336 Kerry or Bush--who's misquoted the most?

On my blogroll, I link to The Volokh Conspiracy, a group blog of 13 lawyers. Eugene Volokh is a professor at UCLA School of Law. I looked back and see the index goes back to April 2002, where I found this, "ETYMOLOGY. Little-known fact: The word "politics" comes from the prefix "poly-," meaning "many," and the root "ticks," meaning "bloodsucking insects."

I take a peek at this blog from time to time, often having no idea what these lawyers are chatting about. But yesterday's was different.

Slate.com is running a column alled “Kerryisms,” in which Slate.com attempts to translate John Kerry into plain English by removing pompous and evasive expressions. I can only assume that these quotes then get passed around the Internet, with quotation marks, to various pundits, some pro-Kerry, some anti-Kerry. At Volokh Conspiracy on May 19 there is a running dissection of what Slate.com is attempting to do, and how the “translation” changes Kerry’s intent. One brief paragraph about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners had 20 footnotes of deletions. There is also comment on how another source changed Kerry's statement about the Bill of Rights and gay marriage in an attempt to clarify and translate his awkward statement.

Eugene Volokh concludes: “Finally, I express no opinion on whether Kerry is indeed often pompous or evasive, or engages in pointless embellishment. I also can't speak to how Kerry's statement here came across orally — maybe his delivery was lousy, even if the text was fine. I say only that this is a pretty poor example of what Slate is seemingly trying to prove. And it bodes ill for this column.”

Let’s face it. Neither of these guys can speak as well as Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, and it’s like nailing Jell-o to a wall to figure them out most of the time. All the same, we should eye so-called quotations with care.