When House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan was asked why his latest budget repeals the 2010 federal health-care -- despite the results of last year's presidential election -- the former Republican vice-presidential running mate gave this answer.

"So just because the election didn't go our way," he told National Review," that means we're supposed to change our principles?"

But on the eve of the three-day Conference Political Action Conference (CPAC) that begins on Thursday in the DC area and that will hear from countless Republican politicians, Ryan's answer raises this follow-up question:

What principles -- beyond opposing President Obama's agenda?

Is the GOP a free-market party, or one that's willing to federally bail out the banks if the country is on the brink of another Great Depression?

Is it a party that believes in strong national defense, or is it willing to wage a nearly 13-hour filibuster to highlight how drones could infringe on civil liberties?

Is the GOP a party that stresses deficit reduction and balanced budgets above all else, or is it one willing to support unpaid-for wars and unpaid-for new entitlements?

Is it a party that favors comprehensive immigration reform, or that opposes it?

Does the GOP oppose tax increases, or will it vote for raising rates on the wealthiest Americans?

And is it a party that opposes gay marriage, or one that's becoming more accepting of it?

Yes, the GOP believes in lower taxes and less government. But as Politico's Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman write, many of the tensions above will be on display at CPAC as the party -- after its second-straight presidential loss -- finds itself in the midst of an "identity crisis."

"The pillars of the conservative era ushered in by Reagan — a muscular defense, traditional cultural values and devotion to free markets – are being questioned by leading Republicans, and what could take the place of the Gipper’s trinity is now being openly debated in a fashion more reminiscent of the famously fractious Democrats of yore."

Ryan, who speaks at CPAC on Friday, embodies many of these very tensions. He warns of deficits and debt, but supported the Iraq war, the Bush tax cuts, and the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. He believes in the free market, but voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (or TARP). And he now supports comprehensive immigration reform (and maybe even a path to citizenship), but was on a presidential ticket opposing it.

Of course, it's only natural for a party outside the White House to experience an identity crisis. After all, there's no one true leader to unify the different constituencies. And the one unifying force is opposing the president in power -- and that's true whether a Democrat or Republican sits in the Oval Office.

Indeed, after their second-straight presidential loss in 2004, Democrats faced a similar identity crisis. Should it strenuously oppose the Iraq war, or support it? Push for universal health care, or ignore it? Disagree with the Bush-era tax cuts, or call for them to expire?

Yet by the time the Democratic race for president began, the top candidates -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson -- were unified on all the big issues. They opposed the Iraq war; they supported universal health care; they were against the Bush tax cuts. That's why the Democratic primary was fought over the margins (like whether there should be a mandate for health insurance).

And for Republicans, that's the story to watch over the next couple of years. It's one thing for the party to experience an identity crisis in 2013 and 2014. It's another thing -- as Obama prepares to exit office -- to experience that in 2015 and 2016. 

During his presidential bids in 2008 and 2012, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was an easy target for establishment Republicans to ridicule.

Many laughed at his demands to "end" the Federal Reserve and reinstitute the gold standard. At debates, they sometimes booed his non-interventionist views on foreign policy and national security. And he never won a single nominating contest during those two presidential runs, though he did rack up delegates in 2012.

But Paul -- and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) -- could be the ones laughing now.

Indeed, Rand Paul's marathon filibuster on Wednesday against President Obama's pick to head the CIA -- joined by other GOP senators (including conservative stars like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, as well as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell) -- was the latest evidence that the Pauls might have had a larger imprint on today's Republican Party than its last two presidential nominees.

Consider the libertarianism in the Tea Party, the calls to cut spending, the growing suspicion of the Federal Reserve, and some growing skepticism about the use of force.

That sounds much more like Ron Paul than John McCain or Mitt Romney. And son Rand is already being viewed as a potential 2016 presidential candidate.

But it also doesn't mean that all Republicans have jumped on board. On Thursday, McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) took to the Senate floor to denounce Rand Paul's criticism of the Obama administration's drone program -- the issue at the heart of his filibuster.

"If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms," McCain said, quoting the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page.

"To somehow allege or infer that the president of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda or someone who disagrees with the policies is a stretch of imagination, which is frankly ridiculous," McCain added.

But that even this drone debate is taking place inside the GOP -- and that Cruz and Rubio joined Paul's filibuster -- shows the growing influence that the Pauls have had on the GOP and conservatism.

Over the last several years, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll has chronicled a decline in the public's attitude about key institutions.

Fewer Americans have confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, corporations, the federal government and the news media than they once had.  

But the most recent NBC/WSJ poll highlights another American institution that has lost its luster: the sports athlete.

