Washington (CNN) – Sarah Palin issued a warning to Mitt Romney Saturday, calling on the former Massachusetts governor to do a better job explaining his record to conservatives or risk dampening voter turnout in November if he wins the Republican presidential nomination.

In an interview with CNN and The New York Times before her speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Palin said she was confused by Romney’s declaration here on Friday that he was a “severely conservative Republican.”

“I wasn’t quite sure what the word ’severely’ meant,” Palin said.

She said Romney and his two main rivals – Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich – should be given time to explain the flaws in their record until the Republican National Convention in August, when she said the nomination fight could ultimately be decided.

But Romney may have the hardest sale to make, she said, asking him to explain his “shifts in ideology” since he left the Massachusetts governorship.

“You have to have the tea party patriots enthused and energized in order to win this nomination, and more importantly in order to defeat Barack Obama,” Palin argued.

If conservatives are “dismissed and they are marginalized” by the Republican establishment, “they are going to be much less enthused and much less willing to put it all on the line for the GOP candidate in the general election.”

Contrasting an America that can versus an America that can’t, Gingrich compared America’s speed and might in winning WWII versus her current inability to seal its own border. In a lighter moment, the former Speaker contrasted the efficiency of package tracking by Federal Express with the government’s inability to track illegal immigrants, suggesting sending each one a package may be the best way to apprehend the latter.

He also mentioned repealing Obamacare, Dodd Frank, and Sarbanes Oxley on his first day in office. He stated his desire to be a “paycheck president” versus a “food stamp president,” a term he used to denigrate Barack Obama.

Calling for a Fall campaign focused on substance, Gingrich also mentioned eliminating the Capital Gains tax and implementing 100% expensing for all new equipment written off in one year to help get the economy growing. Additionally, he called for a modernization of the workforce, proposing that unemployment compensation be linked to business training programs to avoid paying people for 99 weeks “for doing nothing.”

The solutions were bold but would obviously involve more than giving one speech. He called for the elimination of the EPA, replacing it with a new agency that would take economics and business interests into account in all decision-making. On tax policy, Gingrich called for a 12.5% corporate tax rate, abolishing the death tax, and the option of a 15% flat tax for individuals he called a tax cut.

Citing the need to shrink spending to meet revenue levels and the replacement of the current Civil Service system with a new modern personnel management system, his remarks appeared to be well received. Gingrich also cited abolishing the Dept of Energy (DOE) and a task forced to be headed by Texas Governor Rick Perry focused on the 10th amendment to return power to the states, as appropriate.

Gingrich also called for an audit of the Federal Reserve and an end to Ben Bernanke’s term as Chair of the Federal Reserve. The former Speaker also called for a more honest foreign policy, one acknowledging the dangers of radical Islamists intent on doing America and Americans harm.

One lady wearing an Occupy DC lapel pin proudly displayed a sign stating “Walmart for President.”

Although given multiple opportunities to explain what her sign meant, she stumbled aimlessly for the right words, eventually stating, “I’m going to have to think about that.”

Meanwhile, the Daily Caller’s Michelle Fields reports that protestors were paid $60 each to demonstrate against CPAC:

Protesters at Friday’s “Occupy CPAC” event, organized by AFL-CIO and the Occupy DC movement, told The Daily Caller that they were paid “sixty bucks a head” to protest outside the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.

One protester told TheDC that all the “Occupy” activists were being paid to protest, and that his union, Sheet Metal Workers Local 100, approached him about the money-making opportunity.

“I have nothing nice to say about Local 100. … They just told me ‘you wanna make sixty bucks? So c’mon,’” the protester said.

Fields adds that few of the protestors were willing to speak on camera.

I was a conservative governor.  I fought against long odds in a deep blue state.  I understand the battles that we, as conservatives, must fight because I have been on the front lines. (Update: In the speech as delivered, Romney described himself as having been “severely conservative.”)

Few conservatives will buy that. Mitt Romney governed as a Republican who could reach across party lines, not as a conservative willing to sacrifice his position for his values. Hence RomneyCare, which adorns the desk (at right) in the Romney portrait in the Massachusetts Statehouse.

Romney cites his stances on social issues as evidence of his conservatism in office, but the fact is that the most important social change of his era–a court decision legalizing gay marriage in the state–was largely out of his hands. I suspect that Romney’s glib reference to his opposition to that decision–”we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage”–will offend liberals without reassuring conservatives.

