Today’s (Aug 28) Washington Post carries the article titled, “Red meat on the menu as convention kicks off” followed by the following sentence.
"GOP delegates are scheduled to take the vote that will formally settle their party's long primary battle, although there were signs of the un-mended rift between Romney's backers and the minority of delegates supporting Rep. Ron Paul."
I think I’ve seen the cases “Red meat” was used in the sense of the substance of political agendas in the past.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘red meat’ as
- meat (as beef) that is red when raw
- something substantial that can satisfy a basic need or appetite.
However, Cambridge Dictionary defines it only as ‘meat from mammals, especially beef and lamb.’
Oxford Dictionary likewise defines it only as ‘meat that is red when raw, for example beef or lamb. Often contrasted with white meat.’
Wikipedia gives a definition - Red meat in traditional culinary terminology is meat which is red when raw, and not white when cooked. Red meat includes the meat of most adult mammals and some fowl.
In any of Oxford, Cambridge Dictionary, and Wikipedia, there’s no reference of ‘something substantial’ to ‘Red meat’ as defined in definition 2. of Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Is the usage of ‘Red meat’ as ‘the substance (supported by concrete evidence)’ well-received?
Is it predominantly a political jargon? Can I say ‘There was no red meat in his talk (proposal)’ just casually?