According to the survey, only 42 percent of adults believe that athletes are good role models for children, versus 48 percent who disagree.

Why those numbers are so jaw-dropping: When another poll asked this exact same question in 1982, a whopping 75 percent of respondents said athletes are good role models, while just 19 percent said they weren't.

"That is a profound change over a generation," said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who co-conducts the NBC/WSJ poll.

Of course, it's not difficult to explain the change. Just think about all of the scandals over the last few years involving performance-enhancing drugs or sex. Lance Armstrong. Barry Bonds. Tiger Woods. The list goes on.

And so does the decline in another American institution.

The NBC/WSJ poll was taken Feb. 21-24 of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents), and it has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

Americans For Responsible Solutions, the gun-control group founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly, is airing TV ads in Arizona and Iowa to persuade Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to back universal background checks.

"We have a problem -- where we shop, where we pray, where our children go to school," Giffords says to the camera in one of the ads. "But there are solutions we can agree on, even gun owners like us." The screen then says: "Tell Senator Grassley to support background checks."

Recommended: Jeb Bush lays down his marker

Grassley is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that's considering all the gun-control legislation, and Flake also is a member of the committee. (Flake also represents the state, Arizona, where Giffords once served as a congresswoman before she was shot by a gunman.)

The ads -- a combined six-figure ad buy through this week and next -- are almost carbon copies of the advertisements Americans For Responsible Solutions aired last month.

With the automatic across-the-board spending cuts set to begin on Friday, Americans are split over whether President Barack Obama is emphasizing unifying the country or taking a partisan approach, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

But by nearly a 3-to-1 margin, respondents conclude that the Republican Party is emphasizing partisanship more than unity.

In the poll, 48 percent say Obama is pursuing a path to unify the country in a bipartisan way, while 43 percent say he's taking a partisan approach that doesn't unify the country.

Recommended: Boehner blasts Senate Democrats for inaction

By comparison, 64 percent say the Republican Party is taking a partisan approach, versus 22 percent who say it's focused on unity.

As for the Democratic Party, a plurality of respondents -- by a 49 percent to 37 percent margin -- think it is emphasizing partisanship more than unity.

The full NBC/WSJ poll -- which was conducted Feb. 21-24 of 1,000 adults, and which has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points -- comes out beginning at 6:30 pm ET.

It's unclear if the tragic shooting at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School -- as well as the subsequent ones across the country -- will lead to passage of gun-control legislation in Congress. But they might have had this immediate result: transforming the politics and focus inside the Democratic Party, at least in solid-blue districts and states.

Look no farther than Tuesday's upcoming Democratic special congressional primary in Illinois to fill Jesse Jackson Jr.'s vacant seat in the Chicago area, where Cook County Chief Administrative Officer Robin Kelly has become the front-runner, thanks in large part to the issue of guns.

"Robin Kelly has spent her career fighting to get deadly weapons off our streets," goes one of her TV ads. "In Congress, Kelly will keep taking on the NRA, fighting to ban assault weapons and outlaw high-capacity ammunition clips."

Recommended: Third Republican comes out in support of Hagel; 15 others ask Obama to withdraw nomination

A super PAC funded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Independence USA, has spent more than $2 million in the race to both endorse Kelly and knock two of her opponents with strong gun-rights records, including former Congresswoman Debbie Halvorson (the only white candidate running in this multi-candidate field).

"In the race to replace Jesse Jackson, watch out for Debbie Halvorson. When she was in Congress before, Halvorson got an 'A' from the NRA," argued an Independence USA TV ad, adding: "Debbie Halvorson -- when it comes to preventing gun violence, she gets an 'F.'"

Another ad by the group goes, "In the race for Congress, the big issue -- fighting gun violence. Debbie Halvorson and Toi Hutchison both earned an 'A' from the NRA. They can't be trusted."

(Hutchison has since dropped out of the race and has endorsed Kelly, providing more evidence that Kelly is the candidate to beat on Feb. 26.)

Recommended: GOP's weak position on the sequester

While this is just one race occurring in a city that has been plagued by gun violence, next week’s special primary highlights three important points:

1. The National Rifle Association has become anathema to many Democratic voters. That’s especially true in the wake of the organization’s combative public relations campaign after the Newtown shootings, which included the NRA invoking President Barack Obama’s daughters in an advertisement attacking the president. According to last month’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, just 20 percent of Democrats had a favorable view of the NRA, versus 57 percent who had an unfavorable view. (That’s compared with 64 percent of Republicans and even 49 percent of independents who hold a favorable view of the organization.) In past Democratic primaries, an NRA endorsement was either a badge of honor or something that at least wasn't viewed as a major liability. That may not be true anymore, at least in congressional districts like this one in Illinois.

