Pauls Libertarian principles say America shouldn't be spending huge amounts of money we don't have dictating policy in countries that have no obligation to us, much less by force of arms and at the expense of our soldiers. That appeals to the Libertarians who already share that view, but it's anathema to the nationalists who support both imperialism and access to cheap oil irrespective of the fact it happens to be owned by people in another country. Also, as I noted earlier, it's hard to convince grass roots independents that you're an outside the Beltway politician when you were first elected to Congress in 1979; on the other hand, the fact that he left the GOP to run against Bush as a Libertarian doesn't help him with Republican loyalists. Paul doesn't have the novelty of a Bachmann or Palin, and I don't think he has the funding either; it's hard for a genuine Libertarian to get many donations from corporations who can expect no more government handouts from him than welfare queens can.