Watching a replay while I wait to hear Newt speak.  Some guy is speaking right now, stumping/opening for Rick Santorum, Dude just told a joke. 

There is this bar a few doors down, into this bar walks a Conservative, a Republican, and a Liberal and the people in the bar call out – Hi Mitt!

A hearty spattering of laughter (delayed) and moderate clapping.

I’m going to  live comment/blog while I catch Newts speech on TeeVee.  I had wanted to go to CPAC, but decided to be fiscally conservative and sit this one out.  Then I heard that the occupy communists were planning to do a bunch of mischief there……….and I was so tempted to go after all.   With a handful of old fashioned hatpins.  Oh yeah baby! 

Watching Rick’s speech being replayed – meh – I expected it to be a bit more inspiring.  And who is that woman behind him?  Is it his daughter?  Now, I am NOT trying to be mean to her, but I cannot help but to notice that she looks almost exactly like Rick – and that while Rick is an “OK” looking man, his face on a female is not resulting in a fortunate outcome in terms of beauty. 


The following commentary is entirely based on my very own point of view.

Callista is opening for her husband.  I can say that I am glad to see her being included.  It’s good timing, in my opinion.  But she is clearly not accustomed to public speaking, although her speech is decent so far.  Some amusing little pleasantries.  Nice close.

Newt, relaxed and easy.  “People based campaign”.  Thanks his volunteers.

He’s speaking about the period where Republican and Conservatives became less and less compatible with each other.  The Reagan era.

“Bold solutions – compared to managing decay”  The “establishment America” is the America that can’t.  They are hating on him because he wants to break the grip of the establishment.

I believe he is right on that.

Solutions time.

Unleash American people to rebuild the American we love.  Repeal obamacare.  Repeal Dodd-Frank.  Repeal sarvan-oxley (?) (I don’t have that spelled correctly – I am sure.)  Those are the appetizers.  Then: fire the CZARS.  (big applause)  Approve the Canadian pipeline to TX.  People are hollering NEWWWWT. Something about Jerusalem, and no money for abortion.  Ax all attacks that obama has instituted against religion.

By the time obama gets back home to Chi-town (after LOSING re-election) 40% of his activities while in the White House are repudiated.  By Newt and Congress.

All that on day one.  (I think he should dial back a smidge on that – and PLEASE don’t add MORE)

Crowd is responding really well to him.  Best of the three so far for crowd response.

12.5 % tax rate.  Allows companies to compete – GE will have to pay taxes.  Abolish Death Tax – great applause. 

Mentions Romney’s tax return tax rate – but, and this is important,  says nothing negative – says doesn’t want to raise Romneys – wants everyone to pay what Mitt does …..  NICE.

He is DEFINING his proposals clearly.  He is being very detailed, which is different than the Mitt and Rick, who both spoke in very general terms, but gave little in the way of specifics.

He wants to open US for gas/oil production.  Makes US safer and more secure. prosperous.  Slammed obama gas prices. “No more having to bow to Saudi Kings….PERIOD,” said Newt.

Audit the Fed – who got our money and why?   He’ll get rid of Bernaki.

Closing on two big topics:

War on religion by obama and courts.  It’s real, he says.  obama is committed to waging war on Catholic church if he wins reelection.  Bold solution: “Re-establish the right of the people”, said Newt.

Administration lies about who our enemies are, today Americans are being held hostage in Egypt.  Need profound national debate about nation security and specifically radical Islamist who seek to kill us.

“Big choice/big decision election.”  Coins the phrase “Conservative Dream Team” – Perry, Todd Palin, Ollie North, Herman Cain, many more, on his side.  Need to teach Republican establishment a lesson!

Nice close, standing O.

Best of the three candidate speeches.

~ by ladysforest on February 10, 2012.

33 Responses to “Newt WOWS At CPAC”

  1. Haahaa….LOL! You made me laugh, LF, with this one:

    Then I heard that the occupy communists were planning to do a bunch of mischief there……….and I was so tempted to go after all. With a handful of old fashioned hatpins. Oh yeah baby!

    • Hey, you can do massively painful howdy-do’s with those things. That’s how the ladies used to roll.

  2. WOW, I noticed Drudge had NO coverage of Newts speech. Instead he linked to an unflattering article about Callistas’ introduction. Pandering ass****.

    • I’m pretty much off of Newt now. He seems like he can’t control himself in many ways. Yep, he’s smart, but there’s other goofy stuff going on with him.

      • Lord a mercy, there is goofy stuff going on with each of them.

        Just wait until Mitt-man starts putting the squeeze on Rick. I do think he may hold off a bit to keep the not-Romney vote split, but I don’t think he’ll be able to help himself for long.

        Do you think he (Mitt) spent all that money, and nearly ruined his chances by attacking Newt, if he wasn’t most afraid of Newt?

        Since Mitt can’t stand being criticized, as soon as Rick starts in on him Mitt will retaliate. It will get ugly. Mitt is petty.

        What I find most strange is that he hasn’t touched Ron Paul.