2. Bloomberg’s organizations have become a countervailing force. Mark Glaze, the executive director for another Bloomberg organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, argues that one of the biggest reasons why gun-control laws have been weakened over the past decade is because “the NRA has been the only game in town.” But as the Illinois race has proved, Bloomberg’s groups are willing to spend millions in races on behalf of candidates supporting gun control. (Interestingly, the NRA has not spent money in this particular Democratic primary.) As one Democratic strategist tells First Read, “Candidates no longer have to fear the NRA mobilizing disproportionate force against them. They just need some backup.”

3. But does this apply outside of urban areas? That could be the biggest question moving forward after Tuesday’s race. While the NRA is unpopular with Democrats and while Bloomberg’s group have displayed their muscle, does that also hold true in places like West Virginia (where Democrats will be competing to replace retiring Sen. Jay Rockefeller) or even in Iowa (which has open Senate and House seats in 2014)? “West Virginia and Illinois will always be different,” Glaze says, noting that states like West Virginia have “more hunting, more guns, and less crime.” He adds, “That creates a different political dynamic.” Indeed, the NRA is running newspaper ads in states like Arkansas, Louisiana, and North Carolina -- where Democratic senators are running for re-election next year -- opposing the Obama administration’s gun-control proposals.

Here’s one of the eternal truths of American politics: The stories never stop, even after a presidential election.

So next month in South Carolina, former Republican Gov. Mark Sanford will run in a primary for his old congressional seat. Yes, that's the same Mark Sanford who was once supposed to be hiking the Appalachian Trail. Instead, he was with his Argentine mistress, sparking quite a scandal.

Then, later this spring in Massachusetts, there will be the race for the Senate seat vacated by new Secretary of State John Kerry. Yet with former Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., declining to run, the seat will likely remain in Democratic hands.

And between now and the summer, there will be plenty of other races, legislative fights and controversies across the country to follow.

But as the political world begins turning its attention to the next presidential race -- still more than 1,300 days away -- no state will be more important to watch over the next four years than Florida.

It will be important to watch because of next year's gubernatorial race, which could be a contest between current Republican Gov. Rick Scott and Charlie Crist, a Democrat who once served as the state’s Republican governor.

It will be important to watch because two high-profile Floridians -- Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Jeb Bush, another former governor -- could very well run for president in 2016. 

And it will be important because Florida, with its growing Latino vote, has emerged as a state that Republicans have to win in order to triumph in future presidential elections.

Demography is destiny in Florida
The Sunshine State consists of different geographic regions, each with their own politics. There’s the conservative-leaning Panhandle, as well as the liberal-leaning southern part of the state (mixed with its fascinating Cuban-American politics).

And then there's that swing I-4 Corridor -- Orlando, Tampa, and St. Petersburg -- although the most recent elections have suggested the region might be less swing (and more Democratic leaning) than in past cycles.

But the most fascinating part of Florida isn't geography; it's its demography.

To understand Florida’s changing demographics and the growing power of the Latino vote, consider these statistics.

In 2012, Barack Obama won just 37 percent of the white vote in the state, which was five points worse than John Kerry in 2004.

But unlike Kerry, Obama won Florida. How did he do it? For one thing, the Latino population increased from 15 percent of Florida’s electorate in 2004 to 17 percent in 2012.

More importantly, Obama won 60 percent of those voters, versus Kerry losing them in ’04. Obama also won a majority of the Cuban-American vote.

That’s the demographic reality now facing the Republican Party, and why some national Republicans like Rubio and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are working to pass comprehensive immigration reform. (It’s also why Florida has wanted to have an early role in GOP presidential nominating contests.)

As McCain recently said, “The Republican Party is losing the support of our Hispanic citizens."

And if Republicans can’t win Florida in presidential elections, it’s next to impossible to win the White House.

After all, a Democratic candidate winning just the three states of California, Florida and New York gets 113 electoral votes -- more than 40 percent of the necessary 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Scott vs. Crist?
After its losses in 2012, the first test of how the Republican Party is faring in Florida will be its competitive gubernatorial contest next year.

While the race is more than a year away, here are three sets of figures to keep in mind.

The first is 31 -- that’s the percentage of Floridians holding a favorable view of Republican Gov. Rick Scott, according to a December Quinnipiac poll. Compare that with 54 percent for President Obama and 47 percent for Republican-turned Democrat Charlie Crist.

The second number is 8.0 percent -- that’s Florida’s current unemployment rate. It’s a high number, slightly above U.S. average. But it’s down from the 10.9 percent it was when Scott first took office. That’s progress Rick Scott can point to.

