A little under two decades have passed since the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan, left the White House and wrote the final chapter on one of America's most successful presidencies. And in the aftermath of those two decades, the party defined by Mr. Reagan has, updating the words of Theodore Roosevelt, become a tangle of squabbling ideologies.
The Republican Party is in a state of disrepair. Burdened by two terms of George W. Bush and still feeling the sting of being evicted from majority status in 2006, the Republican Party is a party without a compass. It is a party that has lost touch with its soul.
This author does not have any wide-eyed revisionist memories of an Ozzie and Harriet Republican Party where divisions were scarce and political harmony was uninterrupted. Since the early 1970s there has been a constant struggle between the Rockefeller Republicans - those who embrace Wall Street over Main Street - and the Reagan Republicans: God, country and apple pie Republicans.
But while those vying for power in the party may have disagreed on the political means utilized to advance GOP interests, it was safe to believe that everyone was in agreement on the ultimate end: an America that is independent, self-sufficient, secure, culturally united and free from foreign entanglements. This, however, is no longer the case.
Just take a glance at the Republican candidates seeking to fill the shoes of President Bush. Rudy Giuliani wants to spread the war in Iraq to Iran, while Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home. Mitt Romney touts the success of free trade agreements and Duncan Hunter calls for a trade policy that puts America first.
John McCain fought vigorously for open borders amnesty, while Tom Tancredo and Mr. Hunter fought for funds to build an 854-mile fence along the southern border. Most candidates want to continue manipulating the economy by printing money the U.S. does not have, but Dr. Paul wants to return to the gold standard.
Mike Huckabee, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Hunter, and Dr. Paul are committed to the protection of life, but Fred Thompson opposes a human life amendment, Mr. Romney conveniently found his pro-life passion in the wake of his campaign, and Mr. Giuliani is overtly pro-choice. In essence, Republicans no longer know what it means to be a Republican.
It is said that a person cannot know who is he is until he knows where he has been. The same is true for a political party.
Since the days of Lincoln, the Republican tradition has been to put country before commerce and American interests before all others. The party, until recently, has adhered to George Washington's warning against foreign entanglements and committed itself to a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Understanding Mr. Reagan's warning that "a nation that cannot protect its borders is no longer a nation," Republicans have, until recently, resisted amnesty and fought to preserve American culture from being engulfed by its Hispanic counterpart.
As for social issues, Republicans could always tell America what is right and what is wrong. This, however, is not the case today.
But if you look at the history of Republican, or for a better term, traditionalist philosophy, it is Ron Paul who makes the perfect fit. The Texas congressman is committed to the Constitution, would remove America from the mess in Iraq, return fiscal order to Washington and balance social issues as to respect individual liberty.
But Dr. Paul cannot win, so the argument goes. To support such a contention, politicos have pointed to campaigns of Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes. The dynamic of the 2008 election, however, is different from 1988, 1996 and 2000, for there is no clear front-runner leading the GOP pack.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush was candidate of choice for the ivory tower. That meant he received the money, endorsements and the full support of the RNC. The same was true of Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000. This time around, the establishment has been unable to crown its nominee.
Then you add the money factor. Unlike his dark-horse counterparts, Dr. Paul has raised over $9 million this quarter with more on the way. He displaced Mr. Romney as the candidate who raised the most money in a single day, and his supporters are organizing yet another fundraising blitz.
Finally, Dr. Paul has the message. The electorate is as volatile as it has been in years. Frustrated by illegal immigration, tired of fighting a war it did not want and disgusted with the establishments of both parties, Dr. Paul's day has come.
The revolution is real, and those in the ivory tower had better start digging a bigger moat.
Paul is rising, there's no doubt. And he's got money. But Huckabee is now:
1st in Iowa 2nd in Florida 2nd in Texas 2nd/3rd in New Hampshire AND 2nd IN THE NATION (15% nationally, 5% ahead of Romney, according to Rasmussen's daily tracking poll)
Huckabee has accomplished this with almost no money, AND NOW he is pulling in exponentially more money than he was (see his site). Huckabee with money is a revolution of nominational proportions.
Huckabee's support is very regional. How much of his funding is coming from less than enuthiastic Southern Baptists? He may be getting more funds now, but it's still a very small sum to run a broader campaign.
Huckabee's support is driven by an infusion of mainstream media coverage; i.e. a lot of it is name recognition. Ron Paul keeps steadily gaining as he gets his message out and with another month to go he has plenty of time to build his support. Huckabee on the other hand has plenty of time to lose his support as people become aware of his record as a tax raiser, someone who wants government intervention in medical care, and seems to be soft on immigration...at least when he's handing out government largess to the children of illegals and thus encouraging their parents to come.
Also, Ron Paul is addressing the single most important issue to America's future: monetary policy. No other candidate is.
Commentary 