  3. kittycat77, if goofy were a disqualification from public office then no one would EVER be elected. We all have some sort of goofiness or goofy aspect in our lives.

    ladysforest, I watched the video of Newt’s speech over at Legal Insurrection and was glad that he is now back onto his message. Haven’t seen a video of his wife’s into yet. I was very pleased by the speech because of the specifics he mentioned. It’s nice to know what we’ll be doing on Day 1 of the Newt Presidency. I also loved your hatpins comment but don’t forget the rolling pins as wel!

    • Hahaha – rolling pins.

      I was inclined to take along some ball bearings or marbles if I went. 🙂

      Yes, I think the video up at Legal In. is not from the best source. It doesn’t include Callista, and there is weird background noise. I watched it live, and didn’t hear any of that noise at all.

      Callista did OK-ish. She was pretty stiff for most of her speech. The close was nicely done, and her antidotes were well received. If ever a woman were in a difficult spot, it would be her. She is being shredded. People don’t know that Newt was separated at the time he actually began his physical relationship with her, nor that his second wife was the one that left. If I recall correctly, she left – and for a long time didn’t want to get a divorce because she was very fond of the position in society she had being Newts wife.

      While I don’t condone a person “moving on” with their life while still married, once I learned more facts, it’s not as bad as has been portrayed. Frankly, I would not expect any man or woman to remain alone for six years while the estranged spouse did whatever they wanted, and only stayed married to you for the social importance it gave them.

  4. Did you see the CPAC results? The establishment wants Romney.

    • Isn’t it absolutely WILD how this CPAC gathering, who, by the way, didn’t respond as well to Mittens speech as they did the Ricks or Newts, gave the straw poll nod to Mr. Mittens?

      The fix is evident. It is disgusting how we have NO voice any longer.

      Somewhat off topic – I was watching old footage of WWII today, and trying to wrap my mind around how having just a few wrong people in power can result in that horror. Where are the checks and balances when the average person trusts in the government – elected or otherwise – ?

      WE should have a G-DAMNED BUTTON ! Or football, or whatever it is called. It is all upside down.

  5. We still have a voice that matters, it’s called voting. The only thing we have to do besides that is convince others to vote the same way we will – and I am assuming that Newt will survive Super Tuesday. It’s aready abundantly clear that having a winner for the nomination by then does NOT help our chances against Democrats, nor does having whomever the GOP establishment wants as “their” candidate. I am actually looking forward to a brokered convention and the hijinks that will ensue because of it. Hopefully, I can get to go this time . . .

  6. I was listening to talk radio, I think Levine, and he mentioned reporter talking about coordination between the Paul and Romney campaigns.

    If Paul and Romney are coordinating their campaigns, there must be some agreement between them. Supposedly the plum for Paul was the stage for a speech at the convention.

    If Romney already has Paul under control, he would have no need to attack him.

    • Pauls’ camp is playing pissed off today. They are claiming again that the vote is rigged for Mitt. It was very close in Maine, and I wouldn’t put it past either Mitt or Paul to rig the vote outcome if they had half a chance. Heck, the GOP wants Mitt so badly, they probably have the thing all rigged.

      There are people that attended the CPAC speeches who are very suspicious about the straw poll results there. They said that Mitt failed to inspire, yet somehow won easily? I agree that it doesn’t seem likely.

  7. I listened to Fox News the other night where is was reported that the Romney campaign started out immediately catering to independents. I supose they assumed the party vote would automatically go to Romney because of the number of conservative candidates each of which will not be able to get enough votes to make it. Romney is now trying to back pedal and go consrvative.

    I do think it is unlikely that any one conservative candidate will get the number of required votes. This is unfortunate because if you add up all the votes for the constitutional candidates they exceed what Romney has. Everything is strategy.

  8. BTW LF, I dont know if you have seen this:

    I still havent digested the whole thing.

    • Well, I tried to read it. After the “maybes'”, “perhaps”, and “could haves”, made me drift offffffffffffffffffffffff………………………..

      LOL. The dailypen is still writing things as if they are conclusive, when in fact the whole premise is based on speculation. In other words, nice job spinning by the writer. I see little fact based material. It is stuff like this that keeps everyone running around chasing their tails.

      I try to avoid this effect when I post research.

      I will have to try again to read it, but so far it seems to be moderate conspiracy based on a couple of plausible scenarios. Lots of this kind of thing out there.


      • I tried reading it also but couldnt follow it. It assumes the certificate number is correct. I dont believe you can make the assumption.

  9. They also did a piece awhile back that assumed a bunch of stuff about how the numbers were assigned. They offered no factual references, but wrote it all up as though it was fact. I have never seen anything to support their claim.

    So far, from what I’ve read of this piece they are doing the same thing again.

  10. Have you got a copy of Newt’s birth certificate, the long form?

    • Tell ya what – you get obama’s actual BC – not a fraudulent computer image, and I promise I will nag Newt to produce his.

      • Why the double standard?

        Shouldn’t we begin a system of careful checks now, with the candidates who have not been vetted yet?