The third and final number is 80 -- as in the $80 million Scott spent in his successful gubernatorial bid in 2010. That’s a lot of money, and money Democrats won’t be able to match. And it’s now being reported that Scott could spend as much as $100 million in next year’s race.

In addition to those three sets of numbers, there are three unresolved questions:

-- Does Charlie Crist run? If he does, he’d be the Democratic front-runner, despite his recent conversion to the Democratic Party.

-- Can Scott improve his standing with independent voters? In that December Quinnipiac poll, just 25 percent of independents had a favorable view of the governor.

-- And can Scott and Republicans make better inroads with the growing Latino vote?

2016: Rubio and Jeb
So that’s for 2014. But there’s another story already developing involving the Sunshine State – the 2016 presidential election.

Yes, it’s early. Yes, things are fluid. And, yes, everything right now is speculation. But it’s also clear that freshman Sen, Marco Rubio is more than eyeing a potential presidential bid.

As one Florida Democratic strategist told First Read: “I believe [Rubio] runs in 2016 for the same reason that President Obama ran in 2008 -- you never know when the window opens and closes.”

Rubio has assembled a top-notch staff. What’s more, he’s part of a group of bipartisan senators pushing for comprehensive immigration reform, whose principles are broadly supported by President Obama.

Rubio’s current task is selling this reform to prominent conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. 

And on Tuesday night, Rubio will be delivering the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union on Tuesday, which is a huge platform for the Florida senator.

But here’s the question for him: Does he run if another Floridian -- former Gov. Jeb Bush -- runs? Is there enough space for two Florida Republicans in a potential 2016 GOP primary?

As Buzzfeed recently wrote, “With their shared passion for immigration reform, overlapping donor networks, and long, healthy alliance, Rubio and Bush have put Miami's political class in the improbable position of having two ‘favorite sons’ in the top tier of 2016 speculation — and sources say both men are actively mulling it.

Indeed, there are indications Bush is at least considering a presidential run. Next month, he is scheduled to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC, an annual cattle call that’s a must for potential Republican presidential candidates. And this will be the first time Bush has spoken to this group.

Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio. Rick Scott. Charlie Crist. Demographics. Close races (some decided by hanging chads).

Florida has been the place for some of America’s best political stories for more than a decade. And, it’s safe to say, that will continue over the next four years.

Editor’s note: This article was adapted from a recent speech the author gave at Flagler College in St. Augustine, Fla.

During the presidential campaign last fall, Univision asked President Obama about his biggest failure in his four years in office.

His answer: passing comprehensive immigration reform.

But Obama, at the forum sponsored by the Spanish-language network in September, continued:

"I think that I’ve learned some lessons over the last four years, and the most important lesson I’ve learned is that you can’t change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside. That’s how I got elected, and that’s how the big accomplishments like health care got done."

Mitt Romney and the Republican Party pounced on those comments. "The president today threw in the white flag of surrender again,” Romney argued. “He said he can’t change Washington from inside; he can only change it from outside. Well, we’re going to give him that chance in November. He’s going outside!”

Yet campaign rhetoric aside, Obama was admitting a simple truth about American politics at that Univision forum: The power to change policy comes from public opinion. And it also comes from the ballot box.

In other words, elections have consequences -- especially after more than 70 percent of Latinos backed Obama in the 2012 presidential election, up from 67 percent in 2008.

That explains why Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who once championed comprehensive immigration reform but has opposed it ever since the '08 election -- is back on board.

"Elections, elections. The Republican Party is losing the support of our Hispanic citizens," McCain said at a news conference yesterday announcing his support of bipartisan principles to reform the nation's immigration system.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) put it another way. "The politics on this issue have been turned upside down," he said. "There is more political risk in opposing immigration reform rather than supporting it."

None of this is to say that immigration reform's passage through Congress is a sure thing. Already, opponents are asking that the Senate slow down consideration of any legislation. "No secret accord with profound consequences for this nation’s future can be rushed through. That means a full committee process and debate and amendments on the floor of the Senate," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said in a statement yesterday.

But it does point to how outside forces -- and elections -- can change politics, at least for a while, on issues like immigration and taxes.

In an address Tuesday to the Ripon Society, a Republican-leaning group, House Speaker John Boehner charged that it was the Obama administration's goal to "annihilate" the Republican Party and "shove" it "into the dustbin of history."

