I Don't Think That Word Means What You Think It Means...

Here's the sentence, such that it is:

I assume the entire progressive blogosphere will agree with me that trying to pursue a more “bipartisan tone” in Washington is a substantively foolish idea for the White House to pursue.

(Ah, such lapidary prose...)

Here's the word (an adjective) in question:

substantively

Here's the definition (via The Free Dictionary):

1. Substantial; considerable.
2. Independent in existence or function; not subordinate.
3. Not imaginary; actual; real. 
4. Of or relating to the essence or substance; essential: substantive information.
5. Having a solid basis; firm.
6. Grammar Expressing or designating existence; for example, the verb to be.
7. Grammar Designating a noun or noun equivalent.

And here's the culprit.

Note: How's This?

I assume the entire progressive blogosphere will agree with me that the White House's pursuit of a "bipartisan tone" in Washington is an extremely foolish strategy.

You know, if I'd been smart enough to go to Harvard, I probably could have written it.

Comments

[Allen]

Matt assumes a bit much. If Obama says bipartisanship with the republicans is the way to go, Matt and many others in the "progressive blogosphere" will be behind it foursquare.

"His Master's Voice."

[smy1965]

The Annointed One has never tried to be bi-partisan ("I won." Remember that, anyone?).

The quality of Barack Obama's speaking ability sans teleprompter and the literary and grammatical style of Little Matty's blogs indicates to me that a Harvard education is O-ver-ra-ted (clap, clap, clapclapclap)!

[bandit]

In 2 years Obama will wonder ' What went wrong?'

[Simon]

How about this ?

"The White House's bipartisanship is an extremely foolish strategy."

[Dennis the Peasant]

Simon-

Man, if I'd written that I'd be teaching at Harvard.

[Jim Ryan]

The honestly strategy of bipartisan dealing at the White House strikes me as undeniably foolhardy tactics in my view. Plus "aggregate demand" and other terms I need to understand only slightly less dimly than my readership honestly in order to fool them into clicking on my blog alot.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Wow.

Jim actually does teach at Harvard.

[Pole Smoker]

Actually, I think the word means exactly what he thought it meant.

Yglesias wrote "substantively" because he wished to convey the idea that the foolishness of bipartisanship is real (as opposed to merely seeming or appearing foolish). He could have written "extremely" -- if he meant something else.

But Dennis's Sullivanesque obsession with intellectual elites and his substantive feelings of inadequacy are amusing, so do keep on dreaming of what it would be like to be smart enough to go to Harvard.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Yep, and he could of written "substantively" if he'd wanted to fail English 101 at Ohio State. Clearly you don't know the correct use of the word, either.

And, boy, do you have me pegged.

[Simon]

Pole - does that mean that every time someone means what they say they have to use an adjective to confirm that ?

Like -
I think your comment was truly stupid ?
You really sound like a tool ?
Your understanding of grammar appears to be genuinely idiotic ?

You wordy prick.