... there's a lot of constituencies in this fight -- clearly the American people, who are paying for this, is the major constituency. ...
A second constituency is the military. ...
A third constituency that matters to me a lot is military families. ...
Another constituency group that is important for me to talk to is the Iraqis. ...
And, finally, another constituency is the enemy, who are wondering whether or not America has got the resolve and the determination to stay after them.
The term "constituents" refers to the people served by a politician -- the voters who put Bush in office and keep him there. Although this is clearly an example of the president's seven-year assault on the English language, Fretwork points out that the insurgents in Iraq must be happy with the constituent services they've received under this president:
How many of the enemy would vote to impeach George Bush? I'm betting the minority. He is the best recruiting agent they have.
Oh for God's sake. The only politicians terror organizations and supporting nations ever endorse or agree with publicly are Democrats. Then again, who are you going to believe, deeply deluded liberal bloggers or your lying eyes?
I've always felt that Bush's non sequiturs are more truth telling than when taken at first glance.
Time and again he has said things that left the average listener gobstopped. We are stunned that such a feeble minded person can hold such an office and worry that he is merely a ventroloquists' dummy, mouthing the words.
The "tween-the-line"-ers suspect there's a loose lip on the Presidential ship of state however, and it ain't the bo'sun.
Bush is telling it like it is.
He isn't messing up a single word. At this point I wonder whether he's simply mocking all of us and enjoying the not-so inside joke he's having.
The mission was accomplish in other words. We just thought we knew what it was in reference to when he said it.
You do realize that he didn't say "my constituency," right?
Bush was pointing out -correctly - that constituencies of several different groups are involved, and that some of them are on the other side...
This is a guy who spoke of putting food on the family and letting doctors practice their love on women. You really think he meant to say what he said? I think you misunderstimate his penchant for verbal gaffes.
I somewhat agree.
It's his verbal fumbles that let out the truth of the matter at times I'm saying.
He's not entirely in control of his presentation and running on auto-pilot with no one in the navigator's seat when he gets up there to talk. Hence he wanders into territory where the inside voice gets outside once in a while (that or the earphone is picking up the comedy channel).
Sometimes he talks about how he thinks about terrorizing the American citizen. We all get a chuckle at the knuckle-head. Then we catch ourselves and realize that they've also just catapulted the propaganda over the news media's head, just like they said they were going to do. We look back and see the threat level just moved away from a brighter shade of pale, and the populace obediently is more terrorized.
Then of course there are the times he tells us about food on the family. Personally I think that was even more truth telling. He was getting flashbacks of his days when he got the munchies after a good bong hit and ended up in a food fight with Pop.
Sorry, Rogers, but this is just dumb.
You take the highlights (or lowlights) from all of the speeches Bush ever made, and use that as an excuse to take something he said that was correct, and pretend it's wrong?
Nope. You put in a couple of words he DIDN'T say, to try and create One More Bush Screwup, and screwed up yourself. Admit it, instead of trying to contend that black is white. It just shows your bias to be nearly impossible to overcome, and contaminates any other arguments you might make on something he really did wrong.
It's like those guys who went all batshit about the "nuclear/nookyoolur" thing, when more than half of the politicians in Washington say it the same way. And that includes Democrats, incidentally. Try to find a Kennedy who can pronounce it right in less than three or four tries...
You've read this blog. There's not a lot of partisan flamethrowing going on. I think this is a funny malaprop, not some major Bush screwup that's part of a larger narrative I'm trying to tell. Bush's penchant for misspeaking is one of his only personality flaws that I find amusing.
Bush is held up as a dummy, but can accurately use the term "constituent/constituency" at a press conference?
The previous poster is correct, you can't escape your bias' and are desperately trying to avoid the fact that his words are prepared for these appearances -- as are the words of every president who has given these presentations!
Of course, you are far brighter than this, normally. You heuristically latched onto only one definition of the word, and blinded yourself to it; only consciously recognizing the political, idiomatic one. Indeed, I'm sure that those on the site you referenced aren't trained journalists, familiar with words and careful to review their meaning(s)...
You don't have that excuse ...
"Good grief" as Charlie Brown would say.
So Rogers enjoys a Bush appearance that won't resonate through the ages.
It is a bit of fun and I too enjoy that aspect of the "most powerful man on Earth".
If he wasn't a war mongering Machiavellian I'd actually like the man a bit. It's all a show but still, quite a show.
And I still think he goes to his zone as he relaxes out there in front of the lights and forgets to keep the inside voice, inside. That's where the real comedy gold is mined.
As the late night TV show hosts will say - they'll miss him when he's gone and someone more in control of themselves replaces him.
In another 10 years or so.
What about this definition is confusing to you?
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
constituent ... Pronunciation[kuhn-stich-oo-uhnt] ...
1. serving to compose or make up a thing; component: the constituent parts of a motor.
2. having power to frame or alter a political constitution or fundamental law, as distinguished from lawmaking power: a constituent assembly.
3. a constituent element, material, etc.; component.
4. a person who authorizes another to act in his or her behalf, as a voter in a district represented by an elected official.
5. Grammar. an element considered as part of a construction.
The definition proves that this accusation, this effort to mock the president is invented, unreal, a lie. And, the rest of you have to pretend to being ignorant to do so ... and stupid to continue to do so after being informed of the truth of the matter.
Good grief, indeed!
Ahh....what's not to get, again?
"A constituency is any cohesive corporate unit or body bound by shared structures, goals or loyalty. It can be used to describe a business's customer base and shareholders, or a charity's donors or those it serves. The most common meaning of constituency occurs in politics and means either the group of people from whom an individual or organization hopes to attract support, or the group of people or geographical area that a particular elected representative or group of elected representatives represents."
