Let me be blunt: Mitt Romney represents the same, old Republican Party I’ve been fighting against my entire adult life. The question today is, to what degree is the GOP the same, old Republican Party? To what degree will it remain the same, old Republican Party?

When I signed on with the 2012 Ron Paul campaign I viewed it as Part 2 of the Part 1 of our movement that Paul had inspired in 2008. Before 2008, the Republican Party was a depressing wilderness, offering absolutely nothing for constitutional conservatives. I had supported Pat Buchanan’s presidential runs in 1996 and 2000 in my early 20’s because he was the only candidate willing to take on the neoconservatives who were steadily influencing American foreign policy. With the election of George W. Bush, the neoconservatives would dominate on foreign policy. The GOP became so obsessed with championing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that the party became little more than apologists for big government so long as it was Republican. Medicare Plan D, No Child Left Behind, doubling our national debt, destroying the 4^th amendment with The Patriot Act—nobody cared. That period of the GOP was all about support for war at any cost, literally. At the 2008 RNC convention, neocon liberal Joe Lieberman was even given a prime time speaking spot while strict constitutionalist Ron Paul wasn’t even allowed in the building.

Like I said, during that time there was literally nothing of worth to constitutional conservatives in the Republican Party.

This is no longer true.

In his quest to save America, Ron Paul is also saving the Republican Party. The Democrat-lite, big government hacks and neoconservative maniacs who still think the George W. Bush model represents Republicanism defined—and believe me, they do—are quickly becoming yesterday’s news. Yes, they’re still there, and yes, they still have much influence.

But that influence is shrinking. Their base is shrinking. Want to know why more than half the votes cast by the under 30 crowd in each GOP primary state were for Ron Paul? Because the rising generation of libertarians and conservatives understand something many of their elders don’t—that we can’t afford the status quo anymore. Sure, many Americans share Paul’s young supporters fear that the country is going bankrupt, yet they still jealously guard the entitlements that are bankrupting us, or can’t imagine the U.S. not being militarily engaged all over the world, another massive drain on American taxpayers. The rising generation does not have these attachments. In fact, they can’t wait to detach themselves from them. American youth don’t expect to ever see Social Security or Medicare. Nor do they find it particularly strange that perhaps America shouldn’t police the world anymore.

In short, while the GOP establishment’s base is shrinking, Ron Paul’s is growing. For the first time in a long time—the Republican Party might actually become the limited government party it has always pretended to be. This is due to the ideas and influence of Ron Paul.

This is not wishful thinking on my part. Last month, renowned pollster John Zogby broke down the numbers at Forbes, citing what he calls “First Globals” (18-29 year olds):

Mitt Romney has spent months selling himself to the Republican base. Now, Barack Obama is working overtime trying to re-sell himself to his base of voters age 18-29. Team Obama knows that hard times and the growing libertarian leanings of young voters will make them a more difficult target than four years ago…

However, on some key issues, majorities of First Globals are not doctrinaire liberals. The poll found less than majorities agree with liberals on some of their most cherished beliefs.  For example: 44% agree health insurance is a right government should provide for those who can’t afford it, 43% agree with the same statement about food and shelter, 37% agree government should spend more to reduce poverty, 20% agree government spending is an effective way to economic growth…

Lest Republicans get too giddy at those findings, they should also know less than majorities agree with these conservative and neo-con ideals: 22% agree it’s sometimes necessary to attack potentially hostile countries rather than waiting until we are attacked, 23% are willing to give up some personal freedoms for the sake of national security…

These attitudes betraying both the traditional left and right fall generally within the bounds of libertarianism. Live and let live. Individual responsibility is as important as collective responsibility. Avoid military interventions. Distrust both government and corporations. Protect civil liberties.

Young voters have been the energy behind Ron Paul… 

Ron Paul and his supporters have not yet taken over the Republican Party. But they are taking over the Republican Party. In many states, Paul supporters have become significant parts of the GOP apparatus and even Republican Party leaders. I remember the head of the Iowa GOP saying that Ron Paul shouldn’t be allowed in the next debate after Paul’s spat with Rudy Giuliani about “blowback” in 2007. That same position in Iowa is now held by a Ron Paul supporter.

