1115.org

Here’s why you shouldn’t take the NYT’s political bloggers seriously: they have real trouble with the English language.

Walking off with today’s award for most outrageous offense against the English language is Kate Phillips.

Here’s what presidential candidate Mitt Romney said today in New Hampshire:

… Romney said he would likely accept the presidential salary of $400,000 annually but donate the money. While governor, Romney declined his $135,000 annual salary.

“I haven’t really thought ahead that far,” Romney said at first. “There are some questions I haven’t forecasted, perhaps because that would seem presumptuous of me.”

Then, he added: “I presume I would take the salary and then I would donate at least that amount - or more - to charity.”

(In the spirit of fairness, we point out that Phillips got that right, even though she apparently had to go through the steps of first copying and then pasting it from an AP report.)

But here’s Phillips explaining what that means:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said today in New Hampshire that he would donate to charity at least a part if not more of his presidential salary (should he win) — given that he’s the wealthiest among the candidates.

Dear Kate, please note this phrase for future use: “all or more”. For some inexplicable reason, it is preferred over “a part if not more” when referring to the concept of “100% or more than 100%”.

And always remember: if you take the trouble to learn English, you too can take your rightful place in this society. The President said so. And it’s never too late. Not even for him.