Note, both of the quotes with sources I have personally witnessed. -- Cimon Avaro.
- To clarify the above comment in case other quotes with sources are added, it is referring to: "My National Guard unit..." and "We have a firm commitment...". Nanobug 19:23, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with this one. 
Folks quote this one pejoratively, but I believe it is a perfectly logical, well spoken statement.
"I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in LA, my answer has been direct & simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame."
He's talking about an almost lost concept called "Personal responsibility"!
--TecBrat 15:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Clarification on an edit 1/4/2006 
Rather than continue to muck up the history section, I'll explain here:
On 1/4/2006 I edited this article without logging in. That caused me to be identified by IP only. I attempted to correct that, and typed the wrong year (As is common for many folks in January.) in my note.
So, to be clear. The edit entered 1/4/2006 adding a dispute with a link to Snopes.com was done by this editor, TecBrat.
--TecBrat 09:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Dan Quayle, beach bum? 
What's with all the quotes from Hawaii? You've got the one that is about Hawaii, which is verified, then a couple weeks later he's speaking to the United Negro College Fund (located in Virginia), then a couple weeks after that he's in Hawaii, then he's in Hawaii in August, and in December he's in Hawaii again. I think I'll move the last three to the "attributed" section pending clearer verification. w:User:WillOakland 08:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is this page not protected and Barack Obama's is? 
This is an example of intellectual dishonesty. Most of these quotes would not pass muster, according to the decision to leave out Barack Obama's Special Olympic quote by one of the editors of the Barack Obama page:
How about you give a reason why that quote shouldnt be included on this page. The fact that it is not flattering to President Obama is not sufficient to exclude it. --Henrybaker 06:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC) If it was flattering to Obama, it still wouldn't merit inclusion in my opinion. If Obama went on the Tonight Show and recited his grocery list, some people would find things there to praise and others to criticize, but it wouldn't be quoteworthy. Wikiquote:Quotability sets forth a number of factors to be weighed in determining whether either deserves a place in this compendium. These include: Is the quote itself particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant? Is the author of the quote notable? If so, are they very notable, moderately notable, barely notable? Are they notable as a source of quotes (i.e., as a poet, pundit, or Yogi Berra)? Is the quote itself independently well known (as with proverbs and certain well-reported comments)? Is the subject of the quote a notable subject? Is it about a broad theme of the human experience such as Love, Justice, or Loneliness? Or is it about a narrow or mundane topic, like porcupines, lunch meat, or that new car smell? If the quote is about another person, is that other person highly notable? Has the quote stood the test of time? Is the quote verifiably sourced? The quote at issue here fails the first, fourth, and fifth factors utterly. Certainly it is not inherently memorable if considered apart from the author. The topic is bowling, which is mundane (or, arguably, the Special Olympics, which is a narrow topic). Per the Quotability guidelines, "any quote made within the past ten years will be scrutinized under the presumption that it is not inherently quotable". If we include everything said by a notable person simply because that person is notable, then we would for example transcribe every word of Shakespeare's plays, duplicating the function of Wikisource while drowning truly poignant comments and notable observations in a sea of chaff. I note that we include Obama's heavily criticized "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion" remark, which is far more unflattering to Obama than the bowling comment, but which is also (unlike the bowling comment) relevant to his role in society, as a policymaker explicitly addressing things such as guns and religion. BD2412 T 07:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If that page is protected, then so should this one. If the quotes (gaffes) over there are not considered worthy of Wikiquote, then why are these? Eschudy
- Many forms of conscious and unconcious dishonesty and hypocrisy abound among many people, but to target the fact that this page is not currently protected as somehow an example of that seems more than a little extreme. Pages are protected according to the level of vandalism which tends to be occurring on them. Obama as current president, currently is a subject of massive attention and the page is likely to be a target of much vandalism.
You specify one quote which was not included after it's removal from Obama's page. Frankly it seems to have been a quote most people were not all that interested in discussing or including. Personally, I have no strong objections to the quote in question either being included or removed, for even though it is not one I find particularly notable, obviously many others seem to think it was. I am not interested in having anyone on any of these pages being presented in entirely flattering or entirely damning ways, but neither is it anyone's obligation here to be more interested or involved in any particular page or issue than they choose to be. The omission of that quote simply seems to be a case of no one objecting strongly enough to a short list of rationale for it being removed (which I, being a bit more "inclusionist" than some, would personally say is somewhat flawed, no matter how earnest and well motivated).
In regard to semi-protecting this page: I perceive no strong need for it at this point. Vandalism of Quayle's page has never approached the level that occurs upon that of a current president. ~ Kalki 07:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)