"Scare Quotes"

Although missing from this space for some time, I was moved to write a letter to the local Champaign-Urbana newspaper, commenting on their choice and implication of a front page headline. The newspaper published this letter on March 31, after making a few small editorial changes to my original text, denoted here with strikethrough (cuts) and bold (additions):

To the editor:

Overhaul complete? Not!

Your The News-Gazette's March 26 headline on the health care reconciliation bill story, "Dems complete the overhaul", was quite the joke. Rather than a completion, we'll be watching for years as Congress attempts to: "correct" embarrassments in the currently amended law, "fix" unintended consequences, "rectify" newly perceived unfairness, and increasingly regulate one sixth of the U.S. economy. With each step we will likely dig our hole just a little bit deeper.

The strikethroughs may not be immediately noticeable above, but the editor removed the quotation marks around the three separate words in the second sentence. Perhaps I use this device too much in my day-to-day writing, but the intent is always to add some special emphasis, and especially doubt that a particular word is carrying its usual meaning. By removing the quotation marks, the editor has at least removed some of the intended sarcasm of the low word count letter, and might even introduce some ambiguity into my message, although that ambiguity is alleviated by the last sentence, which more clearly states my position.

But why did the N-G editor remove them here?  Was he or she confused by my intention, or feel that characterizing these predicted future actions as "attempts" was sufficient? Is this device not allowed in their style manual?  I feel like they follow the Chicago Manual of Style's (15th edition, 2003) directive on one of the uses of quotation marks, which reads, in part:

7.58  "Scare quotes."  Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense. Nicknamed "scare quotes," they imply, "This is not my term" or "This is not how the term is usually applied." Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused.

My use of the quotation marks certainly seems to follow this definition. That there are three uses in the single sentence should not necessarily be considered overuse - that's the point of the list. Furthermore, the quotation marks contrast those three terms with the final list item, "regulate" (without quotation marks), for which no special denoting of sarcasm or doubt is intended or needed.

Finally, "scare quotes" seems like a pretty bad name, even if it is just a nickname. The Wikipedia article considers the confusing nature of the term, noting that "In many cases an author uses scare quotes not to convey alarm, but to signal a semantic quibble." I'm going to start referring to this device as "quibble quotes."  But then, I'm a sucker for alliteration and, apparently, quotation marks.