You actively seek to be ignorant of the original point of Rogers' posting. Physician, heal thyself.
"You actively seek to be ignorant of the original point of Rogers' posting. Physician, heal thyself."
You are grasping at straws. I am directly addressing the "original point" and which asserted a mistake in vocabulary by Bush; of course, designed and posted to mock him partisanly.
As for your definition, the meaning(s) are not confined to the common usage. There isn't some word tyrant enforcing just the meaning you and Rogers desire. Let me re-quote you:
"A constituency is any cohesive corporate unit or body bound by shared structures, goals or loyalty. It can [emphasis added] be used to describe a business's customer base and shareholders, or a charity's donors or those it serves."
Bush's quotes were taken as far out of context as possible to even begin to justify calling it a mistake. Even then, with all the ellipsis, there is no error in usage and the meaning correct.
Those who truthfully (not you guys) think that those terms are mistakenly used, are incorrectly used, are simply ignorant of the true meaning of them.
On top of that, and as I've mentioned, these conferences are prepared and the questions and answers presented to make Bush appear smart and aware (hopefully). They would nevewr have allowed him to use those words, if not considered to be "erudite."
... and you know it ...
Now, your own quote highlights that these terms can be used in several (many) other ways beside the "common" usage. They emphasize that point, and thank you for it!
However, all of you can play ostrich and ignore the facts. I certainly can't force any reasonableness on you, that's for sure. Just the opposite -- as this post will probably disappear ...
They would nevewr have allowed him to use those words, if not considered to be "erudite."
Well, let's hope the above won't disappear...
It's an excellent counterpoint to such erudite gems from the President in the past several months alone:
"Amnesty means that you've got to pay a price for having been here illegally, and this bill does that." --George W. Bush, on the immigration reform bill, Washington, D.C., June 26, 2007
"You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 -- 1976." --George W. Bush, to Queen Elizabeth, Washington, D.C., May 7, 2007
"I'm honored to be here with the eternal general of the United States, mi amigo Alberto Gonzales." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 4, 2007
"And so, what Gen. Petraeus is saying, some early signs, still dangerous, but give me -- give my chance a plan to work." --George W. Bush, in an interview with Charlie Rose, April 24, 2007
"One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be." --George W. Bush, on military benefits, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007
"I'm a strong proponent of the restoration of the wetlands, for a lot of reasons. There's a practical reason, though, when it comes to hurricanes: The stronger the wetlands, the more likely the damage of the hurricane." --George W. Bush, New Orleans, March 1, 2007
It's pleasing to note that you think all the pontificating by the President is well conceived and executed with elan. And despite all of the above, you still maintain that Rogers is cherry picking?!
This however is the coup de grce...
"Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words." --George W. Bush, interview with Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 1, 2006
"It's an excellent counterpoint to such erudite gems from the President in the past several months alone: "Amnesty means that you've got to pay a price for having been here illegally, and this bill does that." --George W. Bush, on the immigration reform bill, Washington, D.C., June 26, 2007"
Of course, everyone makes errors like these all the time. If we all had our comments recorded, and mistakes mocked, we would all be laughing stocks. However, you can ignore that reality, in order to advance your politics by not talking about national/world issues and life-and-death problems, but instead defend about the most despicable and crass constituent of party politics
"It's pleasing to note that you think all the pontificating by the President is well conceived and executed with elan. And despite all of the above, you still maintain that Rogers is cherry picking?!"
See? I never said any of that. I was speaking of the original terms under discussion, and you know that very well, but virtually lie to advance an insult. As for Rogers? He picked this 'joke' and presented it on his political sites, and not content with that, has placed it here, and continues to defend the effort to use it politically as a 'joke'. Always the need to misdirect and, or deny criticism ...
They would nevewr have allowed him to use those words, if not considered to be "erudite."
Of course, everyone makes errors like these all the time.
I was just thinking perhaps you missed connecting these two thoughts in your pursuit of something, perfectly reasonable (and delightfully funny) that illustrates the point Rogers simply presented.
Just a thought - if he was as far off the mark, as you demand we agree, surely it would stand out for that on its own, and not need the energy and vehemence you bring to the counter point.
On that note, this poor dead horse needs a burial. I give you the honours of putting it to rest. Glad to have had the chance once again for some repartee with you.
"I was just thinking perhaps you missed connecting these two thoughts in your pursuit of something, perfectly reasonable (and delightfully funny) that illustrates the point Rogers simply presented."
I am always baffled by those who are apparently intelligent but insist on this sort of written lie -- taking comments out of context. Why do you do it? Ego? The need to win at all costs, even abandoment of principle(s) for humor?
My "erudite" comment was about his staff's desire to have him make a good presentation, while the second of your out-of-context quotes is about the mistakes we all make in speaking; some more than others, but to which all would be subject to such ridicule. Why make-up stuff like this?
"Just a thought - if he was as far off the mark, as you demand we agree, surely it would stand out for that on its own, and not need the energy and vehemence you bring to the counter point."
I speak directly and formally -- you (and all of you) interpret that as something excessive, even up to "vehemence". Well, just using that adjective demonstrates who is the one with the bone-to-pick.
"On that note, this poor dead horse needs a burial. I give you the honours of putting it to rest. Glad to have had the chance once again for some repartee with you."
That's funny -- like you could actually "give" me something, huh? I hope your efforts to misdirect (add your own euphemism, here) don't bother your rest ...