FULL SPEECH: Mitt Romney speaks at CPAC 2013

Mitt Romney spoke earlier today at CPAC 2013 and you can watch the full speech below:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

26 thoughts on “FULL SPEECH: Mitt Romney speaks at CPAC 2013

  1. You want a coherent no holds barred explanation of why Romney lost here it is:

  2. Nice job by CPAC audience when Mitt wasn’t really their man. Mitt is a very decent man. My problem is that his political consultants are the Washington establishment. They had no problem trashing conservatives like Santorum or Gingrich. They were able to drive down their “negatives” but when it came to the general they refused to attack Obama. Every speaker at the GOP convention was given the same stupid manatra that Obama is a “nice man but misguided”. OK then Obama the “nice guy” attacks Romney for 8 months as a guy who fires working class people, gives people cancer and doesn’t care about them. Romney should have loaned his own campaign money in the summer and fought back. The Rino consultant class target like 5% of the voters with mush. What happens million of conservatives stayed home and we have candidates who stand for nothing.. If Romney attacked Obama and tied his policies to him it could have been different. Conservative have to unite behind a generally condervative candidate early in the next cycle to stop this Bush, Dole, McCain, Romney loser syndrome. We need a candidate who can articulate and follow through on our principals.

  3. {Banging head on desk…} Mitt’s a very nice guy, but we needed a street fighter. Should have nominated Newt.

    1. @3seven77 I admit I would have love watching Newt wipe the floor with his Oneness, but Newt has more baggage than a fashion model on a five day photo shoot. Mitt needed to keep campaigning like he did in the primaries. If he had kept the pressure up like he did in the first debate he would have won. There were so many minor things missed that shouldn’t have. I believe Romney believed there was no way Obama could win, so he campaigned so as to not insult the Democratics because there would be big problems to solve very quickly and he honestly wanted to work with everyone.

      1. GJPinkansas As long as we keep agreeing with the liberal media and establishment Republicans about baggage your right Gingrich didn’t have a chance. But if instead you looked at his record and achievements which were far and away more extensive than any other candidate running he could have won in a cakewalk. 
        As for the first debate, it’s hard not to win when you have no opponent.

    2. 3seven77 Oh, he had his henchmen do some filthy fighting along the way, taking out other contenders.  The Virginia GOP saw to it that he and Ron Paul were the only ones on our ballot.  I can’t stand Ron Paul, but I voted for him in protest.  Mitt does indeed have a smarmy way about him — he just gets others to do his dirty work.  Having his “ex” democrat lawyer tell the Repub convention in FL that the GOP would field all candidates from now on was as slimy as it gets.

    1. c4pfan 
      Have you seen it now with this administration? I wish we could go back & do the fight all over again! I know that things WOULD be much more different! obamas election was all set to go! NO if’s and’s or buts about it!! If you not thoroughly involved with what is happening now than you have no clue as to what I am talking about! But you are on this site checking things out so you have to be involved somewhat….Romney should have taken it!!

    1. waytngtym DarkKnight2016 don’t blame we republicans.  romney lost because he wouldn’t fight obama like he did his primary opponents.  he was the reason we now have obamacare.  after his first debate with obama, he decided to play it safe and obama got his wind back and defined romney.  why vote for a democrat lite when you had the real democrat in obama?  i voted for romney but held my nose while doing so.

  4. poljunke I wish he would have stopped his rino campaign staff along with the repub party rino elite from omitting conservatives and Sarah Palin from his campaign.  Oh what could have been! 
    Dumbest campaign move ever!

  5. The State is where the “Moral” issues need to be dealt with…..The National Candidates need to leave the Moarl issues alone, and up to the individual State.

    1. CraigWettstein So, leave the playing field to the Democrats, who will use that reality to push their agenda and drive up their vote count, which is what Obama did in the last election, after portraying Romney as an out of touch plutocrat, aided and abetted by his 47% comment, thus suppressing the Romney vote. The result? Obama won re-election.

      1. In case anone has missed it the Progressives won the war by putting aside everything except the core principles of Marx and Mao. They won again and set liberty and the Constitution out to sea with us in leaky boats.

        Lets unite, take the damn beach and worry about who lights up  joint vs who pops open a budlight as we organize  the battle to scale the cliffs and  take back America.

    2. CraigWettstein The reason we even have moral issues as part of the National conversation politically is because liberals not only want to debase our society they are willing to force us by law if necessary to go along with. Liberals are the one who have forced us to defend moral issues. They aren’t content with their beliefs but must force others to believe as they do and resistance needs to occur at every level they try to impose them whether is locally or federally.

      1. cabensg CraigWettstein My point exactly……But if they forced back to the States level of government, the “local citizenry” could be their own judges and more able to deal with it.  It would also give the national population the ability to “vote with their feet”, by moving to states that were more in tune with their beliefs.

  6. Whatever you may think of this man, he is a good and gracious patriot. What a contrast to the nasty boy-king in the wh.

  7. mitt rmoney’s rino nomination cost us the most important election of our lifetime. Someone who lost to the worst loser of all time, hussein obama, in the midst of the worst economy and jobless record of all time, and the worst out of control spending of all time,and the worst proabortion prohomosexual perversion of all time, has nothing to say with empty rhetoric that hardly no one bought and certainly no one is buying now (except those who profit from his money)!

    1. AnthonyDavar: I don’t think he’s a rino. For that to be true, I’d have to be able to see him as a Democrat alongside Obama. I can’t picture Romney as a Democrat with or without Obama. Romney’s charitable works are incredible. He donates a large percentage of his earnings (albeit much of it is to his own Church). He gives a lot of his personal time. He is humble. None of these qualities can be attributes to most of the elitist Democrats that we see on TV all the time.

      1. I do not believe in RINOs. The elephant and donkey are just two sides of the same globalists’ coin. 
        They bought Obama as the two bit ideolgue who was able to mesmerizes the masses into selling their  liberty for free stuff and a future of collectivist wet dreams.
        They already owned Romney  – a backup in case American voters came out of our media induced stupor, a man who could they could trust to keep the wealth in transfer ,and still convince a shell-shocked populace that liberty and  free market capitalism still exists in this one party system.

      2. vorlath AnthonyDavar Romney is a humble, gracious philanthropist who believes in big government. I agree he doesn’t fit the current Democrat party but that doesn’t make him any less a liberal. Kennedy’s speech about what you can do for your country wouldn’t fit the current Democrat party either but it didn’t make him any less a liberal as LBJ proved after he took over. I don’t believe for a minute that Kennedy’s intent was any different than LBJ’s.

Comments are closed.