CPAC Day Three, Part Three: What More Can I Say?
| By Conventioneer - Feb 12th, 2006 at 2:00 pm EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog | Undercover at CPAC 2006 |
Don't feel like reading the entire recap? Check out my CPAC 2006 Day Three Quick Facts:
Ok, so I know I got rid of the Reagan Quotometer yesterday, but seeing as how there were scattered Reagan quotations throughout the day and Gingrich quoted him a whopping six times, I'll reinstate it, with the final count of heard Reagan quotes coming in at 19 for the three day event.
Official Swagventory Day Three:
18 Misc. pieces o' info
5 Magazines
5 Student newspapers
5 Thick reports
4 Bumper stickers
3 Business cards
2 Pens
1 Fake cell phone full of mints
1 Foam pig
1 Highlighter
1 Mug
1 Newspaper (The Washington Times, bleh)
1 Picture of Eisenhower
1 Poster
1 Shirt
Some Toilet paper with writing on it
Oddest Piece of Swag: Probably a toss up between the toilet paper and a business card urging me to "Join the Dark Side"--crazy conservatives--at least they're starting to admit what I've known for years.
Conservative Craziness Meter:
|----------|------|
0_____6__10
6. The students for the college panels were a bit extreme, and the NRA rep was (in my opinion) a loony toon, but Newt was all class, and so the craziness meter cooled off a bit. Had Newt not been so eloquent, we were probably looking at a rating somewhere in the 9 area. Well done.
After the room had finished listening to the respective accomplishments of the college panelists, the room was starting to get pretty crowded in anticipation of Newt Gingrich. After about 15 or so minutes, someone came out to introduce the man who was to introduce Newt. I have to say, that one day I hope I'm important enough to have my introducer be introduced--that's balla'.
Newt really floored me. He strayed away from the typical conservative demonization of Hillary, the media, and college professors, and really focused on core conservative issues. I daresay there were a couple of times in his speech when both I and Conventionette found ourselves agreeing with him. Whether that was a factor of his likeable speaking style or the merit of his arguments themselves, I don't know. But it was certainly impressive.
One of the best points he made was about the McCain-Feingold act, calling it "exclusively an assault on the First Amendment." He used the example of Mayor Bloomberg of NYC, citing how Bloomberg had put up $150 Million of his own money toward his two campaigns and that with all the restrictions presented by the McCain-Feingold Act, it was nearly impossible for an opposing candidate to match him. In this respect, the intention of the act--to protect the American people from a plutocracy--is backfiring.
In response, he proposed a law with two provisions: One, "The citizens of their congressional district or their state can donate any amount they want to candidates in their congressional district or their state, because we should re-bind the money power with the voting power so that the citizens back home have the bulk of the power to choose who represents them in Washington D.C." Two, "As a function of serving in the US House or the US Senate, you should give up the right to have any fundraiser of any kind in Washington D.C. and you should raise the money back home from the people you're supposed to represent." Newt claims that you would "in one stroke have re-centered power out of Washington and back in the grassroots." Personally, I don't think it's too bad an idea.
He did, however, did things that made me go "buh?" (Seriously, I think that's the sound I made). First of all, the beginning of his speech was focused on the poster child of Conservatism, the go-to guy we all know as Ronald Reagan. As such, he quoted Reagan around 6 times. I wasn't sure if I was listening to Newt Gingrich speak or Ronald Reagan by proxy. He also seemed to be pretty down on Lawyers, which I didn't think was very cool only because my mother is one and I have an immense respect for her; as well as entertaining notions of entering into the law profession myself someday.
The bulk of his speech was essentially split into three parts: Ronald Reagan, campaign reform and governmental corruption, and the ineffectiveness of large government bureaucracies. Though there were many things I didn't agree with ideologically, I found myself considerably less resistant to his message than any other I heard at CPAC. He was eloquent, intelligent, as fair as he could be without seeming like an unfaithful conservative, and knowledgeable. It was an ok end to a conference in which I was almost perpetually agitated.
That's all for now, but you haven't heard the last of me. Check back Monday for my final CPAC wrap up, the reveal of the identities of Conventionette and I (despite the fact I'm pretty sure you don't care who we are) a final swag count, and some bodacious pictures that we snagged from the convention.