It is Paul’s ideas of liberty and individual freedom that are winning the day. There has been much written about how Ron Paul’s ideas about the Federal Reserve, sound money, civil liberties and even foreign policy have become standard Republican talking points. But more importantly, only Paul’s ideas address the emerging attitudes and concerns cited by Zogby. Conventional liberalism is bankrupt, and with Obama in office millions of Americans have come to this realization. But also conventional Republicanism, or establishment “conservatism,” is bankrupt, which millions of Americans learned under Bush and still see in too many Republican candidates. Paul’s constitutional conservatism is as old as the Founding Fathers, yet refreshing and new to a whole new generation. We could very well see an electorate emerging that doesn’t even immediately identify with conservatism or the GOP per se, but that is still more conservative in a true limited government sense than the current Republican partisans who brandish that label.

These are Ron Paul’s supporters. They are the future.

When I signed on with the campaign, we were all in it to make Ron Paul President of the United States. But I knew that even if Dr. Paul did not get the nomination, this fight—our fight—would be the most important political course of action in 2012. Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 is the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1960 and 1964. Goldwater failed twice in trying to win electoral victories (VP slot in 1960, President in ’64) but the Arizona Senator’s campaigns changed the Republican Party forever. Ask Ronald Reagan.

Likewise, the Texas Congressman’s two campaigns are changing the Republican Party before our very eyes. Ask Rand Paul. Ask Justin Amash. Ask Thomas Massie, Kurt Bills or any of the other countless liberty candidates running for national office in 2012—who actually have a shot at winning those offices. Ask the liberty candidates who end up running in 2014, 2016 and beyond how much Ron Paul has changed the Republican Party.

Ask me—before Ron Paul I had little to no hope for this country. Today, I’m filled with hope thanks to Paul and his movement. In saving the Republican Party, Ron Paul also, at least politically, saved me.

By most accounts, Mitt Romney will likely be the Republican nominee. Though still confusing, the delegate counts are what they are. This is significant. But from the perspective of any Paul supporter, a nominee Romney should be far less significant than it sounds.

If Romney loses the general election, we will have to endure another 4 painful years of Obama—but the Ron Paul movement remains, and the Republican Party will continue to be cast even more in the mold of Ron Paul.

If Mitt Romney wins the election, there will be a different dynamic in the GOP than what we suffered through under Bush. There was no conservative pushback against Bush’s big government offenses because, as I noted earlier, there was really no conservatism to be found in the Republican Party. Now we have Senator Rand Paul, and regular allies like Senators Mike Lee and Jim DeMint. We have Congressman Justin Amash. We have a number of Ron Paul-inspired candidates running in 2012 that might be joining these leaders on Capitol Hill. There will be even more in 2014. If a President Romney were to insist on protecting and expanding the status quo, like Bush did, there is a genuinely liberty-minded and limited government wing of the Republican Party to resist any such agenda. This is the first time this has occurred in my lifetime.

The current fight over the direction of the Republican Party will continue to be fought whether or not a Republican or Democrat wins the next presidential election. And that fight has been defined, and will continue to be defined, by the philosophy and person of Ron Paul.

The campaign will continue to rack up delegates, and needs to rack up as many delegates as possible, so that we roll into Tampa with as much influence as possible. Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton has stressed that rewriting not only some platform tenets—but also, and perhaps most importantly, standing Republican rules—will be necessary to loosen the establishment’s stranglehold on the process and to give future liberty candidates some leverage.

Running for office has always been about two things: Winning elections and building coalitions. The latter is as important as the former, precisely because you can’t eventually win elections without first building coalitions. Ask coalition-builder Goldwater and election-winner Reagan. The coalition we’ve built—and continue to build—will withstand and triumph over anything that happens in this particular election. What we represent is bigger than Mitt Romney. Seriously.

This is precisely why Ron Paul is not suspending his campaign or dropping out. He can’t. This campaign remains the most important in the entire 2012 race, no matter how little the mainstream media gets it, or even if sometimes Paul supporters don’t get it. Ups and downs, confusion, happiness and sometimes bewilderment are inherent in any genuine grassroots movement. But we can’t lose focus of the big picture.

I signed on with this campaign for Part 2 of the Revolution that Paul began in 2008. After Tampa, we will begin Parts 3, 4, 5 and however many are necessary until this movement triumphs philosophically, ideologically, electorally—totally.

And we will. This is why it’s vitally important not to give up on Part 2 before it is complete. Even if he wins, I predict Mitt Romney will be an asterisk in the history books—while Ron Paul and his movement will help write the history books.