Romney could have owned up to the fact that he has departed considerably from conservative policy over the years, while stressing the key conservative principles upon which he has not yielded. But Romney went too far, claiming to be an across-the-board conservative, trying to be the “not-Romney” for whom many conservative voters still pine, rather than himself.

Santorum’s speech earlier in the program was, as Mike Flynn observed, disappointing, but when the former Pennsylvania senator talks about defending the idea that rights come from God and not the state, the audience senses that he is speaking from his deepest convictions.

Romney’s convictions are not conservative in a political sense. Romney did make one refreshingly honest admission today: “There are college students at this conference who are reading Burke and Hayek. When I was your age, you could have told me they were infielders for the Detroit Tigers.” Romney has failed to demonstrate, however, that Burke and Hayek are relevant in any way to what he has done thus far in his political career. Whenever he talks about the origins of his political views, as he did today, he mentions his father and his family.

Perhaps, then, Robert Filmer–author of Patriarcha, the seventeenth-century argument in favor of monarchy–is closer to Romney’s philosophical foundation.

That’s conservatism with a capital “C”–the idea that he is best fit to rule who has inherited the right. It’s not what most Americans would recognize today as conservatism, but it is what conservatism might have meant to the Founders, some of whom may have drawn inspiration for their revolution against the British Parliament from monarchist, rather than republican, principles.

Instead of trying to be “not-Romney,” the erstwhile Republican frontrunner should trumpet his true convictions–not as personal anecdote, but as political philosophy. He seems to believe he should govern because he has the right–so he should say so. He would be the regal president Alexander Hamilton always wanted, tightly restrained by the Constitution that Madison designed for the purpose.

What could be more conservative, and more American, than that?

CPAC should have been a triumphal moment for Rick Santorum. His sweep of election contests this week put a gale-force wind in his campaign’s sails. At this week’s “Wednesday Meeting” of center-right organizations and activists, hosted by Grover Norquist, there was palpable excitement about the results and Santorum’s prospects. CPAC attendees are a natural base for Santorum, who overall the other nominees has the more consistent, traditional conservative record. Talking to attendees, it was clear they wanted to believe in Santorum. Their hearts were with him, even if their minds were nagged by questions of his electability. Today’s speech was a tailor-made opportunity to put these fears to rest. He whiffed.

To be sure, Santorum’s CPAC speech was better than his normal stump speech, which tends to get bogged down in legislative and policy minutia. He attempted to provide an over-arching vision or narrative for his candidacy. But, his performance was rather lackluster. He received a warm reception from the crowd, but not the stirring response he was primed to receive.

His biggest missed opportunity, though, was dispelling doubts about his electability. His speech contained just a tinge too much of the kind of whining that plagues underdog campaigns. Complaining about “pundits” or the “establishment” or bemoaning one’s lack of financial resources only reinforces the belief that one’s campaign is a long-shot. Coming off three solid victories in a week, this was a mistake. Santorum has won four of the first 8 contests. Speaking to a crowd with a potential strong base of support, he should have assumed the mantle of frontrunner. Instead, he crowned himself the conservative base’s favorite remaining nominee who can’t win the nomination.

Police are warning everyone–including conservative bloggers credentialed for the event–to stay away from the confrontations as they struggle to contain the clashes, which Stranahan has described as “forceful.”

“It’s a coalition of different organizations including Occupy DC,” said James, an occupy protestor who joined the movement in late September from Orlando, Florida and emigrated to Occupy DC. “I think lots of organizations will be there too.”

James said the following of the Occupy CPAC plan:

The plan is for non-violent civil disobedience. We want to disrupt the conference and have our voices heard, have our message of the 99% against the 1% and have that voice take precedence. Things like CPAC have dog and pony shows, media circuses and it’s embarrassing. We’re supposed to be the most advanced democracy in the world and it’s embarrassing to have our political process look like a reality TV show.

It’s hard to say how many people will show up, but I think there will be a couple of hundred occupiers at least, and I heard at least three hundred people representing some unions, so my guess will be three to five hundred people. I hope it happens.

James also said that he hopes that Republicans will join their cause and said that during his time in Occupy Orlando there were “a couple” of Tea Party members and Republicans who occupied with them in Florida.

He added of the CPAC attendees:

I hope they realize we don’t take them seriously. They’re time is up–they just don’t know it yet. They are paper tigers and we are a scorching world fires, and by saying we, I mean the American people.