Said Boehner:

"And given what we heard yesterday about the president's vision for his second term, it's pretty clear to me that he knows he can't do any of that as long as the House is controlled by Republicans. So we're expecting over the next 22 months to be the focus of this administration as they attempt to annihilate the Republican Party. And let me just tell you, I do believe that is their goal - to just shove us into the dustbin of history. I've been in these spots before. I remember November of '06, January of '07 -- we've been through these periods before. And you know, our members get down, our supporters get down." 

The speaker continued:

“But listen, we are Americans and we will figure this out. These next couple of weeks, next couple of months, frankly, the next 20 months, are going to be a very difficult period for us. While we want to stand up and fight for more fiscal responsibility, want to stand up and find a way to move tax reform that will help our economy grow, to do the things we believe in, we’re going to be doing it in an environment that is going to be far more hostile than anything that I think we’ve seen for a long, long time.  We’re going to have to make some big decisions about how we as a party take on this challenge.  Where’s the ground that we fight on? Where’s the ground that we retreat on? Where are the smart fights?  Where are the dumb fights that we have to stay away from?"  

Boehner also said that he had to give former college football coach -- and ESPN commentator -- Lou Holtz a pep talk after both Obama's inauguration and his re-election.

"Last night, I got a three-page text from my good friend Lou Holtz, who must have watched the inaugural and then all that blabber on TV…: 'I'm done, finished, the country's over with -- we're not doing this again!' Now, I had already had this conversation with Lou about nine or ten days after the election.  He came in to speak to our 34 new Members. And before he went over to talk to them, he came over to my office, and he was moaning and groaning.  I said, 'Lou, would you stop it?  We're Americans, we'll figure this out!' And I had to spend 15 minutes giving Lou Holtz a pep talk!  I had to do it again last night!"

Americans for a Strong Defense, a Republican-leaning group that opposes former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel's nomination to be defense secretary, is airing new TV ads hitting Hagel in four states where Democratic senators are up for re-election in 2014.

The four states: Alaska (where Sen. Mark Begich is up for re-election next year), Arkansas (Sen. Mark Pryor), Colorado (Sen. Mark Udall), and Louisiana (Sen. Mary Landrieu).

"Barack Obama’s nominee for secretary of defense wants America to back down," one of these ads goes. "An end to our nuclear program. Devastating defense cuts. A weaker country. Call Mark Begich and tell him to say no to Chuck Hagel –- before it’s too late."

A spokesman for Americans for a Strong Defense says the ad buy is "significant," and the advertisements will air on broadcast and cable in these four states.

Political observers have placed so much emphasis on the “liberal” second inaugural address that President Obama delivered yesterday.

David Remnick in the New Yorker called Obama “a liberal emboldened by political victory.”

Scott Andrews / Pool via AP

President Barack Obama waves to crowd after his Inaugural speech at the ceremonial swearing-in on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol during the 57th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, Monday, Jan. 21, 2013.

The Atlantic’s James Fallows added that the speech was “the most sustainedly ‘progressive’ statement Barack Obama has made in his decade on the national stage.” 

Politico’s Thrush agreed.

So did we. “More than anything else, [the address] was an unabashed defense of liberalism/progressivism,” we wrote in First Thoughts.

And now the GOP-leaning group Crossroad GPS has pounced on similar commentary with a new web video. “At least his rhetoric is now matching his record,” Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio said in an email announcing the video.

But what is being mostly overlooked is how many of the policies and viewpoints Obama articulated in his inaugural address are supported by majorities of Americans.

Take Obama’s advocacy for gay rights, for example. (“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law,” Obama said in his speech yesterday). As it turns out, per the Dec. 2012 NBC/WSJ poll, a majority of Americans -- 51% -- favor gay marriage. That’s up from a mere 30% in 2004.

There’s also immigration reform. (“Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity.”) The Jan. 2013 NBC/WSJ found another majority -- 52% -- supporting giving illegal immigrants the ability to apply for legal status.

And then there's his defense of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. (“These things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”) Polls overwhelmingly find that Americans support these programs.

One issue that Obama discussed yesterday -- stopping climate change -- is a topic that could be a harder political sell, although the NBC/WSJ poll hasn’t tested it in a long time. And it is possible, as the Washington Post's Dan Balz notes, that Obama's second term could be marked by overreach.

But it's also hard to argue that these “liberal” ideas and policies are somehow far outside the political mainstream.

As Politico writes, “The cultural changes that allowed Obama to be the first president to mention gay rights in an inaugural address are already widely accepted by the public or destined to be so soon as a younger, more socially liberal generation comes of age. The president’s promise to address climate change and his peroration on continuing ‘what those pioneers began’ on gender equality, gay rights, voting rights, immigration and gun control likewise illustrated just how much the White House is convinced that the country’s cultural center has moved.”

NBC's Domenico Montanaro contributed to this article.