Ron Paul is the most important political figure of our time. In time, the whole world will know it.

Today from Buzzfeed:

“Asked if this is a dropout, Paul’s campaign manager Jesse Benton said ‘Absolutely not! We are focusing our efforts squarely on winning delegates and party leadership positions at state conventions.”

Hopefully this will help clear up some of today’s confusion:

President Obama has maintained a foreign policy similar to that of George W. Bush. Mitt Romney thinks it isn’t enough and that we need to spend even more overseas to the tune of $2.1 trillion. 

Ron Paul has made the point time and again that our hyper-interventionist foreign policy is too costly and counterproductive. Many Republicans still say “I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.”

Well, they had better start liking Dr. Paul on foreign policy if they want to win the military vote. Americans are tired of wars that make absolutely no sense. So are our soldiers. From Reuter’s:

Mack McDowell likes to spend time at the local knife and gun show “drooling over firearms,” as he puts it. Retired after 30 years in the U.S. Army, he has lined his study with books on war, framed battalion patches from his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, a John Wayne poster, and an 1861 Springfield rifle from an ancestor who fought in the Civil War.

But when it comes to the 2012 presidential election, Master Sergeant McDowell is no hawk.

In South Carolina’s January primary, the one-time Reagan supporter voted for Ron Paul “because of his unchanging stand against overseas involvement.” In November, McDowell plans to vote for the candidate least likely to wage “knee-jerk reaction wars.”

Disaffection with the politics of shock and awe runs deep among men and women who have served in the military during the past decade of conflict. Only 32 percent think the war in Iraq ended successfully, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. And far more of them would pull out of Afghanistan than continue military operations there…

While the 2012 campaign today is dominated by economic and domestic issues, military concerns could easily jump to the fore. Nearly 90,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan. Israeli politicians and their U.S. supporters debate over whether to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities as partisans bicker over proposed Pentagon budget cuts…

Mitt Romney has accused President Obama of “a dangerous course” in wanting to cut $1 trillion from the defense budget – although the administration’s actual proposal is a reduction of $487 billion over the next decade…

Romney, along with his primary rivals Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, had also accused Obama of “appeasement” toward U.S. enemies…

If the election were held today, Obama would win the veteran vote by as much as seven points over Romney, higher than his margin in the general population.

The GOP’s heated rhetoric, aimed at the party’s traditional hawks, might be expected to resonate with veterans. Yet in interviews in South Carolina, a military-friendly red state, many former soldiers expressed anger at the toll of a decade of war, questioned the legitimacy of George W. Bush’s Iraq invasion, and worried that the surge in Afghanistan won’t make a difference in the long run.

“We looked real cool going into Iraq waving our guns,” said McDowell, 50, who retired from the 82d Airborne Division in November with a Legion of Merit and two Bronze Stars. “But people lost their lives, and it made no sense.”

Now he worries. “I really don’t like the direction we are going, how we seem to come closer daily towards a war with Iran…”

“I went to war for George Bush,” said Grafton, 48, a retired Army master sergeant who served in special operations units in Somalia and Iraq. “But we can’t keep policing the world.”

Now he is “watching the primaries very closely to see who will be the least careless with soldiers and their families…”

I was pleased to see a number of friends on this great list from Business Insideron influential women within the Ron Paul movement.

But the larger point is, is there a “Women of the Newt Gingrich Revolution” list? The “Romney Revolution?” The “John McCain Revolution?”

Those in the mainstream media who continue to wonder why Dr. Paul is still a candidate refuse to admit, or are comically blind to the fact, that Paul goes on precisely because he is so much more than a candidate. 

Ron Paul is a revolution. This revolution extends far beyond the man himself. Here are some of the women who are leading it:

Behind the scenes, a growing number of women — and millennial women in particular — are taking arms in the Ron Paul Revolution, as grassroots organizers, party activists, anti-Establishment political operatives, and elected representatives.

“It’s not uncommon…to joke about how an upcoming event will be awesome because there will be at least one girl for every 30 guys,” said Bonnie Kristian, a Ron Paul supporter who serves as director of communications at Young Americans for Liberty. “In practice, however, the ratio is much better than that, and over the five years or so that I’ve been involved, I’ve seen a very steady increase in the proportion of women in the movement.”

Kristian is part of a cadre of young women who have quickly risen through the ranks of Paul-inspired organizations, a cottage political industry that is working to remake the Republican Party in Paul’s image. 

