as we may blog

I decided early on that only one issue mattered to me this election: why the hell do some people pronounce the word comptroller like controller? Dictionary.com provides the usage note:

In the 15th century, the word controller developed the alternate spelling comptroller as a result of an association between the first part of the word, cont, and the etymologically unrelated word count and its variant compt. Although the historical pronunciation of comptroller would be the same as for controller, evidence suggests that the spelling pronunciations (kmp-trlr) and (kmptrlr) may now be used by a majority of speakers. In a recent survey, 43 percent of the Usage Panel indicated that they pronounce comptroller like controller, while 57 percent pronounce it with mp, as it is spelled, with stress on either the first or second syllable. And half of those Panelists who pronounce comptroller like controller indicated that they also consider the spelling pronunciations acceptable.

Wiktionary adds a brief but helpful etymology note:

From English controller blended with French compte (”account”)

So there you have it.

Now, more than ever.

Or, why I don’t watch cable news. (I’d put scare quotes around "news" if I hadn’t already had 28 beers.)

Fox commentators like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity are famous for their informal, intemperate manner of speech. But the debate on programs like “Crossfire,” on CNN, is often as heated - and as full of hot air. On an Aug. 12 edition about the Swift boat debate, a program regular, Robert Novak, the conservative columnist, called Mr. O’Neill and his fellow anti-Kerry veterans “the real patriots to rise to the surface this election year.”

James Carville, Mr. Novak’s liberal counterpart, challenged Mr. O’Neill’s co-author, Jerome Corsi, charging that Mr. Corsi’s blog is “scabrous.” When Mr. O’Neill tried to change the subject, Mr. Carville shrieked at him.

Wikipedia:

Metaphorically, an echo chamber can refer to any situation in which some force or idea is amplified by transmission inside an enclosed space. For example, observers of journalism in the mass media have described the echo chamber effect: one purveyor of information will make a claim, which many like-minded people then repeat, overhear, and repeat again (often in an exaggerated or otherwise distorted form) until most people assume that some extreme variation of the story is true.

This Swift Boat Veterans for Truth nonsense is finally getting the attention of the mainstream liberal press. Unfortunately, it’s not the kind of attention the ad’s creators anticipated.

I dunno. There’s not a whole lot to say that wouldn’t just be parroting someone else’s insights. This brand of political mudslinging is nothing new, and Kerry supporters shouldn’t be suprised at all that supporters of a struggling incumbent would resort to this tactic.

It’s worthwhile to think back to the infamous Willie Horton ad that propelled George H. W. Bush to the White House in 1988. That ad, like the Swift Boat ad, was financed by a group technically independent of (but with pretty clear ties to) the Bush campaign. There are some differences between the ads, though, and ones that I don’t think bode well for George W. Bush’s campaign. The Willie Horton ad at least addressed a substantive issue. Granted, Horton’s crimes were used to distort Dukakis’s positions, but the ad was fundamentally about an issue of some import to Americans—crime. The Swift Boat ad is about… honesty? Medal inflation? Leadership in times of change, probably. Whatever the ad’s meta-issue, it’s not clear, clouded by veterans’ personal attacks on Kerry’s character. And if it’s not immediately clear, I don’t think Americans will see it as anything more than a vitriolic attack ad.

George H. W. Bush was able to reference Dukakis’s "revolving door" attitude towards criminals throughout the ‘88 campaign in such a way that he could basically turn on the Willie Horton ad in the minds of Americans whenever he pleased. I would be very surprised if George W. Bush were able to do the same this year with this ad. Bush II refuses to distance his campaign from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and this puts himself somewhat at odds with previous laudatory comments he made about Kerry’s military service. ABC News’ Terry Moran realized this at yesterday’s press conference:

Q Let me ask it this way: The President has said and believes that John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, he’s made that very clear. We’ve made it very clear that we will not make his — will never raise questions about his service. We haven’t, and we won’t.

Q This advertisement raises questions about his service, and in fact concludes that he served dishonorably. So the President thinks this ad is false, right?

If Bush questions Kerry’s service in the way the Swiftboaters have done, he’ll have contradicted earlier statements about Kerry’s service (a "flip-flop," in networknewsese). But the longer his campaign goes without denouncing the Swiftboaters (as Kerry has done with left-wing 527 ads), the more complicit his campaign becomes with their dubious charges. It appears to me that the Bush campaign is stubbornly and needlessly paiting itself into a corner.