I would love it if people from CPAC came out and spoke to us as long as they were prepared to talk about the things we agree on and not the things we disagree on. We can agree to disagree on a lot of common issues, but when it comes to simple, common issues such as six banks running the country. I think we can find a whole lot of things to agree on with Republicans and libertarians. I’d like to see a non-violent, incremental revolution happen in this country. Something well thought out and move slowly.

Whether you’re on the right or the left, there’s so much posturing now. The Republicans know they’re not going to overturn Roe v. Wade in my lifetime so let’s get together and talk about reducing unwanted and teen pregnancies.

People ask what are you going to for the occupation? So, I ask well what are YOU going to do to change things because sitting at home and watching Dancing at the Stars and buying things online from IKEA? That’s not going to lead to a better future for your children.

Occupy DC protestors invited Big Government into their library at McPherson Square which includes a collection of historical and political biographies and texts. Under the American flag a piece of Occupy artwork hangs with Lady Justice's scales of justice - a dollar sign outweighs an infinity sign suggesting in America money outweighs everything else.

In it’s exclusive interview with James, Big Government tried to get a sense of what some of the general feelings were about the various CPAC speakers as well as President Obama. James said that he can only speak for himself on these issues, but explained he “could almost stomach” former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney when he was in office, but was now disappointed, and felt even greater disappointment with the other candidates:

ON RICK SANTORUM: “That’s just an embarrassment to our country that this guy is leading the Republican primary. He’s an intellectual lightweight. I’m not an elitist but even if you aspire to public service you should have a level of service and passion and be deeply informed on the issues.”

ON MITT ROMNEY: “On Mitt, it’s hard to say. I spent some time in Boston when he was governor there and that Mitt Romney I could almost stomach him. He was more of a centrist, he was balanced and reasonable, and now… why do we believe these things that politicians say? He was once reasonably pro-choice and believed in at least in some compromise on universal health care and led of the most liberal state in the country and now he’s indistinguishable from Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum.

WHY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS NOT COMMITTING TO ROMNEY: “The right-wing Christian base is looking for a reason, any reason to demonize him because he’s a Mormon. They’re showing their true colors, they’re wholly owned by radical, fundamentalist Christians and that cannot be good for the United States of America.”

ON NEWT GINGRICH: “Gingrich. Smart guy, really, really smart guy but I don’t agree with almost any of his political positions, and there was a time when he showed intellectual prowess, but his personal foibles are such that he shows he’s not suited for political office. Three wives? Come on. I’m the most open minded person in the world when it comes to social issues, but you want someone with strength and convictions, and he doesn’t. He’s lived his life like a drunken frat-boy.”

ON RON PAUL: “Ron Paul is the crazy uncle at both CPAC and Occupy DC. He has supporters on all sides of the spectrum. He’s personally good for the process because he does have very few common sense ideas but when you look at his intellectual underpinnings, he’s a little crazy. He’s unforgiving on certain social issues and it’s amazing how many people support him. You can’t be an Objectivist and a Christian at the same time.”

ON PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Obama sickens me, he’s the biggest disappointment of my life. I’m an anarchist but I vote because I still have to live in this system. On election-day, I felt sick, but I voted for him because he did seem like a different kind of politician. He gained his Senate seat just as a launching pad, but I believed him. I believed he was going to be a new politician, a new type of president, but he’s now just a big war criminal as George W. Bush as far as I’m concerned. When he appointed Geithner I was like, really? You’re going to get former Goldman Saks people? Obama had the opportunity with his force and personality as the first black president and really riding into office on a wave of hope and goodwill, there were a lot of slightly left Republicans even, but he’s never taken advantage of the bully pulpit he was given.”

ON THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT: “I think the most important thing about the occupation is that we are horizontal. We truly don’t have leadership. We represent such a broad sect of society we only agree on a few things and those things will come up to our general assembly process and sometimes they become part of the official position of Occupy. If you’re an occupier you’re not just encouraged but required to do the best thing for the occupation. As long as you’re not talking about violently hurting another human being, I may not join you, but I’ll stand in solidarity with what you do. I think what the occupation will achieve is not change but rather space for a chance. By hitting the 1 percent from every angle we are going to disrupt it and create that space for chance.”

James concluded the one hour interview by saying that he actually “pine(s) for the days of William F. Buckley, when there were intelligent people who would debate the issues with convictions.” He concluded, “There was a generation of conservatives. Many of them were well spoken, their arguments were well reasoned and they came from personal conviction and by and large you could, the American public could carry on a conversation that mattered without it devolving Jersey Shore.”