These women are far more comfortable talking about Austrian economics and defense appropriations than about gender politics.

And when Paul leaves Republican politics this year, they are ready to take over the mantle of his movement…

“Meet the Women of the Ron Paul Revolution” 

Reports The Des Moines Register:

Sen. Rand Paul, in Des Moines today, said if the Republican Party wants to grow, it needs to include supporters of his father who bring different views on certain issues.

“People talk about it being a big tent – having a big tent means bringing in the Ron Paul people. And if you do, your party will grow,” he said…

Drew Ivers, a Ron Paul campaign official in Iowa, called the changes “growing pains” that are offset by the benefits of growing the party. He said people new to politics can be “zealous” and don’t always understand customary procedures, but they will learn with experience.

Paul spoke at an event sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a super-PAC that opposes President Obama’s green energy agenda…

Sen. Paul is right. The Ron Paul people are not only growing the GOP–they’re transforming it.

It really is amazing how Ron Paul almost single-handedly brought the Federal Reserve issue to the mainstream of American politics. Wolf Tichter at Business Insider wrote on Monday:

You just have to admire Ron Paul for his tenacity and non-flip-flopping straightforwardness—a breath of fresh air in the putrid morass of Washington—even if you disagree with his policies. And while he still can, before retiring from Congress, he is slugging at the Fed again.

This time, as Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. The committee, which has oversight authority over the Fed, will convene on Tuesday to weigh six bills to “Reform or Abolish” the Federal Reserve, including his Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act. From the press release:

“More and more people are beginning to understand just how destructive the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy has been. I hope that this hearing will kick start a serious discussion on the need to rein in the Fed,” said Chairman Paul. “100 years is far too long for Congress to have taken a hands-off approach. The Fed continues to reward Wall Street banks while destroying the dollar’s purchasing power and driving up the cost of living for average Americans. This reckless behavior must come to an end.”

While his efforts to abolish the Fed have been fruitless, he scored a huge victory—after years of trying, and being shunted aside by members of Congress—when his legislation to slap the Fed with an audit was included in the Dodd-Frank Act. It made possible not just one but two audits of the Federal Reserve System by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Though limited in scope, they nevertheless allowed a few rays of sunshine to pierce the Fed’s plantation shutters and illuminate some of the shenanigans, including octopus-like conflicts of interests that twisted their arms around everything during the multi-trillion-dollar bailout mania between 2007 and 2009.

Moving forward, the dangerous policies of the Federal Reserve continue to be recognized as a root cause of our financial crisis.

Americans from across the ideological spectrum should thank Ron Paul for finally shining light on this monstrous institution.

The Congressional Budget Office projects ObamaCare’s cost to be about $1.76 trillion. Most conservatives rightly recognize we can’t afford this.

President Obama’s current military spending is about $1.2 trillion.

Mitt Romney’s proposed plan calls for $2.1 trillion in military spending. Romney’s military budget alone dwarfs ObamaCare.

When Senator Rand Paul tried to introduce a budget that would balance the budget in five years, few Republicans stood with him, saying that it “cut” military spending. Sen. Paul’s plan actually called for a military budget the size of what we had in 2006, hardly a barebones fighting force.

When Ron Paul introduced his Restore America Now plan that cut $1 trillion in the first year, conservatives cheered. Paul’s plan even allowed for more  military spending than George W. Bush did in 2006. Still, similar to their lack of support for Sen. Paul’s plan, many Republicans said Ron Paul was “cutting” military spending too deeply.

There are no “cuts” to military spending. There are only decreases in proposed increases. Republicans who say otherwise are using the same trick liberals use to say Republicans are “cutting” domestic spending. Our national debt should tell any American that our government has cut nothing in decades.

What’s worse, Romney’s willingness to dramatically increase military spending will be far more than $2.1 trillion. Reports CNN:

Mitt Romney is campaigning on a platform that emphasizes less spending, smaller deficits and renewed fiscal responsibility.

But in one budget area, Romney is running the opposite direction. The former Massachusetts governor wants to increase defense spending by leaps and bounds. By one estimate, additional spending would exceed $2 trillion over the next decade…

Romney’s plan calls for linking the Pentagon’s base budget to Gross Domestic Product…

With the Pentagon’s base budget — which does not include war costs… The additional spending really piles up in future years.

“Does not include war costs?” Aren’t those kind of expensive?

