Paul is a divisive politician, beloved by younger Republicans, untrusted by religious and social conservatives and feared by the party establishment. Yet it is his non-interventionist worldview that represents the biggest threat, particularly to the neocons for whom perpetual war offers the healthiest returns.
A year later and the black flags of the Islamic State (formerly ISIS), currently fluttering across lands from from northern Syria to the Iraqi province of Diyala north-east of Baghdad, have once again pushed the noxious issue of intervention to the forefront of the US foreign policy debate - a discourse that is further dividing an already fractured Republican Party, with the question of action versus non-action likely to run all the way to the 2016 election.
Unlike in the UK, where you have viable alternatives to the two prevailing parties (I am particularly enamoured with the Monster Raving Loony Party), the Republicans and Democrats in America have created high petition thresholds for ballot access that make it next to impossible for third parties to compete.
The merits of Obamacare, how to fix the economy, taxing the super rich, cutting the deficit, balancing the budget. Let's face it does anyone really listen to what the candidates are saying on these issues anymore? The Republicans hate Obama but right now they hate each other too and without a front runner, all of the candidates and issues are just turning into one homogenous political advert of bitterness and hate.