        • Double standard indeed! Shouldn’t this have been begun BEFORE obama was elected? Shouldn’t we demand from him what he has been loath to provide? Why just start now to vet?

        • Obama posted his birth certificate in June 2008. If it’s a big deal to anyone, you’d think they would be clamoring to make sure candidates this years have their paper ducks all lined up, don’t you think?

          I think Obama was properly checked out before 2008, in at least six ways.

        • An un-vetted IMAGE was posted. Never saw where a paper copy, properly certified with raised seal and all, was confirmed authentic. Never saw that.

          I believe many are calling for Santorums BC, something similar to obama’s situation I hear. Romney has been under the same microscope due to the whole “grandparents moved to Mexico” thing.

          Don’t worry yourself – it is not being applied solely to obama.

          BTW, I expected your re-emergence in “birther” blog comment threads now that your messiah is up for re-election. Remember my rules for posting.

  11. In any case, isn’t now the time to ask the Republicans who wish to be president to demonstrate their eligibility by showing their birth certificates? Polls show Obama’s vulnerable — surely we don’t want someone ineligible to succeed him.

    I assumed people who’ve spend more than two years on the issue wouldn’t drop the ball this time around. Who is pushing to get the documents from the candidates in 2012?

    • I know that there is a large group of people that have been repeatedly making requests to the Santorum and Romney campaigns to provide information re their fathers citizenship status at the time of their births.

      Newt was born to teenaged parents, who, like obama’s parents, were literally married a hot minute before calling it quits. Newts paternal grandparents were both born in America, as was his father. Newts maternal grandparents were born in America, as was his mother.

      The time to ASK questions and VET candidates SHOULD have always been at the time they enter the race. Not just now, and not just republicans. Though I see you mention only republicans, so does this mean you feel dems do not require vetting? *cough* Or are you for everyone to be properly vetted except obama?

      • There’s only one candidate on the Democratic side this time around, at least only one with a chance get the nomination. We know you’re checking him out.

        I was just curious why you’re ONLY checking out the Dems.

        • Come on – be honest. You damn well know it would never come down that ONLY a dem would be checked out. People are very serious about this. What have you got against the Constitution?

          Even though there is only obama on the dem side – he still needs the same vetting we ask of republicans. It needs to be equal.

      • I don’t know that you would check out anybody but Obama. That’s why I asked.

        I don’t see any scrutiny here of Mitt Romney. His father was Mexican-born, you know. Have you checked it out? How about Newt Gingrich? How is he eligible? Rick Santorum? Ron Paul?

        Don’t tell me someone is “going to check them out.” Do it.

        Otherwise, your motives appear quite suspect, don’t they? Why only the Democrat?

        • I’m giving you a heads up about your commenting. Cause I’m nice. Go and read the last few replies I’ve made to your “questions”-I’ve already answered your weak attempt at snark. I did so respectfully.

          What’s going on with you Ed? You used to be better at this. Get some coffee in you or something.

          Meanwhile, ponder over your answer to this: Do you, or do you not, personally care if the President of the United States (past, present or future) is a natural born Citizen as required by the Constitution? Do you believe the Constitution is old and should be set aside?

        • I’ve been polite. I’ve answered all of your snarky questions without responding with snark.

          I asked a simple question.

          Sure I’m concerned. I’m also concerned with fair play, especially as it reveals motives for otherwise inexplicable actions.

          You may not know why there is no effort to check out the bona fides of the Republicans. Just say so. That’s all.

        • Ed, last warning. Don’t post again if you are just playing “oh, it’s JUST the dems you guys want to vet”. Again, I direct you to the other answers I gave.

          You did not answer the question that I asked of you. You simply say that you are interested in fair play.

          I have already told you that there is indeed at least one very large group of people that are seeking to verify Rick and Mitt’s paternal citizenship questions. There, you have that answer AGAIN. Pay attention to that. I do not need to join each and every effort to vet the candidates. This group is only one of many. But I am pretty sure you know all about this stuff as you travel through the conservative blogs looking for a thread to disrupt.

          Newt has been vetted as to his parents citizenship. Through the census. Both sets of his grandparents as well as his parents were full US citizens. This I have already included in an answer to you. Pay attention to that.

          Who gives a shit about Ron Paul? I am a Libertarian, and I can’t stand him. He isn’t going to get close to the nomination anyway.

          So, if you are just going to loop through the same accusations/questions over and over and over, I will ignore you. What you think you are gaining by pretending to be a concern troll instead of the regular variety of troll, I can’t imagine.

        • If you posted a link to that group checking out the other candidates, I missed it. Would you post it again? Thanks.

        • It is not a public “group” as in “TEA Party from such and such a location”. Never have posted “links” to all such work that I do. Have I answered your concerns? Why is it not a public group? Because even though a large group of people share a common concern, and choose to work together to address that, they don’t all have an inclination to assemble a blog or website, or become a “public” movement. That is their own option. I respect what they do and how they choose to do their research. It’s mutual.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: