Posted by
Steve on Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:53:07 AM
Yesterday I talked about how Newt Gingrich is a progressive. Some may say that Mitt Romney said he was a progressive when he ran for Senate in Massachusetts. That is true that he said he was a progressive. But, I am not convinced that Mitt Romney means the same thing that Newt Gingrich does when they use the term “progressive”.
Last night on the way home, I heard part of the Glenn Beck show on KFYI. They were discussing just this point in relation to the endorsement of Newt Gingrich by Herman Cain. Glenn and company were not convinced that Herman Cain knew exactly what a progressive was. That got into the discussion of how you can tell if a person knows what a progressive really is. They came to the conclusion that if you modify progressive with names or periods of time, you are absolutely sure to know what a progressive is. If they do not use the modifiers, it is probably that they use it to indicate that they are for progress.
Newt Gingrich indicated that he was a progressive like Teddy Roosevelt and Robert La Follette. Hillary Clinton said she was an early 20th century progressive. Both of them use the modifiers and so obviously know what the term progressive means. They would qualify as a progressive in its fullest definition.
Mitt Romney said he was a progressive, period. That would indicate that his knowledge of what a progressive really is would be somewhat limited. People that have a limited knowledge of what a progressive is will call themselves a progressive and just mean that they are for progress. This confuses the situation because you have true progressives and false progressives both using the term progressive. It makes it difficult to tell them apart, particularly during a campaign. I am not sure if Mitt Romney knows what a progressive is. If he does, then he would be a true progressive. If he does not, then he is one of the false progressives. Since he did not use any modifiers, it would indicate a lack of knowledge. We have no way to determine it for sure at this time.
We do know that Newt Gingrich is a progressive in the truest sense. He is a historian who has studied that period of history. His knowledge of who these people are and what they stood for is extensive. That is indicated that he brought up the name of Robert La Follette. Robert La Follette is probably not known much outside of Wisconsin. That Newt Gingrich added his name to the list of who he identifies progressivism with is very telling. That is one of those obscure historical facts that a historian will know and the general public will have to look up. I will confess that I had heard the name, but had to look it up to be sure of my information.
Today, the voters of Florida will make their wishes known. Polling had Mitt Romney leading there early. After South Carolina, Newt Gingrich took the lead. That quickly evaporated and Mitt Romney is now back where he was before he lost South Carolina. About 600,000 votes have already been cast in the primary. Another 2,000,000 are expected to be cast today. That should give us a good indication of who really is the leader in the Republican field. Since the polls have Mitt Romney leading almost all the time, I predict he will win this race by at least 10%. That would have a chilling effect on the rest of the field. It would effectively eliminate all competition. Surely either Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich will get out of the race. The money has to start drying up for candidates that keep losing.