply ask him, quite openly and, rhetorically,Why should he numbn_ts?

Rove was out to 'fire up the troops' with a strategy for the mid-term election period. Why in the name of sanity would he introduce the discord among some weak sister brother Republicans to turn the very positive speech sour with the introduction of a negative remark? The answer is of course, he wouldn't. Only the pablum-puking Mr. nagourney would..., in revealing himself to be a less than impartial commentator, but we all knew that to start with. Try again numbn_ts!

Mr. nagourney would do well to revisit Journalism 101 and explain just while he added the totally inaccurate and superfluous reference...", speaking rapidly" to his sentence and in so doing constructed a grammatically poor sentence. The sentence sufficeth without said addition, but it is also true that Mr. Rove spoke pointedly and clearly and not at all rushed or rapidly. I saw his remarks on TV. As a matter of fact. I have never seen Mr. Rove ever speak rapidly in public. Apparently more liberal, left-wing hallucinating.

[SaxxonWoods]

That jumped out at me, too. After a piece on Hillary, does this writer mention that the left-wing base is all over her case on Iraq and her pandering support of the flag burning amendment?

Um, you don't have to answer, that's a rhetorical question.