More to come…
Ok, so I know I got rid of the Reagan Quotometer yesterday, but seeing as how there were scattered Reagan quotations throughout the day and Gingrich quoted him a whopping six times, I'll reinstate it, with the final count of heard Reagan quotes coming in at 19 for the three day event.
Official Swagventory Day Three:
18 Misc. pieces o' info
5 Magazines
5 Student newspapers
5 Thick reports
4 Bumper stickers
3 Business cards
2 Pens
1 Fake cell phone full of mints
1 Foam pig
1 Highlighter
1 Mug
1 Newspaper (The Washington Times, bleh)
1 Picture of Eisenhower
1 Poster
1 Shirt
Some Toilet paper with writing on it
Oddest Piece of Swag: Probably a toss up between the toilet paper and a business card urging me to "Join the Dark Side"--crazy conservatives--at least they're starting to admit what I've known for years.
Conservative Craziness Meter:
|----------|------|
0_____6__10
6. The students for the college panels were a bit extreme, and the NRA rep was (in my opinion) a loony toon, but Newt was all class, and so the craziness meter cooled off a bit. Had Newt not been so eloquent, we were probably looking at a rating somewhere in the 9 area. Well done.
After the room had finished listening to the respective accomplishments of the college panelists, the room was starting to get pretty crowded in anticipation of Newt Gingrich. After about 15 or so minutes, someone came out to introduce the man who was to introduce Newt. I have to say, that one day I hope I'm important enough to have my introducer be introduced--that's balla'.
Newt really floored me. He strayed away from the typical conservative demonization of Hillary, the media, and college professors, and really focused on core conservative issues. I daresay there were a couple of times in his speech when both I and Conventionette found ourselves agreeing with him. Whether that was a factor of his likeable speaking style or the merit of his arguments themselves, I don't know. But it was certainly impressive.
One of the best points he made was about the McCain-Feingold act, calling it "exclusively an assault on the First Amendment." He used the example of Mayor Bloomberg of NYC, citing how Bloomberg had put up $150 Million of his own money toward his two campaigns and that with all the restrictions presented by the McCain-Feingold Act, it was nearly impossible for an opposing candidate to match him. In this respect, the intention of the act--to protect the American people from a plutocracy--is backfiring.
In response, he proposed a law with two provisions: One, "The citizens of their congressional district or their state can donate any amount they want to candidates in their congressional district or their state, because we should re-bind the money power with the voting power so that the citizens back home have the bulk of the power to choose who represents them in Washington D.C." Two, "As a function of serving in the US House or the US Senate, you should give up the right to have any fundraiser of any kind in Washington D.C. and you should raise the money back home from the people you're supposed to represent." Newt claims that you would "in one stroke have re-centered power out of Washington and back in the grassroots." Personally, I don't think it's too bad an idea.
He did, however, did things that made me go "buh?" (Seriously, I think that's the sound I made). First of all, the beginning of his speech was focused on the poster child of Conservatism, the go-to guy we all know as Ronald Reagan. As such, he quoted Reagan around 6 times. I wasn't sure if I was listening to Newt Gingrich speak or Ronald Reagan by proxy. He also seemed to be pretty down on Lawyers, which I didn't think was very cool only because my mother is one and I have an immense respect for her; as well as entertaining notions of entering into the law profession myself someday.
The bulk of his speech was essentially split into three parts: Ronald Reagan, campaign reform and governmental corruption, and the ineffectiveness of large government bureaucracies. Though there were many things I didn't agree with ideologically, I found myself considerably less resistant to his message than any other I heard at CPAC. He was eloquent, intelligent, as fair as he could be without seeming like an unfaithful conservative, and knowledgeable. It was an ok end to a conference in which I was almost perpetually agitated.
That's all for now, but you haven't heard the last of me. Check back Monday for my final CPAC wrap up, the reveal of the identities of Conventionette and I (despite the fact I'm pretty sure you don't care who we are) a final swag count, and some bodacious pictures that we snagged from the convention.
More to come…
!
Comments are closed for this post.