According to the marvelous etymonline.com, "tack" and "attack" probably come from the same root, but neither is derived from the other. Both words arise from a Germanic term for a pointy object suitable for use in holding things together. The noun "tack" in the sense in which Cilizza uses it is indeed nautical in origin, first attested as being used to mean "a course of action" in 1675. "Tactics", by contrast, comes from a Greek root meaning "to arrange or set in order", so it's etymologically unrelated to "tack".

'Both ads aim to turn McConnell's position '

yes, because of above, I thought of that too. and it also works. but 'tactic' seems to be more appropriate when followed by 'strategist's-- you know I worked in advertising and we never stopped talking about strategy and tactics, in tandem.

and i also started out following your logical tack to attack... but it seems like since both originally meaned 'join' that strangely is probably the relationship. or maybe it's both.

'Both ads aim to turn McConnell's position '

yes, because of above, I thought of that too. and it also works. but 'tactic' seems to be more appropriate when followed by 'strategist's-- you know I worked in advertising and we never stopped talking about strategy and tactics, in tandem.

and i also started out following your logical tack to attack... but it seems like since both originally meaned 'join' that strangely is probably the relationship. or maybe it's both.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Weekly Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

claudia- for 'tack' I mean the "intransitive verb" definition; from merriam webster:

intransitive verb
1 a: to tack a sailing ship b: to change to an opposite tack by turning the bow to the wind c: to follow a course against the wind by a series of tacks
2 a: to follow a zigzag course b: to modify one's policy or attitude abruptly

from a nautical warfare perspective, changing the ship's tack might be necessary to attack, which is the direction I was going with the question. Tough the similarity to 'tactics' kindof makes me wonder too...

looks like you could be right bsimon... they both original meant to attach or join... ain't etymology fun. like detective work without the blood.

1600, from Fr. attaquer (16c.), from Florentine attaccare (battaglia) "join (battle)," thus the word is a doublet of attach, which was also used 15c.-17c. in the sense now reserved to attack.

[Origin: 1300-50; (n.) ME tak buckle, clasp, nail (later, tack); c. G Zacke prong, D tak twig; (v.) ME tacken to attach, deriv. of the n.; see tache, attach]

and then i find this, which i always thought was on the wrong track... altho both work.

'on the wrong tack'

I don't know that 'tack' would really be apt here--I'm pretty sure he means 'tactic' whether he knows it or not. I've noticed that the concept of 'editing' has almost disappeared, even in print media. Lack of budgets, lack of precision, the banes of our age.

Tack and attack... interesting. I'll look it up.

"Chris, this error appears in many of your posts so I am offering you a chance to tack, port or starboard. "Tact" refers to a social skill akin to diplomacy."

Interesting point; I suppose 'tack' would be grammatically correct - I would use 'tactic' instead.

"It's an interesting [tact|tack|tactic] given that Democratic strategists believe..."

Since we're sailing over the horizon on this one... Etymologically speaking, is 'attack' related to the nautical term 'tack'?

Yes, they harassed a child -- a child with a brain injury. I only want to point this out to you as an example of the depths to which they will sink to prvent poor kids from getting health care. It's so despicable, so low, it bears mentioning again.

He deserves not only to be thrown out of office, but tarred and feathered.

'Is it a sign that he is a rubberstamp for the Bush agenda? '
HELLO. Of course it is.

'allegedly blocking the passage of a children's heath insurance bill.'

what is with the 'allegedly' CC -- can't you just say the words? he didn't allegedly block the bill -- he blocked the bill. can you say that? not only that, but an aide in his office sent an email to reporters smearing the 12-year old boy, Graeme Frost. Yes, they harassed, stalked and swift-boated a child, and tried to ruin his family,, his struggling parents and 5 siblings. why don't you want to talk about, CC??

Chris, this error appears in many of your posts so I am offering you a chance to tack, port or starboard. "Tact" refers to a social skill akin to diplomacy.

"Both ads aim to turn McConnell's position as leader of his party in the Senate into a positive for his campaign."

An extremely questionable campaign tactic. If voters are sick of the Iraq War (as polls show them to be) and don't fall for the blame-the-Democrats dodge that the R's are trying out (what do the polls show on this point?) then this reliance on the R 'brandk' will backfire. Badly. However, I don't underestimate McConnell's ability to believe his own BS and thus trudge forward with what seems like a very risky idea.

when an OCCUPATION, sucks the economy dry, demands a lot of a non existent tax base, and contributes very little in_country to the citizens...

and our politicians support it because it's money in their pockets regardless of what the country needs...

as in Dianne Feinsteins' backing of Mukasey...

WELL FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WONDERED WHY FEINSTEIN SWITCHED HER VOTE:

this should help,

HopeSpringsATurtle wrote:
.....
I believe the mask of connivance is slipping as demonstrated by Dianne Feinstein's vote for Mukasey.

Her vote is part of the price she's paying to her master the BushCo war-mongering, war services industry which directly benefits her war-profiteering husband

Richard Blum, a 75% partner in PERINI CORPORATION.

PERINI is a construction company that has received nearly a billion dollars in Iraq reconstruction funds.

end of HopeSpringsATurtle quote.

______________________________

SO DIANNE FIENSTEIN IS AN agent of Israel, an "Israel FIRST!!!," non-citizen disguised as a citizen of the United States and a WAR PROFITEER...

the quote is from a poster on the Paul Kane Blog

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/11/update_hoyer_impeachment_is_no.html

I understand the G(ay) O(ld) P(arty) is trying to sew up the homahsexuah vote...

using Jeff Gannon posters to encourage more people like Larry Craig to share their dance steps witha hungry voting crowd....

those southern men love their homosexuahs...

he heh hehhhhe.......yesirreeeeeee

is that your soap ovah theh bubbah ???

.

Notice "his party" is not named. Republicans are worried about their image in Kentucky.

Link in the story does not work.