Reply #26: What's In A "Leak": The Power of Metaphors in Debate

[doh_phooey]

Despite all the scandals weighing down President Bush (e.g., Iraq, Katrina, the ports, Delay, Abramoff...) nothing threatens to sink him faster than the word 'leak.' Last week, the 'Commander-in-Chief' was renamed the 'Leaker-in-Chief' following revelations from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that the source of the national security leak -- or at least the authority behind that leak -- was none other than the President himself. Suddenly, after years of an investigation that had gotten way to complicated for all but political junkies to follow, the 'leak' revelation recast the story in straightforward understandable terms: An American citizen criticized the President, Bush leaked information to be used as political payback. And as that straightforward story took hold of public imagination last week, the haze of hard-to-remember scandal names dissipated (e.g., 'Plame Affair,' 'CIA Leak Investigation,' 'Niger Yellow Cake Scandal'), leaving 'Leakgate' in their place.

'Leakgate.' Like 'Watergate' for Nixon, 'Iran-Contra' for Reagan and 'Monicagate' for Clinton, 'Leakgate' will be forever associated with President George W. Bush, a word that will define both his Presidency in the mind of future generations and establish a certain category of political scandal as a historical reference point.

But why is the word 'leak' so powerful?

http://www.buzzflash.com/feldman/06/04/fel06002.html