If the courts overturn ObamaCare, which looks very likely, Americans are stuck with two presumed presidential candidates who will essentially spend an equal amount of money, thus racking up further deficits and debt.

Ron Paul has stressed time and again that to seriously tackle big government and debt we have to reduce both domestic and foreign spending. Paul’s Restore America Now plan allows for the strongest military force on earth, but within the confines of the Constitution and our budget.

Romney’s willingness to spend far more than our national deficit on just military alone does not bode well for anyone wanting to save this country from imminent bankruptcy.

Americans who now reject Obama also do not want to return to George W. Bush. Romney’s military budget alone spends more than Obama or Bush. 

The campaign made the announcement today that the ‘Youth for Ron Paul’ (YFP) program membership has now surpassed 110,000 members.

This has happened in just eight months. This is amazing.

It is also not surprising. Discussing what he calls ‘First Globals’ (18-29 year olds) renowned pollster John Zogby broke down some interesting statistics last week at Forbes:

On some key issues, majorities of First Globals are not doctrinaire liberals. The poll found less than majorities agree with liberals on   some of their most cherished beliefs.  For example: 44% agree health insurance is a right government should provide for those who can’t afford it, 43% agree with the same statement about food and shelter, 37% agree government should spend more to reduce poverty, 20% agree government spending is an effective way to economic growth and 28% agree government should do more to curb climate change even at the expense of economic growth. (That last number has to hurt environmentalists.)

Lest Republicans get too giddy at those findings, they should also know less than majorities agree with these conservative and neo-con ideals: 22% agree it’s sometimes necessary to attack potentially hostile countries rather than waiting until we are attacked, 23% are willing to give up some personal freedoms for the sake of national security, 39% agree cutting taxes is an effective route to economic growth, 24% agree we should eliminate all barriers to trade, 25% agree recent immigration has done more harm than good, 21% agree religious values should play an important role in government and 25% agree homosexuality is morally wrong.

Zogby concludes:

These attitudes betraying both the traditional left and right fall generally within the bounds of libertarianism. Live and let live.  Individual responsibility is as important as collective responsibility. Avoid military interventions. Distrust both government and corporations. Protect civil liberties.

Young voters have been the energy behind Ron Paul… He is still in the GOP race for President, apparently looking to impact the party platform. 

Impact indeed. Those 110,000 Youth for Ron Paul members represent a force that will continue to reshape American politics far beyond 2012. 

History is full of small groups that start revolutions. 110,000 is not a small group.

In 2004, Republicans railed against someone who was perceived as an out-of-touch Massachusetts elitist. Enough independents agreed with this sentiment to defeat John Kerry and re-elect a still unpopular George W. Bush. Already, Democrats are railing against the establishment GOP frontrunner as an out-of-touch Massachusetts elitist. Still, Republicans are simply banking on Obama’s unpopularity.

But like 2004, will this be  enough for Republicans to win?

The latest Rasmussen poll shows Ron Paul tied with President Obama, with both men scoring 42% of the general electorate vote. But what does this mean? Simple: Paul represents something far and away different from both the Democratic and Republican establishments and the American people know it. Better yet, they like it.

But does the GOP get this? Like 2004, Americans are simply not satisfied with the two establishment candidates. What is it about Ron Paul that attracts people from across every imaginable ideological, religious, racial and political background? What is it about a message of  individual freedom, peace and prosperity that continues to excite so many Americans?

This isn’t the first time Ron Paul has measured up well against the President in a poll. Instead of ignoring him, Republicans better start figuring out why only Ron Paul continues to generate the kind of excitement both  parties just can’t seem to muster.

The mainstream media continues to ask ‘what is Ron Paul doing?’ As I noted yesterday, reporters understand how to cover a horserace but have no clue how to cover a movement.

Ron Paul represents something markedly different from both the Democrat and Republican establishments. Our problems did not begin with Barack Obama and they won’t be solved if the Republicans go back to George W. Bush. Saving America necessarily requires an ideological revolution in our overall politics, not simply restaffing the White House with more of the same. During his speech in Austin, Texas Saturday, Dr. Paul explained what’s really at stake right now in American politics:

“A true revolution has to be ideological. Revolutions can be violent, they can overthrow a government with nothing really improved. An ideologically positive revolution is what is necessary, and that’s what we have going in this country. We may lose a battle here or there. But ultimately we are going to win the war because we are winning the hearts and minds of the American people.”